---

Education and Inspections Bill

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Did the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, wish to say something before I withdraw? No. I agree with the Minister that when the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke about asking children to make decisions, I sat here thinking that no one was asking children to make decisions. The intention of my group of amendments was only to consult children, certainly not to put the burden on them of making any of these decisions. In terms of large schools, we need only give children an opportunity to respond to a draft code of discipline and to make suggestions on how it might be changed or amended. I see no reason why that should not be done quite easily. I am delighted to be able to thank the Minister for being minded to bring forward an amendment along those lines at the next stage of the Bill. I am also delighted that he has been able to accept part of Amendment No. 253 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I am sure that she will make similar arguments to him again in the future, given the wonderful results that she obtained this evening. On Amendment No. 127 in the name of thenoble Lord, Lord Dearing, which I supported, the Government are clearly moving in the right direction on school councils by updating the guidance, and I am certainly happy with that. With regard to Amendment No. 52, the Minister said that he feels that local authorities need the opportunity to focus on particularly high-risk groups. Although there is apparently nothing wrong with that, I am a little worried that some groups which have every right to be consulted may well be missed out. They may have a different sort of input which is perfectly valid and which might affect the nature of the recreational facilities provided by the local authorities. So I hope that, in carrying out their duties in the way that the Minister has described and by focusing, reasonably, on high-risk groups, local authorities will not inadvertently miss out large groups of children who may not be particularly high-risk but whose well-being would benefit very much from the right sort of recreational facilities. Such children might be able to give the local authority valuable input on the nature and planning of those facilities. I will read in Hansard the Minister’s response to Amendment No. 20. I think that he clarified whatI was trying to get at. He explained that the amendment is not acceptable because it is responding to an individual child rather than a group of children. However, I will look at it again and think carefully before deciding whether to pursue it any further. With that fairly happy response, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.