asked Her Majesty's Government:

When, and how, they intend to report to the House on developments in the Convention on the Future of Europe which is now preparing for the intergovernmental conference proposed for 2003–04.

My Lords, the Government will inform Parliament whenever there are significant developments to report on the Future of Europe Convention. My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe appeared before your Lordships' European Union Select Committee on 30th April and answered questions about the convention. He has undertaken to report further to the committee on 9th July after the Seville European Council meeting.

The Government also welcome the recent agreement to establish a Standing Committee where the parliamentary representatives to the convention will report developments back to Parliament.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her confirmation of the development of a Standing Committee. Does the noble Baroness recognise that the Laeken declaration committed us to making sure that this time there is a process, of which the convention is intended to be a part, which will contribute to,

"more democracy and transparency in the European Union … in order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens"?

Does she further recognise that the Government have made a great point in the preparation for the convention of involving national Parliaments more fully in the process? Does she accept that in recent months Ministers have made more speeches on this subject in other countries than in Britain? That seems rather odd. Furthermore, ideas have been floated within the Government, as I understand it, in papers circulated within the convention which have not yet been reported to this Parliament. Would it be better not to wait until significant developments have taken place but to involve the British Parliament and, through us, a wider public, as this process proceeds?

My Lords, I am hound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that that is exactly what is happening. We do not necessarily fulfil the mandate of inclusivity and democracy by more ministerial speeches, but by giving Parliament the opportunity to be included in the process. That is exactly what the arrangements for the Standing Committee will allow.

Next Monday, your Lordships will have the opportunity, as I understand it, to vote on whether or not your Lordships are content with those arrangements. But it will be possible for all Members of your Lordships' House to participate in the Standing Committee. Those with varied views in the House will have the opportunity not only to hear the parliamentary report back but to contribute to the debate. That is in addition to involving a wider public through the civic forum contacts and other means.

My Lords., the 30th April meeting of the European Union Committee was with the delegates to the convention and not with the Minister, Mr Hain. Surely, the broader question is that huge issues are being shaped at this convention, including the idea of a basic treaty to underpin the existing Rome treaties; the idea of a president of the Council; the incorporation of a new system of human rights legislation to rival the existing one: and other major issues which affect the future of our democracy. Should not your Lordships with their vast experience in European affairs have a constant and interactive input and not just an occasional commentary once every two months?

There should be adequate opportunity for full involvement in the unfolding work of this commission. The European Union Committee does excellent work, but its occasional hearings and reports do not provide us with enough frequency in the matter. The Minister must address that point seriously.

My Lords, there were two meetings, one on 16th April and one on 30th April. I am sorry if I transposed the interlocutors. I hope that the measures put before Parliament will afford a real opportunity for what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described as constant interactivity.

I have made clear to the House that we are willing to consider other means of having further discussions and to draw upon what is, I freely acknowledge, the considerable wisdom that this House can bring to bear on these issues. A number of working groups have been set up with British participants. Your Lordships will be interested to know that, for example, my noble friend Lady Scotland will participate in a working group on the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on one dealing with the EU legal personality; and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson on one relating to complementary competencies. Many opportunities are available for noble Lords to bring to bear their considerable wisdom on this issue.

My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with its reference to human rights, does my noble friend agree that implications will emerge from this convention for other European institutions, such as the Council of Europe? Will the Government take an early opportunity to give some guidance on how they see the future interrelationship between any changes in the European Union, its structure and its proceedings, with the continuing role of the Council of Europe?

My Lords, that is an important point. I take delivery of it from my noble friend Lord Judd. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe and to my noble friend Lady Scotland in her important role on these issues.

My Lords, can the Minister enlighten the House as to what the Government see as the point of the European Union? If she cannot do so in the time available, can she say whether this convention is likely to recommend any repatriation of powers to the nation states? And if not, why not?

My Lords, one of the points is the considerable pleasure it gives your Lordships to hear the views of the noble Lord on these issues. He quite rightly never fails to avail himself of the opportunity. I remind him that he now has a further opportunity to enlighten Members of another place on these issues. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to take those future opportunities. He will have noted, as other noble Lords will have noted, that one of the issues to be considered by the convention is what powers may be repatriated to home Parliaments. I am sure that the noble Lord will have his usual robust views on that subject.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we regularly hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and others both the demand that the European Union be made more democratically accountable and the demand that it be less federal? Does she further agree that those demands are mutually exclusive? Will she endeavour to discover which of them they really mean?

My Lords, that is indeed an interesting point. I am not entirely sure that those demands are necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible to be more democratic and less federal but, if I may say so, that is a much wider question than the Question on the Order Paper and would take us a considerable time to debate.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, within the framework of fines and lane rental schemes, local authorities and highways authorities should be required to pay costs in proportion to the disruption caused to road users by their actions.

My Lords, we have appointed consultants, Halcrow, to monitor the effect of both the lane rental and charging for overrunning schemes on the level of disruption caused to road users by works on the highway and to assess the extent and cost of that disruption. That information will help to inform decisions on the future of the two schemes and at what level any charges for overrunning and lane rental should be set in future.

My Lords, I am encouraged by the presence of such quantity and quality on the Benches of the Lords Spiritual. Is not the Minister's reply deficient on the point of the Question, which is that local authorities and highways authorities should bear their share of the cost? Does the Minister agree with the statistic that more than 50 per cent of holes in the road, to quote my noble friend Lord Peyton, are caused by such local and highways authorities? Should they not pay their whack, to put it in the vulgar?

My Lords, local authorities and highways authorities should certainly exercise the same restraint and co-ordination as that required of public utilities to minimise the disruption of road works. But of course, if we start to fine local authorities and highways authorities, the money comes into one pocket and out of the other, so to speak. I am not sure that that is a worthwhile activity. However, last July we introduced a statutory code of practice for highways authorities on maintenance management and we are conscious of the need for them to exercise restraint.

My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on having elicited from the Minister a better Answer than we have received for a long time on this subject. Will the Minister deploy his considerable intellect and eloquence to persuade the highways authorities—in which I include the Mayor of London and his team—that roads are for movement and that the duty of highways authorities and the rest of them is to facilitate movement, not to interrupt it or to make it impossible?

My Lords, I fear this Greek in particular when he comes bearing compliments of that kind. Yes, of course roads are for movement, but roads are also the conduits for water, gas, electricity and telecommunications. Whether or not they are dug up—but especially when they are—they have to be mended from time to time to be made passable for everything from horse-drawn vehicles to motor cars. I am afraid that that means that there will continue to be disruption of the highways.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I am sure that there is time for both of us. Does the Minister agree that local authorities would be among the first to welcome any scheme that will reduce the disruption caused to the travelling public—I include those who travel by public transport as well as drivers? Do the Government have any proposals to extend the trials currently under way beyond their present areas? I am sure that the whole community, especially the business community, would welcome that.

My Lords, the problem is that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was not sufficiently specific. It did not provide incentives for co-ordination; it did not provide incentives for people to talk to each other when they plan to dig up the roads; it did not even provide disincentives for their not knowing where their cables, pipes and so on lay beneath the roads. So we have had to introduce additional regulations to try to make it work. In addition to trying to encourage co-ordination, we plan penalties for lack of co-ordination, and that is what over-running charges and lane rental are. I hope that every Member of the House will support that, because that is the only way that it will be made to work.

As for extensions beyond Camden and Middlesbrough, which are the two pilot areas, I agree that that is desirable. Seven local authorities expressed an interest in taking part in the pilot but, for various reasons, the other five were ineligible. But I am sure that the offer is still open.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the person responsible for increasing congestion during the past few weeks is the Mayor of London? He has so far changed the setting on 338 sets of traffic lights. Will the Minister condemn the proposal to extend that to another 51 sets of traffic lights, which will make traffic flow in London worse? Do the Government believe that the mayor's congestion charging plan for London will increase traffic flow or make it worse throughout Greater London?

My Lords, I prefer to confine my answers to the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, who was the Martian who took the decision a week ago to cordon off 300 acres of London because of a burst water main in front of the Rubens Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road and insisted that no work should be done on it over the weekend? The whole area—indeed, the whole of London—is entirely fouled up because of this incident. Have the Government any idea of the cost to the national economy of that Martian's decision?

My Lords, I do not know any Martians so I am a little handicapped. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has a valid complaint. I shall make inquiries and write to him about it if it is the responsibility of the Government.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much these consultants will cost the taxpayer?

No, my Lords. It is a very significant piece of work. It will extend over a period until March 2004. It covers both over-running and lane rental experiments and involves a substantial exercise in estimating and assessing the extent of the cost of disruption. As the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will know, that is not an easy question to resolve. I do not know the figure. I shall write to him about it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is their intention to convene a constitutional conference in order to consider the proposed reforms to Bermuda's electoral system.

My Lords, there are no plans at the moment for a constitutional conference. As I stated in my written reply of 24th July last year to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we do not propose to reach a judgment on the case for a further process until we have received the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission, which is due in a few weeks.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response that some action may be expected in the near future as a result of the report. In view of the United Kingdom Government's role as the guardian of the democratic rights of the people of Bermuda, can she give a further assurance that Bermuda will be treated in the same way as other Overseas Territories, notably Gibraltar, and other Commonwealth countries, notably New Zealand and the Bahamas, where constitutional changes were adopted only after referendums or other similar mechanisms were used?

My Lords, I hope I made clear in my original Answer that a constitutional conference has not been ruled out. But neither has it been ruled in. We have said in relation to this process that after the boundaries commission has reported, and after there has been an opportunity to discuss that report in Bermuda, that information will be fed into the British Government. We will look at it; we will look at the reactions to the report; and we will make a decision at that time. It would be inappropriate for me to make any commitment before we have been through that process.

My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that, for obvious reasons and because of the job I had there, I have no wish to comment on the proposals for constitutional change put forward by the Bermuda Government. But does not a point of general importance emerge? Is it not correct that there was a constitutional conference in 1966 when constitutional change was in the wind, and another constitutional conference in 1979 when constitutional change was in the wind? It would have cost the Foreign Office nothing if it had allowed a constitutional conference right at the beginning of this exercise. Had there been a constitutional conference, would it not have gone some way towards disarming criticisms from people who fear that if there is no constitutional conference this time round a precedent will be set which might be relied on in years to come when very much more important constitutional change is in the wind?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right—there were constitutional conferences in 1966 and 1979. There has been a process of consultation. Four consultation meetings have been held across the island and a wide cross-section of the community participated in those meetings. We have not ruled in or ruled out the possibility of a constitutional conference but, on the basis of the commitment to constitutional change made by the Government of Bermuda in their 1998 election manifesto, we thought that this was the most appropriate way to go. We will look at local reactions; we will look at the outcome of the boundaries commission report; and we will then make a decision on the next steps.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from a few weeks in Bermuda having not been there for many years? Is she further aware that a great deal of concern has been expressed by many people to whom I spoke about the situation that faces them?

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was recently in Bermuda. I am aware that concerns have been expressed. In fact a decision to put this matter to Order in Council was challenged by judicial review and overturned. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, there have been opportunities for consultation. We will look at the responses to that consultation process, the debate in the national assembly and the recommendations of the boundaries commission. I repeat, no decision has been made. A constitutional conference has been neither ruled in nor out. Our minds remain open on this matter.

My Lords, bearing in mind that the largest constituency in Bermuda is underrepresented by 33 per cent and that the smallest is overrepresented by 42 per cent, does the boundaries commission have the power to look at other kinds of electoral systems, including a proportional multimember system, where the number of members is less likely to get out of kilter than under the present first-past-the-post, double-member system?

My Lords, why am I not surprised at the tone of the noble Lord's question? There are currently 20 two-member constituencies in Bermuda. The boundaries commission is looking at a variety of systems which would deliver no more than a maximum of 40 members for the assembly. I have no idea at this point what its recommendations will be, but as soon as we receive the report and are able to make it public, I shall of course send it to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is it not a wise general principle when dealing with constitutional change to stick rigidly to the established procedures and to ensure all-party support? Does not that principle apply as much here as in Bermuda?

My Lords, perhaps I have not made myself clear in the answers that I have given. There have been a number of instances of constitutional changes in our Overseas Territories—albeit some not as fundamental as this—where there has not been a constitutional conference or a referendum. It is important that there is a degree of agreement about the next steps. That is why we decided to consult, to have the boundaries commission look at the situation, to see what is the reaction of Bermudians to the proposals, and then to make a decision. As I have said a number of times, we have not ruled one process in or out. Our minds remain open on this matter.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How they respond to the latest indications that crime is rising and detection rates are falling.

My Lords, national statistics on levels of crime will be published on 12th July. They will include the British Crime Survey and recorded crime statistics. Crime has fallen by 21 per cent since 1997 according to the 2001 British Crime Survey, which reflects victims' direct experience of crime. The Government's response to crime includes having the highest number ever of police officers in England and Wales and halving the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence. More needs to be done to increase yet further the number of police officers and to reform the criminal justice system.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for being able to answer my Question. What is his response to the statement by Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, calling for all the crime-fighting agencies to work together—and his implied criticism that in some cases not all the agencies are co-operating as they should be? What are the Government's plans to improve the situation?

My Lords, it is extremely important that all of those organisations do work together. Equally, it is extremely important that the independence of the judiciary and the prosecutors should be preserved. Arrangements have been in place since 1997 to ensure that both at national and at local level there are good co-ordinating arrangements between the relevant agencies. Those arrangements have brought about co-ordination where it did not previously exist.

My Lords, whichever way he permutes the crime figures, does the noble and learned Lord accept that recent research indicates that in a number of police authorities crime is on the increase? Will he further accept that, now, fear of crime is much greater than crime itself? How does he expect the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise that street crime will be reduced by September?

Yes, my Lords, early returns from certain police forces indicate that in some areas crime may be going up. We shall have to wait until 12th July to see whether it affects the overall figures. Fear of crime is an important issue, which we need to address by having an effective police force and an effective criminal justice system. So far as concerns the Prime Minister's street crime initiative, what has happened—picking up on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—is that the agencies have all been working together with the priority of bearing down on street crime.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend explain why the 43 separate police forces in England find it either impossible or inconvenient to collect crime statistics on the same basis? In other words, 10 crimes in one force area turn out to be either 15 or five in two others. Does my noble and learned friend also accept that there is no correlation between the number of police officers and detection rates?

My Lords, in response to the last point, detection rates do vary, and it does not necessarily depend on the number of police officers. As to the first question, of course it would be much more convenient if all police forces recorded crimes on exactly the same basis. I hope that that is the direction in which we are travelling.

My Lords, is juvenile crime recorded separately? I regularly read of people being too young to be brought before the courts. Will that be reflected in the statistics; and is any thought being given to dealing with the problem?

Yes, my Lords, juvenile crime is recorded separately and that will be reflected in the statistics. Juvenile crime is a problem that affects many communities—particularly deprived communities—and many say that it is their number one concern. We have regarded it as a priority. As I said in my original Answer, we have halved the time that it takes from arrest to disposal of a case in relation to persistent young offenders. Delays in the criminal justice system are very undermining.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take this opportunity to clarify the Government's intention as regards making evidence of prior convictions available to juries? The matter was left unclear when he talked to Mr Jeremy Paxman last night.

My Lords, when I spoke to Mr Jeremy Paxman, I indicated that a White Paper would be produced on 17th July in which a number of issues will be considered, including that raised by the noble Lord. It would be wrong for me to indicate—as I did not do yesterday—what the White Paper will say in relation to the issue.

My Lords, are the reports correct that much street crime involves the theft of mobile telephones? If so, are the Government in touch with the manufacturers so that they can make the necessary modifications to reduce those thefts?

My Lords, I am not sure what the statistics indicate, but there are strong indications that mobile phones are one of the major targets in street crime. Yes, much can be done by the manufacturers making the value of the theft of a mobile phone very little indeed.

My Lords, is it not true that the legislation that will be dealt with by this House tomorrow will have a huge effect on the crime statistics?

My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has got me there; I do not know to which particular Bill he is referring.

My Lords, the Bill dealing with mobile telephones.

Yes, my Lords, it will.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us why Jeremy Paxman is so polite to him and so rude to others? The information might come in quite useful.

My Lords, I am unable to answer that question.

My Lords, do the Government have specific proposals for reducing juvenile crime?

My Lords, the increase in the number of police officers will reduce crime. In addition, we believe that the changes to the criminal justice system, speeding up the process in relation to persistent young offenders, will have an effect on juvenile crime.

My Lords, referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, do the National Crime Statistics record offences committed by under-age children who cannot be charged in the courts? If not, should not some separate means be found of collecting information about the crimes that are committed by very young people, which appear to be on the increase?

My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. If the person committing an offence is below the age of criminal responsibility, I imagine that it is not recorded in crime statistics. I shall check on that and write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That leave be given tomorrow to the Baroness David to advance her Motion for an humble Address to before the Committee stage of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 14, line 25, after "government" insert "including members representing—

(i) parents at each school,

(ii) teachers at each school, and

(iii) such other categories as may be appropriate, given the religious or other character of each school within the federation"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by putting a technical question to the Minister. If I ask it at the start of our debates, that will allow more time for an answer to be sought. Would a school that was a company under the companies proposals in the Bill, or a school that had formed part of a company, be allowed to join a federation of schools where the others in the federation were not part of that company or companies? Would the governing body of the federation become the new shareholder of the company; and would those governors who were the governors of the federation have to assume all the responsibilities of being company directors?

As has been stated in previous debates, schools may collaborate, co-ordinate, even confederate. It is agreed that there is much that they can do together. All the advantages mentioned by the Minister when arguing in support of these clauses can be achieved without formal federation under a single governing body.

The sovereignty of each school is affected by these proposals. There are bound to be occasions when a single governing body will take a decision which it deems to be in the interest of the group of schools that it represents, but it may not seem quite like that to an individual school in the group. Therefore, a confederate arrangement whereby schools retain their sovereignty through their own governing body, representing their own parents, staff and community, would allow for greater flexibility.

There is nothing to stop schools coming together in an alliance with one or more schools to achieve a more educationally effective or even a more economically effective service. They could designate governors and/or staff to form joint committees for particular projects. To use the European Union jargon, the pertinent phrase here is "variable geometry".

To have a single governing body for all purposes really is turning the clock back. We all remember the bad old days when one governing body represented large numbers of schools. We certainly do not wish to return to that situation. It is only a matter of months since the Government themselves argued that a school should have a governing body.

A school that over time became unhappy about the single governing body proposed in the Bill would have to go through a process to leave the federation. Under confederation there would be far more freedom and schools would retain autonomy where it mattered to them and—here is the great bonus—they would not need yet more regulations dealing with dissolution, continuity arrangements when a school joins or leaves the group, transitional arrangements, the transfer of property, rights and liabilities procedures and—the sting in the tail as always—any other matter considered appropriate by the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 46 has been tabled in the event that we are unsuccessful in securing support for taking Clause 23 out of the Bill, or in the event of Amendment No. 49 not proving successful. If a school relinquishes its governing body in order to pool governance under a single governing body for a group of schools, it is important that parents and staff of the school should be represented. If a school has a distinct character, for example a faith school and/or a specialist school—I include here a special educational needs school—that dimension should also be represented on the federal governing body.

Once again we are attempting to secure the same aims and objectives as the Government. However, we believe that the proposals as set out in the Bill are more, not less, inhibiting. I believe that my amendments, and Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, offer greater flexibility and greater protection for schools and their interests. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 47, which is included in the group of amendments that we are discussing and which deals with a rather specific point within the purport of this group of amendments.

I believe that some of my noble friends thought that I went rather over the top in Committee as regards my support for the federation of schools. I continue to be an enthusiastic supporter, as does the Board of Education of the Church of England, of which I am the chair. We see our role as one of encouraging schools to see the advantages of federation in terms of improving the quality of the educational experience of pupils and reducing the workload of teachers and governing bodies, not least in parts of the country where it is difficult on occasion to find and to attract suitably qualified people to act as governors.

But that said, we see the federation of schools as contributing substantially to the promotion of social inclusion—a matter which has occupied your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. It is possible that, within diverse communities, a Muslim school for example might be encouraged to join a federation with an Anglican school and two or three local community schools. That would be a good example of community coherence and I imagine that the Government would want to support wholeheartedly such developments. That is all the more reason why federations of schools should allow the ethos of each individual school to remain intact. As I understand it, that is part of the purpose of Amendment No. 46 of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Religious and diocesan authorities will have that concern particularly in mind. I understand from my helpful meeting with the Minister since the Committee stage that the Government share that intention.

Since these matters were debated in Committee, I have had helpful discussions with the Minister and her officials which have helped to allay some of our concerns, but, I have to say, not all of them—hence the tabling of Amendment No. 47 this afternoon. Our concern continues that only voluntary-aided schools seem to have been considered and nothing has been said about voluntary-controlled schools whose individual religious characters are important to the Church of England and not least to our rural parishes where a large number of those controlled schools are to be found and are seen as playing a great part in those local communities to the satisfaction of both the Church and the local community.

Arrangements have been identified with regard to staffing individual schools that make provision for the appointment of a head but not for a proportion of the other staff where joint staff appointments are to be made. That is a matter of continuing concern to us. I refer to an appeal where there is disagreement over an instrument which, of course, is made to the Secretary of State, but there is no indication so far as we can discover of the principles on which the Secretary of State might decide such a case.

I refer to an exit strategy that leaves the final decision with the governing body of the federated schools without any process of appeal at all as far as we can see. Therefore, until those matters are resolved, it is necessary to press for an absolute veto for diocesan authorities and, in the case of Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or other religious schools that might be encouraged into federations, for those who appoint the foundation governors to have such a veto. The existence of such a veto in law is not something I would prefer but it might encourage more religious authorities and their schools to explore the possibility of federation—to which I am anxious to lend full support—with all the advantages that I have outlined. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will hear this continuing concern and will be able to help me a little further when she replies to the amendments.

My Lords, when we discussed this issue in Committee I made it clear that we on these Benches had great reservations about the concept of federation. Subsection (3)(a) of Clause 23 states clearly,

"Where any schools are federated by virtue of this section, they shall—

(a) have a single governing body constituted under a single instrument of government".

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, in the 1960s and the early 1970s there were groups of schools under large single managing boards., as they were called in those days. Those were bad old days. It has been extraordinarily good for schools to develop their own individual governing boards and to use them as a means of linking into the community.

We have been somewhat reassured in our discussions with the Minister, partly because in those discussions it became clear that it is entirely up to each individual board to decide whether or not to go forward with the matter. We are aware that on occasion boards of school governors can be under the influence of heads and heads may want to adopt this measure rather more than others do. However, the decision would be taken by the governing board. Some infant and junior schools share the same school campus and it might be a good idea for them to have a single board. However, we were worried about groups of schools coming together, and being encouraged to come together, as clusters, but actually being forced under one governing board. It is for that reason that we put forward Amendment No. 49 which concerns confederation.

Provided that we reach agreement on the concept of confederations, we on these Benches are at the moment prepared to go along with the notion of federations. I am not on this occasion speaking strongly against federations.

My Lords, I shared the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about federations, but in general my fears on that subject have been allayed, as I think that she said that hers have been. I should like to address my remarks to Amendment No. 47 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I shall not weary your Lordships with my views on religious schools. But given that we are going to have such schools—it is clear that my view is a minority view—it seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is entirely right in raising the matter that he raises. I have no idea what my noble friend the Minister will say, but I hope that she will respond positively to his request.

My only concern—I should be interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate says on this—is that I would have been slightly happier if his amendment had included, on the question of consent, an additional subsection saying that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. Other than that, it seems to me that if we are to have such schools, exactly what the right reverend Prelate says is right. I would be most unhappy if the position remained that everyone involved with the school was in favour but, for example, the diocesan authority, on perhaps doctrinaire grounds—I hate to use that expression— simply said "No". Subject to "not unreasonably withheld", therefore, it seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is entirely right, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can to some extent respond positively to his desires.

My Lords, having spoken on this clause on an earlier occasions. I understand the point made by the right reverend Prelate. He did not particularly emphasise the delicate position of those half of the Church of England schools that are voluntarily controlled, in which what I might call the foundation governors are a very small minority of the total. I understand why the right reverend Prelate has raised the point, but I am glad that he has raised it on behalf of all faiths. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.

I had anxieties at the earlier stage that the concept of federation left an only one governing body solution. I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, on confederation. It seems to me to be a very sensible and fruitful way forward in many areas—for example, in solving the problem that may arise in sixth forms, or to maintain the individual schools, yet come together for particular purposes. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would anticipate the debate on Amendment No. 49.

My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient for me to address these amendments by first giving a brief explanation of how we see federated schools under a single governing body fitting into the wider picture—a point to which noble Lords have already partly alluded.

Our starting point is that federations should enable schools to work strategically together to promote greater collaboration for the purposes of improving standards. However, federation under a single governing body is not the only option. As noble Lords have said, there are already many ways in which schools can collaborate. Under the Bill, we propose to add to that range of options, but it will be for individual schools to decide how and in what form they want to collaborate. How schools decide to do that will greatly depend on what they wish to achieve, how closely they wish to work together, and the level of trust that the partner schools have in each other, particularly when they are considering federating under a single governing body.

At one end of the spectrum we have, for example, informal working and the development of joint curriculum initiatives that are already in place. Of course, such arrangements rely on professional staff coming together. Those arrangements work because people are committed to making them work. In Clause 29 of the Bill, we make provision for governing bodies to come together formally to take joint decisions, either through joint meetings of whole governing bodies or by setting up joint committees with delegated powers. That would allow governors to be involved in taking strategic decisions of mutual benefit to those schools and their pupils.

The amendment to consider confederation of schools, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will be debated later today. I look forward to that debate. It seems to me that many schools may be inclined to consider the option of coming forward together in a formal way, while at the same time retaining their own individual governing bodies. I do not want to over-anticipate the debate. However, for the purposes of demonstrating the range of options, we want that spectrum of collaboration to provide a confederation option, with each school retaining its governing body, while ceding functions to an overarching strategic board. That is an option to which I am very attracted.

Clauses 23 and 24 allow for two or more schools formally to federate. For some schools, federation may be a step too far to contemplate, certainly initially. Some schools may want to put a toe in the water and first try a joint committee approach to see how working relationships develop. For those schools that want to slide gently in from the shallow side, a confederation arrangement may provide a useful halfway option on their way to deciding whether that is the route for them.

None of those arrangements needs to be written in tablets of stone for any school. A decision now to take one course does not pre-empt any school moving on at a later date, and no school will be forced to do anything that it does not want to do. Schools may want to move across the spectrum as relationships develop. The various options within this collaboration continuum will allow them to do that.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, argued strongly against the degrouping of schools when the School Standards and Framework Act was debated in 1998. Now that I have set the question of federation in a broader context, I hope that the noble Baroness may see the merit in making that option available to some schools.

I turn specifically to Amendment No. 46. The noble Baroness asked me whether a school forming a company would be allowed to join a federation. The answer is that it would. She also asked whether the governing body of the federation would be the company shareholder. The answer is that it would. Of course, those matters will be subject to all the discussion and debate that schools will have before taking that option.

I want to reiterate again that governing bodies of federations will be required broadly to comply with the stakeholder principles recommended by the Way Forward Group, which, under Clause 18 of the Bill, will be set out in regulations. We believe that it is vital to ensure that a fair balance of interests between the key stakeholders—parents, staff, local education authorities, community, foundation and partnership governors—is secured.

I turn to specific stakeholder groups. In relation to parent governors, we intend to regulate that at least one parent representative from each school within a federation will sit on the governing body of the federation. I understand how important it is that is that schools within a federation remain accountable to the parents of the pupils in each school.

With regard to staff, we do not think that it would be sensible to require each school within a federation to have staff representation on the governing body. One of the goals for federation is to allow strategic collaboration to enhance the joint working that already takes place. We are aware that in many cases schools are already sharing resources, such as staff and facilities. Largely because of that possibility of schools sharing staff, we believe that it should be left to the governing bodies of the schools involved to propose the appropriate staff representation from each school on the governing body of the federation.

With regard to the other stakeholder groups, I again reassure noble Lords that, whatever the combination of schools involved in the federation, each stakeholder group particular to the category of any one school proposing to federate will be represented on the governing body. That means that within a federation including voluntary or foundation schools there will always be a foundation or partnership governor.

I turn to Amendment No. 47. As the right reverend Prelate is aware, the effect of the amendment would be to give the diocesan authority and foundation interests the power of veto over whether certain kinds of school can decide to federate. I believe that my position is consistent, if not to the liking of the right reverend Prelate. The governing body of a school is in the best position to take a balanced decision on whether a federation is in the best interests of its school. However, in the hope of answering some of his queries, I should like to give the right reverend Prelate some detail of the work behind this, and I do so in the spirit of having said on Monday that my door is always open and that there is always room for further consideration.

As part of the decision-making process on whether or not to federate, the governing body will have to consult all interested parties, including parents, staff, community and local education authority interests. Importantly, of course, it will also include trustees, diocesan interests and foundation interests, each of which will be treated as separate entities in the consultation process. I can reassure your Lordships that I fully appreciate the importance of that consultation process. That is why we shall be setting out clear procedures for governing bodies to follow, to ensure that the consultation process is consistent, thorough and fair to each interested party.

Let me assure the House that we shall not remove any rights currently enjoyed by bodies in relation to agreeing the instrument of government. In respect of maintained schools that have foundation governors, the governing body and the education authority of a school are currently required to agree the instrument of government, as well as any alterations to it, with the foundations interests, including those who appoint foundation governors, trustees and, of course, the diocesan authority.

We shall regulate so that that requirement will also apply for the instrument of government to be developed for schools with foundation governors that are federated under a single governing body. If any of the parties I have mentioned, including the diocesan authority, disagree with the instrument of government, or any alterations to it, for a school within a federation involving foundation governors, the particular case will be referred to the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend, having taken representations from the relevant parties, will then arbitrate and come to a final decision. That is exactly the same process that currently successfully applies to any maintained school with foundation governors. It will ensure that the dioceses have the protection of arbitration by the Secretary of State if they disagree with the proposal to federate.

The Secretary of State would need to use her arbitration powers to consider the arguments put forward by the relevant parties on a case-by-case basis. In considering each dispute, she would take into account the differing views. She would weigh any concerns expressed, for example, about the number of governors and the balance of stakeholder interests against any relevant provisions in regulations and associated guidance. Of course, we intend to consult widely on the content of the provisions before they come into effect.

Any of the stakeholder groups, including diocesan boards and trustee interests, will be able to petition a governing body to request that a school leaves the federation. I appreciate that the case may arise where parents and teachers at a school with a religious character feel that it is in the best interests of the school to have its own governing body again, whereas the diocesan board may take a different view. However, as with the proposals to join a federation, the decision to exit should also be taken by the governing body. The whole purpose of federations is to promote collaboration and partnership. It will not benefit pupils if schools are held unwillingly against the wishes of staff and parents.

I understand that many of the concerns highlighted by the right reverend Prelate are related to the fact that we cannot guarantee a foundation majority on the governing body of a mixed-category federation involving voluntary-aided schools and the consequent fear that the religious character of schools in such a federation will be diminished. I repeat my assurance that federation cannot be used in any way to alter the religious character and structural arrangements of a school.

I want to give a practical example of how we shall ensure that the governing body of a mixed-category federation achieves that. We appreciate that, in particular, the appointment of the head teacher may be vital in maintaining the character of a voluntary-aided school. Therefore, we have agreed that if the governing body of a mixed-category federation involving voluntary-aided schools wishes to appoint a common head teacher, the voluntary-aided foundation governor representatives who sit on the federation's governing body will have the right to veto the appointment of the head to their school if they believe that such an appointment would be detrimental to maintaining the religious character of the school.

We are also aware of the issue of reserved teachers in schools with a religious character. If any of those schools opted to share staff within a mixed-category federation with schools of other categories, we would make provision to ensure that, if they wished to appoint reserved teachers, they could continue to do so in accordance with Section 58(5) of the 1998 Act in exactly the same way as individual voluntary-controlled and foundation schools with a religious character are able to do now.

Perhaps I may briefly mention another safeguard which we shall put in place in relation to shared staffing. If schools decide to share staff ahead of federating, then we shall require that to be included in the federation proposals which each school's governing body develops and consults on and which, subsequent to this comprehensive consultation, it is required to accept or reject. If at a later date it is proposed by the federation governing body that schools should share staff after federation occurs, then we shall allow the foundation representatives of voluntary-aided schools to exercise a veto which would exclude their schools from such arrangements if they considered that the sharing of staff would be detrimental to preserving the religious character of their schools.

We shall, of course, discuss with the Churches how a similar arrangement could be written in to allow for the preservation of reserved teachers in a controlled or foundation school with a religious character. In any case, the governing body of a federation will be under a duty to preserve the religious ethos of any school with a religious character.

I hope that that bears testimony to our commitment to ensuring that federations do not diminish the religious ethos of individual schools which choose to become involved in such arrangements. As I hope the right reverend Prelate knows, I am available to him to discuss this matter.

I turn finally to Amendment No. 48. Effectively, this amendment means that schools would not be able to federate. We believe that that would undermine what we see as an important part of the scope for those who wish to collaborate. Federation would allow them to take strategic decisions to improve educational standards across the board by coming together under a single governing body. I believe that federations could yield real benefits and advantages.

I hope that, in speaking to these amendments, I have reassured noble Lords that we have put in place solid safeguards to ensure that each school within a federation retains its own character and structure and remains accountable as an individual school. I do not deny that federations will involve some compromises, particularly where mixed-category federations are involved. However, I firmly believe that the potential for the outcome of improved educational standards through strategic collaboration is a worthwhile objective that should be open to all maintained schools, regardless of their category.

Federation is voluntary. It is for the governing body of each school to decide whether it wishes to federate. No element of compulsion is involved. I ask that we trust schools to decide for themselves whether the improvements that could be gained through federation justify the compromises that may have to be made.

Perhaps I may sum up by placing federations in context. They offer schools one, but by no means the only, model for strategic collaboration. In the light of that, I believe that the option of federation should be open to schools. However, for schools that do not wish to give up their existing governing bodies, federation is not the answer. I hope that with the explanation and assurances that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the very detailed reply that she has given both to me and to the right reverend Prelate. Before I respond to what she said, perhaps I may ask two questions because I believe that in the course of that very long answer I missed the relevant points. First, did the noble Baroness say that the parents, but not necessarily the staff, of every single school will be represented on the federal governing body; that is, that each school will not necessarily have a staff representative? Secondly, does the federal governing body become the employer of all staff, including those of a faith school?

My Lords, the answer to the first question is, as the noble Baroness said, that there will be a parent representative from each school. With regard to staff, we know that some schools already share staffing. Therefore, it will be for them to decide how they organise their staff representation, and there will not be a requirement for a representative to be available from each school.

The employment of staff would take place as if the governing bodies had come together, and responsibility for employment would rest with the LEA or the school, as appropriate. Therefore, the one governing body would act on behalf of what had been the individual governing bodies. That would be the position.

My Lords, I shall have to read the answer to that question in Hansard. My understanding is that the employer of staff at a faith school is the governing body and not the local education authority. Where the local education authority is the employer of all the other schools, I can see that continuing; it would not change as a result of federation. However, the single-faith school within that organisation would have different employers. Therefore, the sharing of staff, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, would have some legal and constitutional interests that have not been properly addressed.

Ultimately, what makes for good education is the quality of the teacher in the classroom teaching the children. That is what affects the teaching and the learning. They will not be affected by endless committees and collaborations, with people coming together on joint committees. Ultimately, what matters is that, if it does not add value to the quality of the teaching and learning in the classroom, then it will be to no avail.

In previous debates, I have referred to the fact that I have first-hand experience of federations. We federated quite a long time ago, particularly in rural areas where the schools were very small. We believed that the pain of closing schools could be alleviated by bringing them together in a federation, and, indeed, staff-sharing took place. But we were defeated by our own good idea. We were defeated because, in the end, the logistics of sharing staff and of either moving children to meet staff or staff to meet children became so debilitating and time-consuming and so interfered with the curriculum that the arrangement was counterproductive. In the end, sadly, that federal idea was changed.

Some of the noble Baroness's answers were very well intentioned. I understood, in particular, her response to some of the points raised by the right reverend Prelate concerning what would occur if this happened and what would occur if the other happened. The noble Baroness's constant response was, "We shall make sure in regulations that they will not be able to do this or that". Therefore, we are already creating a federation which will come together to act jointly in several respects. Then, suddenly, caveats are made stating that they are free to do this but that they cannot do that, and that they are free to do something else but they cannot do the other. I can see that a very complicated set of guidelines and guidance will be issued to schools and that regulations will come before Parliament so that the noble Baroness is able to put some flesh on the bones of the pledges made during the course of the response today.

Much of that said by the Minister is not in the Bill and is not even among the subjects that will be covered by regulations. We shall have nothing to fall back on other than the Pepper v. Hart system: "It was stated in Hansard". We will have to wait until some time in the future, to make sure that it happens. There is no legal requirement for some of the safeguards to be in the Bill. We have only the Minister's word for it— which I do not doubt for a minute. However, the noble Baroness will move on, as will her colleague in another place, and upwards. Good people do not stay in office for ever. We must legislate in such a way that protection is provided for the children, staff and parents—not for Ministers, councillors or third parties.

There is so much that schools can do now, collaboratively and collectively. The Minister says that the main aim is to enable schools to work strategically together. They can do that and engage in joint curriculum initiatives, and governing bodies can come together, now. No legislation is needed for that.

The Minister also says that there is no need for everything to be written on tablets of stone. My argument is that the federation proposed in the Bill is a tablet of stone. Once entered into, the only way to disengage will be by a legal process that a school may find quite daunting. There is a good possibility that tension will arise.

A great deal of funding does not come through core funding, which is much under threat, but from the department—with individual schools having to bid through their governing bodies. It is conceivable that a governing body would take the view that some funds need bidding for in respect of certain schools but not necessarily all. When the governing body has to determine priorities, it may be that some schools within the federation will be preferred and win while others will not be preferred and will lose. A school may feel aggrieved but there will be no one to represent it. The body that is taking decisions in the name of the school will be the federal governing body.

I am more in tune with the notion of a confederation, which offers all the benefits of a federation with flexibility. Where a school wants to use its own sovereign power, it could do that through its own governing body.

The Minister referred to dispute resolution procedures. Because the Bill is so binding, there must be such procedures. A school that feels aggrieved but does not wish to dislocate from the federation will nevertheless want the problem resolved.

I am grateful for the Minister's answer that the federation's governing body will subsume or assume the responsibilities of being the company's shareholder. Under company law, not DfES law, would that count as a takeover or as a sale—with the single governing body of the one school selling it on to the federal governing body of a group of schools? There needs to be some procedure whereby a company can be owned by a completely new set of people. It is not only likely but highly probable that all the governors of a school that is a company or part of a company will not become governors of the federal body.

Where a company has been formed with two or three other schools, as the new arrangement kicks in there will be a federal arrangement comprising five schools plus the company. Will it be responsible only for that company as part of the company or will it become a much larger company of five plus three schools? Culpability, liability and all the other responsibilities of being a company come into play.

I do not know what to do at this moment because I need answers to some of my questions.

I like to think that there is support in all parts of the House for Amendment No. 46. The Minister says that the parents associated with each school will be represented on the new governing body. That safeguard is not in the Bill; it should be. I believe that teachers should be represented on the governing body. If teachers at four out of the five schools were represented, teachers at the fifth school would on some occasions feel disfranchised because the school's entire staff would not be represented on the governing body. It will be the governors who decide.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the principle in the proposed subsection (3)(a)(iii) would be met, so that a special needs or faith school would be represented. That too is not in the Bill. From what I have heard from the right reverend Prelate, from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and other noble Lords who have spoken at other stages of the Bill, I believe that to have these measures on the face of the Bill would be popular. By pressing Amendment No. 46, I am saying that the Government have agreed that parents and other specialist categories will be represented and I am adding to that the staff of each school. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 47.

Page 14, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) A school that is a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school shall not be federated without the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority, and where a federation referred to in subsection (1) includes such a school, the instrument of government for the federation shall not be changed without the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority.

( ) In the case of a foundation school, a foundation special school or a voluntary school which has a religious character but is not a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school, the school shall not be federated without the consent of the persons who appoint the foundation governors of the school, and where a federation referred to in subsection (1) includes such a school, the instrument of government for the federation shall not be changed without the consent of those persons."

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, with apologies to the House, I had intended to move Amendment No. 47. In many ways this amendment is quite different from that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for what I believe was a helpful suggestion. If we were to return to the matter at Third Reading I would certainly consider that. I wish that I had thought of it myself. However, I do not believe that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading because I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her detailed reply that she has put on the record about the various and many questions that I raised in regard to voluntary schools, and in particular to Church schools if they were to go into federation. I found that most helpful because she also included matters such as reserve teachers whom I had not specifically mentioned, but they were at the back of my mind. I am enormously grateful for that.

We shall want to read carefully that reply, but my feeling is that we have now achieved what we wanted to achieve with regard to federation. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 49:

After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—

"CONFEDERATION OF SCHOOLS

(1) Where the governing bodies of two or more maintained schools wish to work together and co-operate in a manner similar to that of a federation of schools but do not wish to dissolve and merge their respective governing bodies, they may, after consultation with the local education authority, form a confederation of schools.

(2) If the governing bodies of the constituent schools agree, the confederation may make arrangements for any of their functions to be discharged jointly or by a joint committee as designated in section 29.

(3) A confederation shall not involve any transfer of property, rights or liabilities from or between local education authorities and the governing bodies of the respective schools."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was prompted to table this amendment as a result of a discussion in Committee when it became clear to me that a number of noble Lords welcomed the idea of schools working together, but did not like the idea of them having to merge their governing boards. As on Amendment No. 46, on the face of the Bill there is a requirement that federated schools have a single governing board; that the existing boards are dissolved and that a new governing board is formed. Therefore, it seemed to me that if there is the notion of the single governing board—what one may call the "federal solution"—there should also be a confederal solution in which individual schools can retain their governing boards, but work together in strategic collaboration for precisely the purposes that the Minister explained. She made the point frequently that federations are there to promote collaboration and partnership.

A great deal of collaboration and partnership is taking place and it struck me that one does not have to have the solution of dissolving the board of governors. I return to the point I made earlier that it is extremely important that on the whole schools should have an individual board of governors. That is a vital channel into the local community that they serve and it is necessary that they are retained. Not only is there an innate feeling that it is a good idea to have collaboration of one sort or another of the variable geometry model to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, but it is followed through in The Evaluation of the Role of Teachers in Education Action Zones by PricewaterhouseCoopers commissioned by the NUT. It shows that programmes which support schools in working together and in planning the allocation and distribution of resources and projects have resulted in a shift towards a more collegiate approach to educational provision.

The development of school clusters—pioneered in particular in Birmingham by Tim Brighouse—whether or not triggered by government programmes, has helped to break down some of the needless rivalry and competition for pupils fostered by recent education reforms. The clusters have led to a better understanding by schools of each other's needs and have encouraged the sharing of good practice between schools.

It became clear in Committee that the notion of a Muslim school, a Church of England school and a Catholic school working together as a confederation is wholly acceptable although one does not want to lose the individual governing boards of those schools because they represent the religious ethos in the schools. It seems to me that we need on the face of the Bill something which makes clear the case for this proposal.

I discovered a nice little clause in the Bill, Clause 29, under the heading "Arrangements for joint discharge of functions". In a sense that allows groups of schools to set up joint committees to fulfil any function that one wants it to perform. In other words, the effect is that the legislation already covers my idea of the confederation. The Minister will probably say that we do not need the new clause on the face of the Bill because we already have it.

I feel rather strongly that the problem with the prominence given to confederation and the total lack of prominence given to this little clause about joint functions is disproportionate. My own guess is that the majority of schools would prefer to confederate rather than to federate and that they would prefer to keep their own governing boards. The notion, if put to them, would probably prove quite attractive. But it is not publicised in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that we should not worry, that the idea is thoroughly approved of and that the legislation already exists but that the title of that little clause to which I referred could perhaps be changed to incorporate something more positive from my amendment.

The idea I have put forward says,

"Where the governing bodies of two or more maintained schools wish to work together and co-operate in a manner similar to that of a federation of schools but do not wish to dissolve and merge their respective governing bodies, they may, after consultation with the local education authority, form a confederation of schools".

I would like that positive statement somewhere in the Bill; that is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that it fulfils a need. It is important that it is flagged up as an opportunity for schools. It seems to me that it meets precisely what the Government want in terms of promoting collaboration and partnership to form joint strategic committees where desired. At the moment there is a lacuna in the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, as I said, I believe that where schools wish to collaborate of their own volition they should be allowed to do so. In these times of unprecedented central control of schools, so far as possible that should be encouraged. However, if they are intending to work together, the sovereignty of each governing body should be retained. I feel that very strongly; that is why I tabled my previous amendment. It would have strengthened federation with representation of staff and parents and specialisms of each school in the federation. I find it almost incomprehensible that the Government. with a good deal of support throughout the Chamber, should vote against the notion that the teachers of each school are represented on the federal governing body. I believe strongly in the sovereignty of the individual school. Amendment No. 49 on the face of the Bill would encourage more schools to have all the benefits of collaboration without all the disbenefits of central bureaucracy.

My Lords, I, too, lend my support to this amendment. It seems to follow the logic that I have been so concerned about in bringing together varieties of schools and diversity where appropriate. It is another way which may be more appropriate to some schools. The two noble Baronesses who have spoken have made that very clear. We on these Benches lend our support to the idea. It needs to be spelt out in the manner suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea.

My Lords, it is clear from what I said on the last amendment that I very much welcome this amendment. This is the way in which education generally should go. It is so obvious that higher education needs to rethink its structures, not necessarily through the merger of institutions which is difficult to achieve, but by confederation in which they agree to do certain things together. It may lead to something more, but this must be the way. The increased use of communication and information technology facilitates such arrangements. I would like to see such arrangements extend across the traditional boundaries to sixth form colleges and perhaps also to FE colleges. A move into the 14 to 19 approach would break down the barriers between schools and FE colleges and allow collaboration in the provision for that group. It could make sense to include FE colleges within the framework of confederation arrangements.

My Lords, I am lost. We all believe that collaboration is a good idea where the schools themselves agree. But it may well be that I fell asleep during the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She alluded to Clause 29. My noble friend the Minister may be able to elucidate, but it seems to me that that clause contains everything that the noble Baroness has in mind other than the word "confederation". I am not at all clear what we would gain by agreeing the amendment as opposed to Clause 29. The clause enables schools to collaborate in anything they might find to their joint advantage. I am all in favour of putting things on the face of the Bill, but in this case—unless I have misunderstood the Bill—it is already there. Perhaps my noble friend can explain what I have missed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question so that the noble Baroness can respond to it and extend the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. What is illegal now about two governing bodies working exactly as described in Clause 29?

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I agree with the principle behind the amendment and that I am eager to ensure that we make provision to allow for the form of collaboration that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Warmsley, have asked for, including consultation with local education authorities.

I recognise that to support and encourage that development it is important to have alternative governance arrangements in place for schools that want to collaborate strategically but do not want to go as far as dissolving their governing body and ceding all their functions to a single federated governing body. In response to earlier amendments, I said that this is about ensuring that we have the options available to allow schools to decide for themselves which is the best way forward in terms of the collaboration that they want to have.

As noble Lords will know, some schools want to pursue full federation. Others will feel that relinquishing their governing body would be too high a price to pay for the ability to have a single body to take certain key decisions. However, I am mindful that no schools in education action zones—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned them—chose to cede all their responsibilities to an EAZ forum. Therefore, I understand that schools may be reluctant to pursue the federation route, particularly where mixed category federations involving schools of a religious character could be involved.

We want to create an opportunity for schools to put their toe in the water or to slide slowly into the shallow end on their way to what will be the best collaborative model. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that we have included provision within the Bill and my noble friend Lord Peston is correct. Clause 29 does do that. It allows for schools to collaborate strategically without disbanding their individual governing bodies. That clause allows for two or more governing bodies to delegate certain functions to a joint committee, as well as allowing for a joint committee between two or more schools' whole governing bodies.

The noble Baroness asked whether that was allowed. She will be aware that under the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 the decision to prevent schools from having other collaboration—infant and junior schools being the classic example—meant that it was more difficult for them to set up strategic groupings of committees that could take decisions. This puts back into legislation the ability to do that and that is precisely what we are trying to do.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 prevented the governing bodies from joining and not their joint working; namely, governing bodies working with each other as sovereign governing bodies.

My Lords. I shall need to write to the noble Baroness to be precise about that. However, my understanding is that there were some issues surrounding committees being able to collaborate effectively on behalf of other governing bodies. We shall need to ensure that we have clarified that correctly, but that is my understanding.

I am advised that Clause 29 does allow for delegations or the ceding of certain key strategic decisions to an overarching strategy or policy committee; namely, a confederation option. I agree with the principles behind that. I have indicated to the noble Baroness that the amendment itself contains some technical issues. I am mindful of the words that the noble Baroness used about being disproportionate. I believe that where the noble Baroness is driving us is to ensure that we do not put federations and confederations in different places in terms of how schools feel that we are looking to them.

Therefore, I should like to propose to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that between now and Third Reading we might have a conversation to ensure that we achieve the objective I believe we both share—to demonstrate that the legislation is entirely adequate to that end. In the course of doing that, we shall discuss with parliamentary counsel what more could be done on the face of the Bill. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by saying yes. The title of the clause did not indicate that it was supposed to be positively encouraging the coming together of schools in this way. I believe that, bearing in mind the prominence given in the Bill to federations, this clause at the end of the chapter is not enough. That is why I deliberately said to the Minister that I realise that the clause is here, and that her answer was going to be that we have already got the powers. I am now saying that the powers may be there but I would like to see more prominence given to them. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Minister further between now and Third Reading. Perhaps we can then return with something that is jointly agreeable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 16. line 27, leave out "to a significant extent"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 26(3) reads:

"A governing body shall exercise the power conferred by section 25( I ) only if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them by section 20(2) or by any other provision of the Education Acts".

I am arguing that anything which interferes with the performance of any duty of a school to educate children should not be allowed.

Section 20(2) refers to the conduct of the school and the requirement to promote high standards. However, that is undermined by Clause 26(3) which states:

"A governing body shall exercise the power conferred by section 25(1) only if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them".

It is of concern that the legislation provides for the governing body to do anything which will interfere with that duty—not just to "a significant extent". What constitutes "significant" is not defined in the Bill and no light has been thrown on what "significant extent" meant when the issue was brought up at the previous stage of the Bill.

Is my understanding correct that the governors of each school have carte blanche to determine what "to a significant extent" actually means? In addition, should governors define what,

"interfere with the performance of any duty"

means?

When the noble Baroness responded to the debate on this issue on 9th May, she said:

"The inclusion of the wording "to a significant extent" ensures that insignificant incidental effects on a school's main educational role are not seen as obstacles that would prevent worthwhile services being established. For instance, it might be argued that adults using an ICT suite on school premises during school hours could potentially impact on teachers' and pupils' flexibility to use that suite". [Official Report, 9/5/02; col. 1372.]

If adults using the ICT suite on school premises did impact on teachers and pupils in that school then it should not be allowed. Therefore, I am arguing that schools should not have their work to educate and teach children and children's learning interfered with at all.

The governing body's first and foremost duty is to the pupils at the school. Nothing should be allowed to distract them from that key task. Therefore, it would be helpful if the legislation required them to satisfy the local education authority that their proposals will not interfere with the performance of their duty. The governing body should conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school and that work should not be impeded by any outside activity. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 51 which is grouped with Amendment No. 50. When that part of the Bill was discussed in Committee I reassured the Minister that from these Benches we are supportive of the many ways in which schools are developing their links with the community and embedding community facilities within the school environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is not in her place today, outlined some valuable and impressive initiatives which we all welcome.

However, we expressed concern that the need to consult parents and teachers about the provision of community facilities on the school site was to be put only in guidance and not on the face of the Bill. We accept the Minister's reassurance that it is not the Government's intention that such provision would have any detrimental effect on the performance by school staff of their duties. Indeed, at a time when the Government are seeking ways of lightening teachers' workloads that would surely be foolish. However, despite our acceptance of that, we are still concerned that a matter so potentially fundamental to the operation of the school as the provision of community facilities must be discussed with teachers and parents. That must be enshrined in the Bill.

Such consultation would surely give ownership of the project to the staff and the parents and thus ensure its success in the end. I hope that by pressing the matter the Minister will feel able to respond positively as she has on a number of other matters.

My Lords, perhaps I might speak first to Amendment No. 50. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is concerned to ensure that the activities that we have been discussing do not interfere with the way in which schools are able to provide education for their children. I believe that we are in agreement on this. The question is how best to ensure it within the Bill.

I have discussed this matter with our legal adviser to ensure that the words we use are appropriate. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept, in the spirit of my reply, that I have considered carefully the points she made. I do not believe that the words "interfere" and "compromise" mean the same thing. However, I am clear that,

"interference to a significant extent",

could amount to "compromise".

Let me emphasise again what it is that Clauses 25 and 26 seek to achieve. We want to give governors a clear legal basis under which they can provide services for the benefit of their pupils and their families. That will include the provision of services which seek to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of children's education; services such as pupil and family counselling (in cases of bereavement or family breakdown for example); child and family health services where on-site provision will reduce the amount of time children are out of the classroom and improve access which might otherwise be difficult in areas where there is poor local transport; social care to address more immediately the complex needs of the pupils and their parents; and provision of out-of school hours childcare which will ensure that pupils are looked after in a safe environment. Almost any of those services could be argued to interfere in some way with the governors' duty to promote high standards of educational achievement.

Further, if this amendment were accepted, it may expose schools to judicial review proceedings on spurious grounds. As a past Minister for Education I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know that, on occasion—rare thankfully—some have used the wording of the law to involve schools in long, drawn-out legal process. While we also want to protect educational standards, and I believe that Clause 26 does, I am keen to ensure that governors are not discouraged from providing a service such as a breakfast club—a service offered perhaps in a classroom that might interfere to an insignificant extent with the running of the school because it causes a slight delay to the start of the formal school day while breakfast is cleared away.

Likewise I would not want governors to be deterred from making full use of the school premises and facilities at weekends. We know from schools and the local education authority in Cambridgeshire, who have been working very closely with us in developing this approach and who have a long established history of community education, of the benefits that can be gained from opening up schools to the whole community. These clauses will enable more local authorities and schools to develop a similar vision to that of Henry Morris while ensuring that the main object of the school is safeguarded.

I should like to emphasise once again that we expect all schools that develop family and community services to see a positive impact on education standards. I trust the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is reassured by my explanation and will withdraw her amendment.

I turn now to Amendment No. 51. Clause 26(4) already places a statutory duty on governing bodies to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and that guidance will make it clear that governing bodies will always need to consult with all major stakeholders including school staff, parents and pupils, before providing family and community services.

However, on reflection, we accept that we should place a duty upon governing bodies to consult specific key stakeholders, including parents, staff and pupils. The Government are therefore prepared to accept this amendment in principle. However, we would like to consider further whether the proposed group of statutory consultees should be expanded. We should therefore like to have a little time to reflect on the precise wording of the amendment and come back with our own amendment at Third Reading. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will not press her amendment.

My Lords, I am not happy with the noble Baroness's response. She said that she understands and then went on to argue that it would be possible to have activities that interfere with the primary duty of the school to produce good education and achieve high standards for the children in that school. The noble Baroness even went on to say that a small compromise of the fundamental aim of the school would he acceptable.

There should be no compromise regarding a school's duty to promote high standards of educational achievement for the school. The noble Baroness cited my authority, Cambridgeshire. William Morris would turn in his grave if he thought there was any suggestion that what he started was anything that would impede the achievement of high standards of education for children in school. What William Morris did enhanced education; it did not impede it in any way.

A breakfast club in a school was the only example which officials came up with. But any breakfast club that overruns into the school day is actually failing children. The school day is already short enough. For many children it starts between nine and nine-thirty in the morning, and it is over between three and three-thirty in the afternoon. The idea of break fast clubs overrunning is an absolute scandal. If they cannot be run to enable children to start their lessons on time, then there is something wrong with the management of the school.

I feel very strongly about this amendment. I ask for the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 17. line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to both Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Clause 28(1) states:

"Once in every school year the governing body of a maintained school shall prepare a report (a 'governors' report') dealing with such matters, and otherwise complying with such requirements, as may be specified in regulations".

The clause goes on to deal with the regulations which may:

"impose requirements on the governing body of a maintained school with respect to … the giving of copies of a governors' report to such persons as may be prescribed, and … making such copies available for inspection at the school"—

and making provision for—

"enabling the governing body to determine the language or languages in which a governors' report is to be produced and the form or forms in which it is to be produced".

That is where I believe it should end. It should be a matter for the governing body, which knows its own school, its parents, children and community, to determine the languages in which the report should he produced. If the Government are concerned that governing bodies cannot be trusted to do that, the subsection should say something like:

"appropriate languages meeting the language needs of all its community"

and that should be the end of the matter. But the clause then requires the governing body:

"to comply with any direction given by the local education authority with respect to any additional language to be used or with respect to any additional form in which the report is to be produced".

I want to trust the governing body to know what it is doing and to understand its own client group—the children, parents and the local community. It is wrong to then require governing bodies to be under the direction of the local education authority to add yet more languages for communicating with schools and communities.

Amendment No. 53 refers to yet more regulations. I am still awaiting a reply about how many sets of regulations there will be in the Bill. Subsection (3) states that regulations may:

"require the governing body of a maintained school to provide the local education authority with such reports and other information in connection with the discharge of the functions of the governing body as may be prescribed or as the authority may require (either on a regular basis or from time to time) for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions".

The statute book is littered with requirements for schools, head teachers, teachers and governing bodies to provide information, but it is already public information. The annual report is public; meetings with parents are public; Ofsted inspections are public. They are visited by endless numbers of people who have the right to see such information.

It is absurd to lay yet another set of regulations on schools. I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendment No. 52 would mean that a school maintained by a local education authority would be under no obligation to comply with any direction from that authority with respect to any additional language in which the governors' annual report is produced, or any additional forms in which it is produced, such as in braille.

Of course, we accept the thrust of the noble Baroness's argument; namely, that governing bodies have the prime responsibility for determining the languages, or forms, in which their annual report is to be produced. However, we differ from the noble Baroness in the following respect. We believe that there are circumstances in which a local education authority, by virtue of its knowledge over a wider area than the school, may be better placed to determine an additional language, or form, in which the report could be produced that would benefit the local community, or part of it.

As I believe the noble Baroness indicated, this subparagraph is a re-enactment of Section 42 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, under which there are existing regulations. We are not aware of any complaints that the existing requirements, which we want to continue, have caused any difficulties. These provisions provide an additional guarantee for the local community that the interests of all parts of it will be taken fully into account. We see nothing to be gained in dropping the provisions, arid possibly something to be lost for some parts of the local community. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by my response and that she will decide to withdraw her amendment.

On Amendment No. 53, I should like to emphasise that the scope of the regulation-making power in subsection (3) of Clause 28 is very similar to the content of the current provisions to which I referred in Sections 42(3) and (4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The only addition is to allow regulations to prescribe information that must be provided.

I hear what the noble Baroness says about regulations; indeed, we have heard her complaints about them on numerous occasions. However, I should point out that some of those regulations flow from Acts of Parliament introduced during the 18 years of the previous administration. I take note of what she said about the issue of seeking to keep the number of regulations that are required under constraint. We believe that it would be helpful, and add clarity and consistency, to have the scope to prescribe in regulations what information must be provided by governing bodies and head teachers.

However, we have listened most carefully to the noble Baroness's arguments, which were also outlined in Committee. I should like to make progress on the matter. I am prepared to bring forward a government amendment on Third Reading that will replace subsection (3) of Clause 28 with the current provisions in Sections 42(3), (4) and (5) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This will remove the regulation-making power and maintain just the current provisions, which we believe to be important. I hope that this addresses the point made by the noble Baroness on the question of regulations. I trust, therefore, that she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, this is a very small victory; indeed, I should quite like to sweep away the requirements for regulations under the School Standards and Framework Act. However, I am grateful for small mercies. I am also grateful that, as I understand it, subsection (3) will disappear from the Bill. I tentatively wait to see what will replace it at the next stage of the Bill.

I am in a fairly cynical frame of mind. I have to say that the appointment of Mr Miliband to the department that I welcomed so readily the other day is turning out to be something of a disappointment. These are the earliest opportunities for actually living up to the very words that he spoke on accepting the appointment and sweeping away some of the bureaucracy.

I am sure that he did not mean it personally, but the Minister said that he had heard my complaints about regulations "on numerous occasions". But it is the schools, the head teachers, and the teachers who are going on and on about regulations. I am not burdened down with having to read them, interpret them, and, in turn, read and interpret the guidelines and the guidance: it is the schools who have to cope with this burden. Minister after Minister has promised the schools faithfully that he or she will do what can be done to reduce the amount of bureaucracy. But, as they speak those words, we mount on yet more bureaucracy. I do not, therefore, accept that criticism from the Minister.

The Minister also referred to the 18 years of the previous administration. One would not believe that this Government are actually in their sixth year in Parliament. Indeed, they are now in their sixth year and the level of regulations, guidance, guidelines, and bureaucracy that has been laid upon schools is unprecedented. I am not happy with the response that I received to my first request. I believe that we should trust schools to determine what languages they use to speak to their school community. We should leave this to schools; they should not be under further exhortation from a third party.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 53, but I shall wait to see what replaces it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 54:

After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—

"PROTECTION OF SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS

Regulations shall provide for the control by the governing body of a maintained school of school playing fields and sporting facilities, which shall, among other things, provide that neither the Secretary of State, nor a local authority, nor any other public authority, shall give consent to the sale, transfer or disposal of playing fields or pitches owned or leased by a governing body of a maintained school or local authority unless—

(a) it can be shown by the governing body or bodies, or local authority, concerned that the sale, transfer or disposal is for the purpose of providing playing fields or sporting facilities of equal or improved quality for the use of the school and, if appropriate, other schools;

(b) in the case of a sale, transfer or disposal made by a local authority, it is done with the consent of the governing body or bodies concerned;

(c) it takes into account the impact in the local authority area on team sports requiring extensive playing fields or pitches and demonstrates that children at schools in the area will still have full and regular access to practise those sports; and

(d) the parent body of the school or schools concerned has consented in a ballot to the sale."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important clause that relates to playing fields. Many of us will remember the exhortations of a number of Ministers before the 1997 election, the most vocal of whom was the right honourable Mr David Blunkett. He was very critical of the previous Conservative government for selling off playing fields. Such was the voluble noise from Ministers at that time that one would have been forgiven for believing that there was no more scope for disposing of playing fields.

I should like to refer to two newspaper articles: the first dated November 2001, and the second February 2002. In the Sunday Telegraph of 18th November 2001, Martin Bentham wrote:

"The number of playing fields sold off for building development has leapt by 60 per cent in the past year, according to a leaked Government document. The figures, in a confidential report for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, show that 446 applications for building on sports fields were approved between April 2000 and March this year. That compares with only 279 approvals for the previous 12 months. In the vast majority of cases, no objection was made to the applications, despite repeated Labour promises to stop playing fields being sold off. The number of planning applications refused rose by just two".

The latter information was put to the honourable Kate Hoey in another place, who held ministerial office at the time. I quote her response, which appeared in the same article:

"These figures bear out what I am finding when I go round the country, and show quite clearly that our promises"—

that is, the Labour Party's promises—

"to save playing fields are not working. There needs to be a moratorium on sales because the people who are objecting to the loss of sports pitches are not being listened to".

The article goes on to quote Elsa Davies, the director of the National Playing Fields Association, who said:

"The loss of playing fields is proceeding at a rate which is totally unacceptable. For years the Government has talked motherhood and apple pie, saying that they will save playing fields, but nothing has been achieved".

The article continues:

"The new figures are contained in a draft report drawn up by a monitoring unit on the sale of playing fields, set up by the department in April 2000 … the Government pledged that the unit would 'publish monthly figures on playing field disposals so that progress can be accurately charted'".

That has not happened. Martin Bentham then pointed out that:

"The figures, which the report says 'should not be released, quoted or used in any form', show that 860 valid applications for development on playing fields were received in the year ending March 2001 …The statistics also show a steep rise in the number of applications that were then given final planning permission by the relevant local authority. Whereas in 1999/2000 the number of unconditional approvals was 279, by last year the total had risen to 446, an increase of 60 per cent. Another 21 disposals were approved subject to conditions. Only 47 applications were refused, and not one application was 'called in' by the Secretary of State for detailed examination … The Government's failure to prevent the sale of playing fields comes despite a series of promises made during the 1997 general election campaign that sports pitches would be protected".

At that time the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, while he was education secretary, was speaking a great, deal on this issue. He said:

"I will ensure that those playing fields which schools and local communities need are not sold in the future".

That was in November 2001.

Given that report, one would expect things to have changed for the better. But, on 27th February 2002, an article in the Daily Mail stated:

"Fresh evidence that ministers have repeatedly broken promises to protect school playing fields was revealed in official figures yesterday.

The Government has approved all but two applications to sell off sports pitches since laws to protect them were introduced in 1998.

Of the 100 applications received, by the end of January, [2002] 98 have been waved through by Ministers.

A further 77 out of 81 requests to sell off smaller fields were given the green light, giving an overall total of 175 approvals from 181 applications".

The article went on to say that,

"most applications are still being approved, with the figures suggesting the number of sell-offs is gathering pace".

It also stated:

"An independent panel was set up to examine applications before making recommendations to ministers, who have the final say. A total of 945 applications to build on playing fields are expected this year—up from 590 in 2000 and 860 last year.

Ministers were … accused of reneging on their pledges to protect the field.

'They have not kept to their word', said Elsa Davies, director of the National Playing Fields Association.

'We were looking to the Government to protect playing fields, but what we have seen is tinkering in the system, which will not help'".

I have an answer to a Question asked by my honourable friend Mr Brady in another place. He asked what the proceeds of sales were for each playing field development application approved by the Secretary of State since 1998 and what went for sports and educational facilities. Out of 79 that are listed in that reply by the department, 47 were not to enhance sports facilities. That is 47 out of 79. Those that were to enhance sports facilities only partly funded them, and the money was used for other things.

We will take the criticism for what happened before 1997.1 have no doubt that the Minister will not lose the opportunity to refer to that again. But, given what the Minister said at that time, as I said right at the outset, one could be forgiven for believing that the scope for yet further selling off of playing fields would have been reduced if not eliminated altogether.

Many people are concerned about this aspect. Certainly the schools are. At a time when sport is a concern in schools, particularly extra-curricular sport, and given the Government's policy of inclusiveness in wanting young people, both in and out of school, to benefit from sports facilities in their community, I believe that what is happening is unforgivable.

At this stage, the Government's criteria are informal. I want to make them formal by placing them on the face of the Bill. Those criteria are:

"(a) it can be shown by the governing body or bodies, or local authority, concerned that the sale, transfer or disposal is for the purpose of providing playing fields or sporting facilities of equal or improved quality for the use of the school and, if appropriate, other schools [in the area];

(b) in the case of a sale, transfer or disposal made by a local authority, it is done with the consent of the governing body or bodies concerned;

(c) it takes into account the impact in the local authority area on team sports requiring extensive playing fields or pitches and demonstrates that children at schools in the area will still have full and regular access to practise those sports; and

(d) the parent body of the school or schools concerned has consented in a ballot to the sale".

I beg to move.

My Lords, the argument regarding getting rid of playing fields has gone on for a long time. The noble Baroness has effectively put her hands up and said that it was a mistake—I think that it was a mistake initially—to allow too many playing fields to disappear.

The Government said that they would stop it. They have not done enough. The noble Baroness has made a good attempt to solve the problem in the context of an education Bill. The problem is that this is not totally an education problem. Playing fields are educational facilities. The Department of Health and the Home Office could be interested in the issue. The Government should embrace the fact that sports fields are needed in order to allow sports to be played. We need turf. Sports halls do not allow one to play in our society the culturally acceptable sports for mass participation.

Basketball is not a major sport. Major participation sports are the various forms of football—association, union and league—hockey and so on. They require turf in order to be played properly. One cannot play them inside a sports hall. One needs grass on the ground.

When one says that it is a terribly small pitch, often that gives one somewhere to warm up or play a shortened version of a game. That is particularly true for children. The minute that one starts to reduce that area of open preserve for turf one cuts down the opportunities for playing sport. Our society is suffering tremendous health deprivation because it is not taking enough exercise. Unless exercise is fun—and that means sport—it will not happen.

The amendment is a brave attempt effectively to stop a form of rot. I support it. I hope that the Government will give us a reason for not needing to support it by saying that that they will put in place something which goes even further. But, in the context of an education Bill, I believe that this is an appropriate approach. I look forward to a response from the Government which does not refer to historical blame, but what will be done now. Under the current system, it is quite clear that we are not preserving the vital thing that we need in order to play the culturally acceptable sports in our society; that is, preserved and maintained turf.

My Lords, I hate to introduce a discordant note into our proceedings, but I must. Recently, my right honourable friend Mr Mandelson said that we were all Thatcherites now. Let me first say what an enormous pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place. But he was slightly wrong, because if there is one group that clearly are not Thatcherites now, it is the Tory Front Bench in the House of Lords. This is an amendment that more or less says that the policies that they pursued previously were completely unacceptable and wrong.

The amendment is put forward by the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in all innocence as if somehow these points were not made ages ago when many of us did not even know that one could sell playing fields. Suddenly, it became policy. We pointed out the consequences. It is really not good enough to get up and say, "Well, things have not worked out the way we said". They have worked out exactly in the way that one thought they would.

Therefore, we have the paradox that what is happening is that the Labour Government are being accused of not being a Labour Government. It is perfectly reasonable for someone such as myself to make that criticism. But to hear it coming from the Official Opposition Front Bench is absolutely ridiculous, to put it as mildly as I possibly can.

Having made—quite unusually for me—a political point, which, as noble Lords know, I hate to do, it does not mean that there is not a problem here. Clearly, we must think, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite right in saying that despite the great pleasure one gets in referring to the past, the present and the future are what matter. It is incumbent—and I am sure that the Minister will speak to this—on the Government to respond to these concerns.

I still remember with a shudder going miles to my school playing field, getting covered in mud and then discovering that there was no way of washing and having to trudge back to the bus in the freezing cold, having taken part in a game which I hated. So I do not have delusions about what the great pleasures of school sport are. I do not believe that the greatness of our country depends on school sport but, none the less, I accept that it is a matter of some significance. My noble friend is aware that I, like many of my noble friends, look with sadness at the sale of playing fields if there is no facility to replace them. The children of the current generation should suffer as we did—one of the great advantages of being old is to see the young not getting away with things when we could not.

So I hope that while rejecting the amendment my noble friend will still have some positive things to say, including one or two things that remind us that we are a Labour Government.

My Lords, it is interesting to consider what the independent sector is doing. Its parents and pupils can express their opinion, as it were. The independent sector is investing vast sums in sporting facilities. That is one of the main things on which it spends money. It spends money on that before it spends money on classrooms—certainly before it spends money on decoration. That is what parents and pupils want.

That is not happening in the state system; the opposite is happening. That is because parents' and pupils' views are not being taken into account in what schools are doing. Given the financial pressures in the other direction, I can understand why, but we ought to be more responsive to what parents and pupils clearly want, which is provision of secure and better sporting facilities, and not to allow that part of schools' heritage to be bled. Apart from anything else, it results in people having nowhere to walk their dogs.

My Lords, do not get me started on the subject of dogs.

I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised this important issue. I am the Minister responsible for how we deal with school playing field policy and for working in close collaboration with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health in our trilateral meetings on how to address our children's needs in terms of sport and exercise. I could talk at great length on the subject, but I feel that it is inappropriate to do so now. I offer to do so to any noble Lord who wants to hear me.

I turn to the amendment. The figures that are often cited are inaccurate because they refer to playing fields in all situations, not to school playing fields. With your Lordships' indulgence, I shall spend a moment to ensure that by the end of my contribution, the precise, exact figures are on the record. I think that that is important to noble Lords.

I take my responsibilities in this area extremely seriously. We introduced Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to protect school playing fields. A sale or change in the use of a playing field may now happen only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will know that we do not have figures for the disposal of playing fields prior to the introduction of that protection, nor indeed for how the proceeds were used. I shall focus on what we have done.

Section 77 already requires a local authority or the governing body of any maintained school to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before disposing or changing the use of a school playing field. To ensure that all relevant areas are captured, the definition of "playing field" is extremely broad. It ensures that all open areas on a school site are protected. So we are already ensuring that all outdoor areas used for social or recreational purposes or as habitat areas, as well as sports pitches, fall under the Act.

Any application to dispose or change the use of a school playing field is considered against strict criteria. Consent will be given only when the remaining playing fields and sporting facilities meet the needs of local schools and the communities that formerly used them, and all proceeds are ploughed back into improved sport provision or educational facilities. Applicants are also required to consult fully on their proposals, including consulting the parents of pupils.

So the amendment adds nothing that is not already provided for in existing statutory provision. But our current protection also goes further than is proposed in the amendment. Since 16th July 2001, all applications have been subject to independent scrutiny by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel. The panel comprises representatives of the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Local Government Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and the educational charity, Learning through Landscapes. I pay tribute to their work. The panel advises the Secretary of State on the extent to which applications meet the criteria. Only those applications that meet the criteria and are recommended by that group are accepted by me—and, of course, through me, by the Secretary of State.

I contend that the protection for school playing fields that we introduced is working. Last year, in all maintained schools—of which, your Lordships will be aware, there are well over 20,000—only 22 applications to sell school sports pitches were approved. That represents 0.1 per cent of all maintained schools. I can give the House the full position for all changes in all schools since 1st October 1998. We have approved 105 applications involving the loss of school sports pitches. In 43 cases—almost half— the reason for the loss was that the school was closing or had closed. Of the 62 cases involving schools that continued to operate, 38 resulted in improved sports facilities, including new or replacement sports pitches, all-weather pitches and sports halls. In the remaining 24 cases, the proceeds were used to improve teaching facilities.

So I can be clear that the amendment would not increase the existing protection for school playing fields, on which the Government have achieved a great deal. In addition, it would require ballots of the parental body, which would be bureaucratic and time-consuming for all involved. In some cases—this is the defect of the amendment—where the school is to close, it would simply be unworkable. In those circumstances and in the light of the technical defect in the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw it.

My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about when school pitches are sold. Does she accept that one needs a lot of turf around the pitch to make it useful?

I do, my Lords. I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest in this matter. I can tell him that in every single case, when an application is dealt with by the independent panel, it carefully considers the specifics of what is proposed. It has plans and drawings before it. It ensures that the school cannot possibly have a detrimental effect in terms of providing what the children need; that it has the full support of the community; that all of the other schools are asked whether they have any need for that piece of ground; that it consults the community; and that representations are invited from the Member of Parliament. I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that the organisations that I have cited take a strong, clear stance—hence their involvement in the group—of ensuring that no child suffers a detrimental effect.

But there are some circumstances in which there is land around a school that is not used and could be used to better purpose and the proceeds from the sale of that land could be used to improve facilities. Those are the circumstances in which a recommendation is made to me as the junior Minister responsible and, through me, to the Secretary of State and it is only in those circumstances that it is accepted. I am extremely proud of our record during my time in office in the last year and before that.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, picked up the very point that I was going to address. Many schools, especially primary schools, have a field—not a pitch, but an area specifically used for sport. There are running tracks that are not pitches. There are many grassed and tarmacadamed areas that are sports facilities but do not fall into the narrow definition of sports pitches. I have before me the Government's list— from the north of the country to its most southern tip—of school playing fields—the words in the Minister's Answer are "playing fields"— that have been sold off. In the list in front of me, in 47 of the 79 cases, playing fields were sold off and the moneys were not used to enhance sports facilities.

The Minister confined herself to a very narrow definition of school sports pitches. If the department feels strongly about this issue, it would be helpful to know what is its definition of the playing fields and playing areas that are used by schools for sports and—I agree with those who made the point—recreation for children. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in this context one has to think of a community wider than the school. There is now very much more community involvement with school facilities and schoolchildren involvement with community facilities.

Why is it that Kate Hoey was so unhappy and, indeed, remains so? On a recent phone-in programme on Radio 5 she again expressed her displeasure at what was still happening since she left office as a Minister. Despite the list of organisations mentioned by the Minister, as recently as February this year the director of the Playing Fields Association said:

"We were looking to the Government to protect playing Fields, but what we have seen is tinkering in the system, which will not help".

I do not think that that is an answer. There is a glossing over of a real problem. The Government are in their sixth year and they must live up to what they said when they came into office in 1997—that is, that playing fields will not be under threat from them.