asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on action to be taken at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, especially those relating to children.

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons published the report of her inspection of the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre on26 July. In line with the protocol agreed between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the chief inspector, an action plan has been drawn up to respond to the report’s 79 recommendations, of which 58 have been accepted, 15 accepted in principle or in part and six rejected.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us are greatly cheered by the Government’s decision to keep the inspectorate independent, after the case so well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others? Does she not agree that the seriousness of the situation at Yarl’s Wood is underlined by the fact that when the chief inspector made a visit early last year she made 42 specific recommendations on what should be done? When the inspector returned early this year, virtually nothing had been done on the 42 recommendations.

As I am sure my noble friend will agree, the inspector was particularly concerned with the plight of children—the number of children and the length of time they were there. She found it difficult to reconcile with our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991. Are children in Yarl’s Wood regarded as children or not? If they are, why are the obligations under the convention not applied in spirit as well as letter at this institution? Does she not agree that it would be a good idea if periodically, perhaps every quarter, she was to publish a specific progress report on each of the 42 recommendations?

My Lords, of course I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. However, I remind him that we always intended the inspectorate to remain independent, though perhaps in a slightly different form.

On the inspector’s recommendations, I do not think that my noble friend is right to say that nothing has been done. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons praised the establishment of a child protection policy group and made other complimentary remarks about the work that had been done. With regard to the action plan that has been agreed with the chief inspector, I reassure my noble friend that that matter is being pursued with a great deal of vigour.

My Lords, there were in fact two visits by the chief inspector to Yarl’s Wood in February, the second being concerned with healthcare. The report on that has only just been published and will therefore not result in an action plan for another three months. Should there not be a statutory obligation on the Government to publish the reports of the chief inspector within a reasonable timescale and to place copies of the action plans resulting from them in the Library of the House, where they are accessible to Members?

Does the Minister acknowledge that the healthcare report contained 48 recommendations additional to those referred to in the Question? Has any progress been made on implementing those? Has the Minister given attention to the complaints that I have made about the separation of breastfeeding mothers from their infants?

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is in active correspondence with my honourable friend Liam Byrne, the Minister of State responsible for the IND estate. I understand that he is in the process of inquiring into those matters and responding to the noble Lord. I assure the noble Lord that the additional recommendations will form part of an action plan that will be pursued vigorously. I shall think carefully about what the noble Lord said about publishing reports.

My Lords, sadly, my experience of action plans is that often much is stated on paper but not all of it is carried out. I am worried about the children in Yarl’s Wood, but there are also children in other detention centres. Is anyone in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate responsible for overseeing the treatment of children wherever they are held in the system and therefore for overseeing the action plans and the spreading of similar good practice throughout all the places in which children are held?

My Lords, this is very much part of IND’s work. Indeed, the recommendations for children have had a beneficial effect. For example, the system for IND to provide a centre with secure and risk information on detainees arriving from prison is now in place. The examination of processes for handling torture reports from centre doctors is under way. Detainees now have access to mobile phones. There are now activities and classes specifically for women. Youth leaders have been employed to organise children’s activities and revise the programme. Children’s PE and games have been introduced. A comprehensive range of educational books and materials is supplied. Many things have been pursued directly as a result of recommendations. Those recommendations have been beneficial and have helped this agenda very much.

My Lords, having heard the question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the Minister’s reply, I was left unclear on whether the Government intended to implement their legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Will the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that it is the Government’s intention to do so?

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will be aware that we currently have a reservation against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That issue has not yet been resolved, but the House will appreciate that this Government have an exemplary record on taking children’s interests properly into account and seeking to protect them.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what progress is being made on the review of the care of children in the system by Jeremy Oppenheim, the director of the National Asylum Support Service and a children’s champion in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, particularly as it looks at extended lengths of stay for a small number of families, case management and the involvement of social work at institutions such as Yarl’s Wood? Has the prison gate in the reception area of the converted category C prison, which is Yarl’s Wood, yet been addressed? That causes particular concern.

My Lords, a lot of work has been undertaken in this area. I cannot give the noble Earl a specific answer on the stage that the work is now at. I am not aware of whether we have received further reports on it recently, although we are anticipating them. I shall be happy to write to the noble Earl on that matter and on the prison gate issue.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What are the reasons for the reduction in the number of those travelling by bus outside London.

My Lords, the number of journeys by bus has been falling since the 1950s. This is due primarily to the continuing increase in car ownership and usage. Although in recent years London has seen an increase in bus use, the trend has not been reflected in most areas outside the capital. The Government are currently carrying out a review of bus issues to see where changes can be made that could increase bus patronage.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the problem outside London is that local authorities contribute sometimes quite large sums of money to subsidise bus services but have no control over service provision or charges? I welcome the latest review on buses. The Secretary of State for Transport recently said that there would possibly be some legislation in the next Session. Will my noble friend ensure that one of the options in the review will be for local authorities to franchise bus services, rather as they do trains? That would not only bring in competition but enable local authorities to have some control of where and when buses go and how much the charges are.

My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend takes a keen interest in these issues. I assure him that formal franchise will be looked at seriously. He will recognise that local authorities have access at present to quality contracts, although on the whole they have not taken those up, because they have regarded the legislative constraints as being too onerous. We are looking at that matter.

My Lords, can the Minister give us any further details of the review that he has mentioned, including a timetable? Will he assure us that, as part of any consultation that may arise, the views of bus owners and operators will be seriously considered?

My Lords, we certainly intend to include all stakeholders in the discussions that we are holding, which are ongoing. As far as the timescale is concerned, it is not exactly a formal review, but there is an indication from the Minister that we intend to complete our work in this area before Christmas.

My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords would agree that competition does not actually work in many areas of the country, and they would further agree that some of the big groups,by abusing their dominant position, are frightening off small competitors by targeting fare cuts andbetter services whenever a competitor arises and subsequently withdrawing them. Will the noble Lord please ensure that, in reviewing the bus industry, the Minister addresses the competition issues, so that the intentions of the 1985 Act, that there should be competition, are actually realised?

My Lords, competition issues are important, and we are aware that certain practices may militate against fresh competitive opportunities for smaller companies. Equally clearly, some large companies provide a very good service. We are looking at this closely, and I assure the noble Lord and the House that all the points will be taken seriously into account.

My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate how important the bus service is in rural areas for young people who need to be able to get to employment and for elderly people who need to be able to get to post offices—if village post offices are going to be closed—and to the shops at convenient times and at sensible rates? In my village, at one stage, we had one bus on the third Thursday of every month, which did not serve anyone. I admit that the service there has improved, but the problem exists in a lot of places.

My Lords, certainly the bus plays a crucial part in the rural economy, and it will be recognised that we have taken measures that will increase the demand for buses. The concessionary fares scheme, which will be universal in 2008, should result in an increase in patronage, and we are helping young people still in education who use buses. My noble friend is absolutely right that the bus is a crucial form of communication and transport for those who have the fewest resources.

My Lords, will the review that my noble friend has referred to on more than one occasion this afternoon include a good look at the use of postbuses? Will the Government designate postbuses in the same way as they have designated the rest of the British Post Office—as dispensable? Will he reassure me that the Post Office will be a stakeholder? It could certainly provide a service more than once a week on a Monday morning.

My Lords, my noble friend introduces an important point. I should emphasise that some solutions to our rural problems may lie in ensuring that those who provide one service are able to extend their activities to provide other services. The postbus is an important concept in that respect and will be taken into account.

My Lords, would not a simple way of getting people into buses on motorways be to extend the park-and-ride principle to a 50-mile circle round London and all other major cities? Large car parks there would make life much easier for commuters, who could get into a coach and do their work on it, instead of sitting behind a wheel.

My Lords, that is an interesting concept, although the noble Lord will recognise that identifying destinations in London for bus routes from 50 miles outside would present significant problems. The noble Lord is right in that this is what is happening in places such as Cambridge, where car use is restricted in the city centre and buses have access, and it is expected that the park-and-ride scheme will be widely utilised. The more that such schemes are developed, the more that both transport and the environment in which people live and work in cities will be improved.

My Lords, the Minister hinted at the concessionary fares scheme that will come to England in 2008. Does he agree that one of the major achievements of the Liberal Democrat/Labour partnership Government in Wales has been free travel for pensioners and others throughout the Principality, which has saved bus routes and has been a boon to the elderly?

My Lords, of course I am always prepared to learn from the Principality on the advantages derived from the Labour/Liberal partnership, but the noble Lord will recognise that England’s extensive geography has always presented a much greater challenge in terms of concessionary fare schemes. However, this Government have now acted for England as well.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What action they are taking to contain the extra-territorial aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on corporate accounting and its effect on United Kingdom businesses.

My Lords, UK companies are within the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act if they choose to list on the main US markets or are a subsidiary of a company so listed. I am aware that business has concerns about the prescriptiveness of some of these provisions, and I welcome the US authorities’ review of their application. In the UK, we consider that our more principles-based approach strikes an appropriate balance between regulatory costs and benefits.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has certainly been a great promotional measure for the London Stock Exchange and the Alternative Investment Market. However, does the Minister agree that there is an increasing danger of regulatory creep from American regulators that threatens our own light-touch approach to financial regulation and some duplication of company reporting as well? For instance, companies with over 300 shareholders resident in the United States can be called to account by the Securities and Exchange Commission; it is not unlikely that the London Stock Exchange will become a subsidiary of NASDAQ next year, bringing US regulation to the heart of the City; and there have already been a number of visits to British companies by the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. How do we protect the light touch which the Minister himself says that we have?

My Lords, it is absolutely right that we are mindful of the risks of regulatory creep, which is why the Government have announced that they intend to introduce a Bill in the next parliamentary Session to enhance the FSA’s powers. The proposed changes will allow the FSA to stop recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses from making changes in their regulatory provisions when those changes are likely to be disproportionate to the end that the FSA seeks or would not pursue a reasonable regulatory objective.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that an equally serious threat comes from the European Union’s ambitions to have European regulation of financial markets? Will he assure the House that the British Government will resolutely resist that?

My Lords, a range of issues arise under that, particularly concerning the eighth directive, which relates to auditing. Most of that directive is already included in UK provisions, and consultation on the residual issues should start next year. There are other issues to which accounting standards apply, and there is discussion with the US and UK authorities about convergence on those as well. There is a range of issues to consider.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not rushing into heavy and detailed regulation to counteract fraud, as the US Congress did. At the same time, does my noble friend agree that companies must demonstrate a culture of trust, openness and common purpose if the looser regulation is to be retained?

Yes, my Lords, I agree. As my noble friend will know, UK corporate governance has undergone a substantial number of changes since the mid-1990s. The UK approach places more emphasis on the application of principles rather than rules to provide flexible but robust standards. The combined code is the result of that process. However, we need to be mindful that, whether it is Sarbanes-Oxley or the UK approach through the combined code, this is about getting good corporate governance. Along the way on issues of fraud, we must get out of the habit of thinking, as I believe some have done, that there are no victims of white-collar fraud. It was the major corporate scandals in the US, in particular, that drove Sarbanes-Oxley.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while the Government certainly deserve to be commended for their actions on the extraterritoriality of Sarbanes-Oxley, the really big thing that they ought to do is safeguard the position of British citizens from the unequal treatment of the extradition laws as between the United Kingdom and the United States? This is now not only a real threat to the liberties of British subjects but is causing increasing concern.

My Lords, noble Lords would not expect me to comment on individual cases that have been the subject of some discussion in the House in recent times. The noble Lord will be aware that an extradition request is considered by the courts under the Extradition Act 2003, which contains full safeguards for defendants, and that, as defined by the Extradition Act, for the US to make an extradition request to the UK for an offence in which no conduct took place in the US, it will also have to be an extraterritorial offence under UK law. I understand that the US is moving towards ratification of that treaty.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are well aware of the way in which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has impacted on the attractiveness and competitiveness of the United States capital market? So much so is that the case that, I believe, Mr Hank Paulson is conducting a review of it with a view to amending it. Can the Minister further confirm that the Government will bear that in mind when it comes to drafting regulations required under the Companies Bill, which will return to this House in a short time?

Yes, indeed, my Lords. The impact of Sarbanes-Oxley has been felt in the US, as has been recognised by the SEC and the authorities there. It is certainly something of which the Government here are mindful, and they will keep it at the forefront of their thinking. We look forward to our further discussions on the Companies Bill. We have had plenty in the past, but the Bill is coming back to us next week.

My Lords, has the Minister heard of the case in France where the French fined the French subsidiary of an American company for complying with Sarbanes-Oxley, thereby being non-compliant with Basel II?

My Lords, I am not aware of the circumstances to which the noble Earl refers. I shall rush away from this encounter to educate myself on the matter, and I shall write to the noble Earl if that would be helpful.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they support the introduction of the new science syllabus for schools, Twenty First Century Science; and whether progress in getting the syllabus into schools is satisfactory.

My Lords, the Government support the introduction of the new key stage 4 programme of study for science. It is as rigorous as the previous one; it is more engaging for all pupils; and it provides a sound basis for further study of science at A-level and beyond. The implementation of the new GCSEs will be formally monitored, but early feedback from schools has been largely positive.

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s support. In some ways, it goes back to the Science and Society report of this House, which contained a whole chapter on the need to reform the science syllabus in schools. The Minister referred to the piloting, which has been extremely successful and warmly welcomed by head teachers and science teachers in a great many schools. Does he accept that the new syllabus can offer pupils the choice of doing three separate science subjects, and is that not one of its very valuable points? However, does he also accept that, if this is to work successfully, more resources will need to go into giving teachers the money and the time to undertake continuous professional development?

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s welcome for the new science syllabus. He is absolutely right about the need for more resources for continuing professional development, and we are providing those resources. For example, we have our outstanding £50 million partnership with the Wellcome Foundation to establish the network of science learning centres throughout the country which has been much appreciated by teachers and is substantially improving the quality of in-service training for teachers.

The noble Lord is also right about the availability of the three individual sciences at GCSE. As he knows, earlier this year we announced policies to promote the availability of the three individual sciences at GCSE, including a new entitlement for all pupils who reach level 6 at key stage 3—the higher-performing pupils at the age of 14—to study the three individual sciences; and a new availability from 2008 for the three individual sciences to be taken in all comprehensive schools that have a science specialism. At the moment, there are 292 such schools, but that number will rise. We agree with all the points that the noble Lord has made, and we are seeking to advance both in-service training and the availability of the individual sciences.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the new Twenty First Century Science does an extraordinarily good job of presenting science in general and physics in particular as relevant to everyday life, there remains a need to cater also—additionally and perhaps separately, with appropriately qualified teachers—to the smaller number of students who have an aptitude for the mathematical, analytic character of the physical sciences, which can often seem arcane to the majority, for whom Twenty First Century Science is so sensibly designed?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. That is why we are keen to make the three individual sciences available. It is also why we are promoting the study of mathematics much more vigorously in schools, including the take-up of further mathematics at AS and A-level. Numbers have significantly increased at AS-level, and that is very welcome. As the noble Lord will know, we are also introducing a new maths GCSE to further stimulate students who show most capacity in the area he described from the age of 14 and not simply leaving it to the individual sciences at GCSE or AS and A-level.

My Lords, the Minister said that Twenty First Century Science provided a good background on which to take A-levels. As we are extremely concerned about the fall in the number of pupils taking some of the sciences at A-level, particularly physics and chemistry, can he give us any indication of whether the pilots showed that those who were stimulated by the novelty of the new curriculum went on to study them at A-level?

My Lords, the picture at post-16 is not quite as straightforward as the noble Baroness suggests. She is absolutely right that the numbers studying the three sciences to A-level have declined, but the numbers studying at AS-level have risen quite substantially. Between 2001 and 2006, the number studying biology at AS-level has risen from 51,000 to 59,000; the number studying chemistry at AS-level has risen from 35,000 to 41,000; and the number studying physics at AS-level has also risen, although only marginally, from 29,174 to 29,659. The issue is in part one of progression from GCSE to AS, and the results of the pilot have been encouraging. However, the issue also—in some ways, more substantially for the immediate future of getting more pupils up to A-level—is to encourage those who start on the AS course to continue into the second year of sixth form to take the A2.

My Lords, the new curriculum may offer the three separate sciences to high achievers in the state sector, but why should not all pupils be entitled to learn the three separate sciences up to GCSE, not just pupils taught in the independent sector?

My Lords, I see that the noble Baroness has tabled amendments on this subject, which we look forward to addressing later. The number studying three individual sciences has risen. The new entitlement, which I described to her noble friend earlier, will see the availability of the three sciences significantly extended over the next few years. The number of pupils gaining level 6 or above in the key stage 3 science tests was 259,000 this year. That is the group to which we will be extending the entitlement in two years’ time.

We will not achieve anything in this area unless we have enough highly qualified and motivated teachers in our schools. Unfortunately, the party opposite left us with a massive deficit of highly qualified teachers in this area. We have increased the supply of science teachers by 30 per cent since 1997, but we have to make good decades of under-investment in this area. Neither I nor any other Minister can wave a magic wand and suddenly make things happen. It has taken decades of under-investment to get us into this position in the first place.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that making science more approachable to all pupils is to be supported? Does he agree that science has to understand the needs of pupils as much as pupils have to understand science?

My Lords, I think I do agree—yes.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems, despite this excellent new curriculum, is that far too many students in comprehensive schools are still being taught science by teachers with no specific science qualifications? The initiative that he has mentioned is extremely welcome. The requirement for students to be inspired to study science is crucial, and I hope that the Government can say what action they are taking to improve the standard of science teachers.

My Lords, we have significantly increased incentives to recruit teachers into science and into the three scientific disciplines in particular. That is yielding fruit: the number of specifically trained physics teachers recruited between 2000 and 2004 doubled; the number of specifically trained biology teachers recruited in that period more than doubled; and the number of specifically trained chemistry teachers in that period went up by 50 per cent. We have a good track record but I fully accept that we have further to go.

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

Moved, That the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on government policy on the management of risk (5th Report, HL Paper 183) be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Moved, That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

My Lords, these regulations are all down in the name of “The Lord President, Baroness Amos”. In the good old days, and by that I mean up to a few months ago, it always used to be under the name of the Lord President of the Council. We all know that the Lord President is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Will she consider whether it might be a good idea to revert to putting “Lord President of the Council” down on the Order Paper?

My Lords, as I understand it, there has been no change. I do not know if the noble Earl has been reading a different Order Paper from the one that I have, but there has been no change.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion makes drafting changes to the Standing Orders arising mostly from the Procedure Committee’s fifth report, to which the House agreed on 17 July, and, in one case, from the third report, to which the House agreed on 24 April.

Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:

With effect from the beginning of the next Session:

Standing Order 31 (No Lord to speak more than once to a Motion)

In paragraph (2), leave out “Unstarred Question” and insert “Question for Short Debate”

Standing Order 37 (Unstarred Questions and Motions)

Leave out “Unstarred Questions” and insert “Questions for Short Debate”

Standing Order 38 (Balloted and time-limited Debates)

In paragraph (1), leave out “, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 19”

Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper)

In paragraph (1), leave out “Starred Questions” and insert “Oral Questions”

In paragraph (9), leave out “Unstarred Questions” and insert “Questions for Short Debate”

Standing Order 43 (Postponement and advancement of business)

In paragraph (1), leave out “Starred Questions and Unstarred Questions” and insert “Oral Questions and Questions for Short Debate”

Standing Order 44 (Notices not to be placed on Order Paper more than one month ahead)

In paragraph (2), leave out “Starred Questions” and insert “Oral Questions”.—(Baroness Amos.)

My Lords, I wonder if the House might want to consider, in conjunction with what has been said about the future of this House, that the words “Titanic” and “deckchair” do not spring to mind.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 91A:

My Lords, the Companion to the Standing Orders states that noble Lords should leave the Chamber quietly after Question Time.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar.

In Committee, the Minister assured us that all secondary schools must provide sex and relationship education as part of the basic science curriculum—it is therefore a statutory requirement. He repeated that statement in the letter that he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on 11 October. In that letter, he also raised concerns that, if PSHE were to be made a statutory part of the curriculum, it would raise intense debate and controversy among other subject champions who want their subjects to be made statutory and compulsory up to 16.

Danger of an intense debate is not a good reason not to do the right thing. However, the Minister was right that there is an intense debate, not least in yesterday’s newspapers, and there was an intense debate in your Lordships’ House, in which this argument was supported by Peers from all sides of the Chamber. Today’s amendments, which were so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on that occasion, are supported by the Advisory Centre for Education, Barnardo’s, the British Medical Association, the Family Planning Association, Brook, the Drug Education Forum, the National AIDS Trust, the National Union of Students, the NSPCC, UNICEF UK, Parentline Plus, Tacade, the Terence Higgins Trust, Womankind and the YWCA, to mention just a few in the long list of supporters. Only yesterday, the IPPR published a new report based on detailed research, the conclusion of which was that PSHE, including sex and relationship education, should become a statutory subject in all primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. It also called for more information on parenting and childcare to be offered at all extended schools, and I agree with it on that.

The evidence for concluding that the status quo, in which the subject is non-statutory, is failing comes from a number of facts. First, Britain has the highest rate of births to teenagers in Europe; the rate here is nearly one-fifth higher than that in Latvia, which is the second country in the list. The Government’s claim that the rate is falling refers to only a very tiny fall. Secondly, one in three 15 year-olds did not use a condom during their last sexual intercourse. Thirdly, levels of genital diseases—chlamydia, genital herpes and syphilis—among British teenagers have increased greatly in the past 10 years. Fourthly, over the past50 years, the average age of first sexual intercourse fell from 20 for men and 21 for women in the 1950s to16 by the mid-1990s. The proportion of young people who are sexually active before the age of consent rose from less than 1 per cent to 25 per cent in the same period. Fifthly, in 2001-02, 38 per cent of the UK’s15 year-olds had sexual intercourse—that is the highest incidence in Europe, as far as we can tell.

Julia Margo, who is a senior research fellow at the IPPR concluded:

“our education system must respond and start teaching children about the risks involved in sex before they even consider taking those risks”.

PSHE is not just about sex education; it is about a great deal more than that. The QCA describes it as,

“giving children and young people the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead confident, healthy and independent lives. It aims to help them understand how they are developing personally and socially and how to develop the skills and positive attitudes needed to tackle many of the moral, social and cultural issues that are part of growing up”.

So I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is about a great deal more than sex—it is about life skills. In a nutshell, that is what he is concerned about. But no doubt we will hear more in a moment.

Research and surveys have shown that children and their parents want PSHE taught in schools. The Government have made it clear that they believe that emotional and social skills are fundamental to school improvement, improving behaviour and attendance at school. So why will they not show that commitment by making PSHE compulsory? PSHE provides the right vehicle for delivering the Government’s agenda—the Every Child Matters outcomes for children. Typically, it has been seen to be driven by problems such as teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, smoking or obesity, which need to be solved.

At best PSHE is well co-ordinated in the school, but at worst it can be a number of topics that jostle with one another for time in the curriculum. That is not surprising, because the aspects of learning and development in PSHE are not joined up at national level. Currently, we have SEAL, or social and emotional aspects of learning, for primary schools, with SEBS, or social, emotional and behavioural skills, being piloted in secondary schools. The DfES delivers those. Some elements of drug education come from the Home Office and the healthy schools initiative comes from the Department of Health.

My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B and shall speak to Amendment No. 92. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in my place when the noble Baroness moved her amendment in Committee, as I was chairing a conference on the implementation of the Every Child Matters programme in my county of Kent. In spirit, I supported the amendment; I wrote to the Minister about it and received a very helpful reply, for which I am most grateful.

I have carefully read the Official Report of the debate. Somehow, it seems to have been entirely hijacked by sex education and health education. I admit that sex education and health education are probably much more fun than what I am going to talk about, which I believe to be another very important aspect of personal, social and health education.

When she opened the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness pointed out that the non-compulsory elements of PSHE are being crowded out of the curriculum by other compulsory subjects—especially, of course, those that will improve the school’s position in the dreaded league tables. I remember—was it 10 or 12 years ago?—with what high hopes we fought to get PSHE into the syllabus. It is sad that it is still not being well delivered in schools. I strongly support the government policy to train more PSHE teachers, but that will not solve the problem if the non-compulsory elements of PSHE are crowded out of the work programme, especially in the most vulnerable schools.

If, on reflection, the Minister is prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B, I shall be very content. If not, perhaps my amendment, Amendment No. 92, may suggest a basis for compromise or a different way to look at the problem. If accepted, it would ensure that personal and social life skills would have to be taught and learnt in all schools, at least in key stage 4. I must admit that it would be better still if they had to be learnt in all key stages, because those skills should start to be learnt early and developed throughout the child's life at school—and before. I am sorry that I did not frame my amendment to give effect to that; I may do so at the next stage of the Bill if that becomes relevant.

Personal and social life skills and education are important because they are essential in the workplace and in the family. In short, social education is about the skills that one needs to get on with other people, and personal education is about the skills that one needs to get on with oneself. A child’s ability to be comfortable in their own skin is fundamental to success in school and in later life. It is vital to develop enough self-esteem and communication skills to be able to listen, to express oneself, to negotiate, to resolve conflict, and to establish and sustain effective and positive relationships with adults and within peer groups, as these are the most crucial skills of all in life, whether in the workplace, the family or elsewhere. Most children start to learn these skills very early on in the family but, for those who are not so lucky, it is crucial that the school is ready to move in and fill the gap.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has given several examples of what is going on at present. Research shows that, in most disadvantaged families today, verbal and social ability has deteriorated since 1999—a statistic that the noble Baroness did not give us. In her studies on child health, Professor Stewart-Brown has shown that relationships in the home during childhood are a determinant of mental and physical health in childhood and in adult life, and that this effect is independent of socio-economic factors. That also applies to relationships at school. The National Autistic Society has told me that it surveyed 35,000 parents, almost all of whom put better teaching in personal and social education first in meeting the needs of autistic children.

Family breakdown, domestic violence, anti-social behaviour, school failure and bullying at school can be traced back in many cases to poor communication and negotiation skills. It is at least arguable that, for the most disadvantaged children in our society, better interpersonal and communication skills are the key that could unlock the prison of exclusion, frustration and hopelessness.

In his amendment to Clause 6, the Minister has introduced a duty on local authorities to provide or procure out-of-school activities for all young people. I welcome this proposal. Out-of-school activities are an excellent way of developing self-confidence and teaching personal and social skills, but they should be additional to, not instead of, an obligation on all schools to provide effective PSHE, especially to the most disadvantaged. Unless someone is obliged to deliver this subject, some of the most vulnerable children will fall through the net.

My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B on the need to make PSHE statutory in the national curriculum. I have lobbied the Minister from the first day he arrived in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate his commitment to the subject, as well as the developments that have been made since this matter has been his responsibility. Those developments include the Teacher’s handbook, the guidelines for the 12 subjects that make up PSHE, and the establishment of the first PSHE subject association—an association for teachers of PSHE to share examples of good practice and to promote PSHE through the healthy schools initiative. We should also appreciate that 5,000 teachers have benefited from the PSHE certification programme, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that is nowhere near enough.

Teachers must have far more understanding of the importance of PSHE teaching. I cite one example to justify that point. I recently asked a headmaster of a boys’ school in London about the PSHE programme in his school. He replied that the school did not need PSHE teaching because it was a boys’ school. I do not understand that logic, but the idea is all too prevalent that subjects such as this mean that we are talking only about girls, but of course we are not; we are talking about the need for boys, too, to have that training.

My Lords, I support AmendmentNo. 91A and agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Terrence Higgins Trust and as an ambassador for the National AIDS Trust.

Twenty years ago I launched a campaign on HIV/AIDS. Our message was basically, “Don’t die of ignorance”. We used television advertising, posters and we sent a leaflet to every household in the country. Among some it was regarded as controversial. I remember meeting the Chief Rabbi, who complimented me on the urgency of the campaign but set out no fewer than 14 different reasons why he opposed it. One of his arguments was that it encouraged promiscuity by introducing children and young people to ideas of sex entirely unknown to them. I did not agree with that argument. Indeed, I think effective prevention is—or should be—one of the goals of any Government. As it happened, we were not flooded with a vast number of complaints after the campaign—in fact we had very few indeed—but the figures showed that knowledge increased very radically and infection went down at the same time, not only HIV/AIDS infection but sexually transmitted diseases generally.

However, 20 years on, I am concerned by just how much those lessons have been forgotten. If you ran a commercial company and conducted a major advertising campaign, and then went off the air for the next 20 years, everyone would think you were fairly eccentric. But that is exactly what has happened; there has been no effective follow-up. Because of medical advances, young people may not now be dying of ignorance, but certainly they are continuing to suffer in increasing numbers because of ignorance. That is basically why I support the amendment.

The degree of ignorance in this country is of enormous concern to anyone who has looked at this issue. The European survey carried out for the European Commission, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, showed startling ignorance about how HIV/AIDS is spread and a startling avoidance of some of the most obvious methods of preventing it. It is a sad truth that for most young people today television, the media, playground gossip and rumours are their primary source of important information about issues such as pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and HIV. And yet countless surveys in this country have shown that young people would like to see taught—and better taught than it is—much more sex and relationship education. As we have been told, some aspects of sex and relationship education are currently taught as part of the biology curriculum, but we also know that maintaining good sexual health involves far more than an understanding of basic biology.

Currently, I think that provision is extraordinarily patchy. Some schools teach good-quality sex and relationship education, in others it is poor quality and some do not teach it at all. It should not be left to individual schools to make the decision or to make the case for it. It is quite a difficult case to make locally, where it does not necessarily come at the top of people’s priorities. Therefore, it is a responsibility directly upon Government to make that case nationally and locally. I should like to see the Government—this one or whichever one follows—face up to the challenge.

There is an excellent document on the website of the Department for International Development entitled Talking about Health, Sex and Pregnancy. It sets out the department’s approach to promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights in developing countries, and says:

“People need the knowledge and skills to make choices and safe decisions about their sex lives. Sex education does not increase the number of sexual partners among young people. In fact, it helps them make safer choices, including delaying first sex, and reducing the number of sexual partners they have”.

To support and fund good-quality personal, social and health education around the world, as it clearly helps young people to make sensible, safer choices to protect their own well-being, is an eminently sensible approach. It seems reasonable to ask the Government to show the same concern for young people in the United Kingdom and to ensure that all our young people get high-quality personal, social and health education as part of the national curriculum.

This is a vastly important subject; it is right that it should be raised at this stage, and I very much hope that as a result of the Bill, we can at long last do something about it.

My Lords, I support the amendments. There have already been many excellent speeches so I shall not take long.

I can see no good reason why citizenship should be statutory and PSHE should not be when there is so much overlap in relation to personal and social skills. I have seen the impact of PSHE in schools. I was a senior teacher in charge of health education, as it was then, in a school in south London, and I am now a governor of a school with a strong programme of PSHE. In both cases, the programmes have undoubtedly affected the ethos and behaviour in the schools. My noble friend Lady Gould referred to bullying; I have seen bullying tackled and strong personal and social skills developed in schools where there is a programme.

Every school should be enabled to have a strong and consistent programme of PSHE at every stage of the curriculum. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, correctly pointed out that people forget, and we need to repeat messages if young people are to retain those which are important for their health and well-being.

In my experience, five things are needed for such a programme and they may happen in all schools only if a subject is statutory. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, talked about the patchiness of the provision. This is a difficult issue because although some schools put the subject high on the agenda, others do not. The first thing that is needed is strong support from the head teacher and senior staff. Secondly, there should be a designated teacher in charge of co-ordinating PSHE. Thirdly, teacher training must be high on the agenda: teachers cannot just go into a PSHE lesson using formal methods and hope that they will succeed in instructing people how to behave. You cannot teach people how to make decisions; they have to learn how to do it themselves. Fourthly, schools need good resources to teach PSHE—again, some schools have them and make their own, some do not. Finally, there needs to be information to parents about the programme. Some schools do these things brilliantly, including the school where I am a governor. But many do not and will not until PSHE is statutory and there is a policy for it in every school.

I, too, support the formation of a teachers’ association for PSHE—it is an excellent idea. I have always strongly supported the national healthy schools standard programme. It, too, has achieved a great deal. However, it is mainly about health and not about relationships, which are part of decision-making for good health and valuable in helping young people to learn how to make decisions for their own benefit. A comprehensive approach to PSHE is required, and I strongly support it being a statutory programme in schools.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that to her five admirable requirements should be added a sixth which we appear not to dare name; that is, the absence of the religious lobby, which has prevented the matter being properly taught, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, over the past 20 years?

My Lords, I have listened to the admirable speeches that have been made on this subject and, even if I had not been persuaded by this whole debate, I certainly am now. I hope that the Minister will be, too.

As some of your Lordships will know, I was appreciative of citizenship being made a statutory part of the curriculum. I remember our debating how important it would be to teach parenting—not just how you got on with your own parents, but what your thoughts were when you became a parent and what you reckoned your responsibilities were, as well as the enjoyment you were going to get out of it. There seems to be no reason why all these subjects, which are very important in today’s world, are not clearly joined up and made a compulsory part of the curriculum. Far more importantly, they should be taught together so that they are not spread about in other parts of other people’s lessons, thereby preventing the message coming across. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Northbourne when he said that children should emerge from the education process feeling comfortable with themselves. That will be important in how they negotiate their way through the world.

However, they will learn so much within their own community about how they can be a more effective part of it and how they can be tolerant of what happens in their own groupings. Bullying was mentioned. It is horrifying to hear how often people who are involved in such activities as caring for disabled, disadvantaged or drug-ridden parents get bullied because they are not in attendance the whole time or for whatever reason they are picked on.

I hope that the Minister will give strong consideration to all three of these amendments. All three of them are important. I remember the time when the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, acted on the HIV/AIDS scare. For the first time, you could see action being taken—it had a very good effect indeed. In other areas, the same preventive measures were not taken, and we know what happened.

My Lords, we have heard several eloquent speeches in favour of the first two amendments. I shall support the third amendment, Amendment No. 92, in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He was right to emphasise pupils’ self-esteem. There are surely ways of achieving it. If children can excel at something or other in the course of their school lives, there is hope that they will emerge as confident adults. Amendment No. 92 is not in any way in competition with the other two amendments in the group. It is parallel and supports them at a different level in the scheme of the curriculum.

Unless individuals acquire self-esteem, they will be continually subject to bullying and will feel obliged, quite often, to prove their own virility, perhaps by fathering unwanted children, and will have continuing problems through the rest of their lives. What we should aim for is self-respect and individuals taking responsibility not only for their health but for their relationships. I hope that Amendment No. 92 will commend itself to the Government.

My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B and, very briefly, want to add another dimension. I support it because I think it is what the children need. I say that having listened and talked to hundreds of children during my time at Childline and having read case notes.

If the Minister looked at the lists in the Childline report, he would find that many children call about relationship problems across the whole spectrum. Some of the answers that they come up with themselves—I was reminded of this by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—they have gleaned from the media or television and are frankly sometimes bizarre. I would much rather that they had that information from a good PSHE teacher, could discuss those issues with their peer group and could be given answers with greater clarity than some of the bizarre answers about sex, social life, relationships and other families that I have heard from children down the years.

I do not want to say more than that. I should like to know what the argument is for not making PSHE teaching compulsory in schools.

My Lords, I shall first deal with Amendment No. 92, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which would make personal and social skills a foundation subject at key stage 4. While we agree that personal and social skills can and should be developed across the school curriculum, they are usually taught discretely through personal, social and health education. We are discussing that issue under Amendments Nos. 91A and 91B. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will allow me to address my remarks to PSHE, as I see the two amendments as being in competition with each other in that sense.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friends said, we have had a non-statutory framework for PSHE in place since 2000. We believe that the right course is to strengthen the teaching of PSHE and not to create a new statutory subject. On the strengthening of PSHE, we absolutely share the commitment set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friends. The issue is not whether we should strengthen PSHE significantly, because we are doing that—and I shall set out in a moment how we are. I take it for granted that we should strengthen the subject and I simply echo all the remarks that have been made about its importance. The issue under the amendments is, rather, whether at this stage it would be desirable to make it a statutory subject—or, perhaps I should say, a more statutory subject than it is at the moment because, as I said in my remarks in Committee, many aspects of PSHE are already statutory elements of the curriculum, including sex and drugs education. There are also statutory provisions relating to careers guidance and a number of statutory requirements on schools that support PSHE, such as the need for policies on bullying, promoting race equality and child protection.

To make PSHE statutory would be a complicated business of unpicking existing statutory provisions to replace them with a new one. But there is another aspect—and I shall be frank on this matter. Later we shall discuss making science in a different way statutory and compulsory. We have had debates about modern languages in that regard. This is not the only subject about which there is an intense debate on making it statutory and compulsory; it applies to many other subjects. If we were to take this step, I am sure that we would face an equivalent argument that we should follow exactly the same course in respect of a number of other subjects. That would get us into a further set of very prescriptive requirements on schools from the centre of a kind which in other contexts noble Lords have argued against throughout our debates on the Bill. We need to balance the steps that it is right to take to improve the take-up of PSHE in schools with the specific issue of whether at this stage it is right to make it a further statutory requirement on schools.

In respect of what we are doing to promote PSHE—

My Lords, will the Minister clarify what he meant by “the other subjects” for which, as I took it, equal argument could be made? It is a very important statement. I am sure that he has a list of subjects and that he will be able to measure the Government’s case by looking at the strength of those which he thinks are as strong as this one.

My Lords, we shall debate next the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on science. The noble Lord may wave his hand but he asked me a question which I seek to answer. On the previous day of Report, amendments on modern foreign languages were discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, whom I am glad to see is present, is considering that issue. There is strong support from a wide spectrum for a more prescriptive regime. Every time I meet my colleagues representing the history and geography communities there are calls, including in debates in this House, for those to be statutory and compulsory subjects up to age 16. While I completely understand the strength of the argument for PSHE and I do not seek to reduce its force, it is fair to say that those representing many other subjects make strong and pressing cases for—

My Lords—

My Lords, I am not sure that I should continue giving way, as we are on Report. The noble Lord has had his say.

My Lords, I asked the Minister which were the subjects for which an equally forceful argument could be made in the interests of children. I am thinking of the interests of the child.

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report. Noble Lords had a good chance to speak before the Minister answered.

My Lords, other noble Lords have argued that the case for other subjects is equally strong. The noble Lord may not form that view, but strong views on those subjects are held.

We have actively sought to improve PSHE. My noble friend Lady Gould mentioned the healthy school standard, as did my noble friend Lady Massey. Our target is that over half of schools should have achieved the healthy school standard by the end of this year. Some 48 per cent have already achieved it. I believe that we shall exceed the target of over half achieving it by the end of this year. More than 75 per cent of schools are engaged in the programme. To achieve the healthy school standard—in which weare investing more than £12 million this year, up from £5 million in 2003-04—the first criterion is evidence of how the school delivers personal, social and health education, including sex and relationship education and education on drugs, including alcohol, tobacco and volatile substance abuse. The healthy school status guide is made available to all schools. As I say, 48 per cent of schools have achieved the healthy school standard and many others are coming through. All the opening sections of the guide relate to PSHE. It states that a healthy school:

“1. uses the PSHE framework to deliver a planned programme of PSHE, in line with DfES/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) guidance;

2. monitors and evaluates PSHE provision to ensure the quality of teaching and learning;

3. assesses pupils’ progress and achievement in line with QCA guidance:

4”—

this relates to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—

has a named member of staff responsible for PSHE provision with status, training and appropriate senior management support within the school. A Healthy School … involves professionals from appropriate external agencies to create specialist teams to support PSHE delivery and to improve skills and knowledge, such as a school nurse, sexual health outreach workers and drug education advisers”.

The noble Baroness will know that we have a target of every cluster of schools having a school nurse in place by 2010. A healthy school also,

“ensures provision of appropriate PSHE professional development opportunities for staff … has mechanisms in place to ensure all pupils’ views are reflected in curriculum planning, teaching and learning, and the whole school environment, including those with special educational needs and specific health conditions, as well as disaffected pupils, young carers and teenage parents”.

So the child should be at the absolute centre of how a healthy school plans its PSHE activities.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all other noble Lords for their supportive remarks. The picture that I painted through the statistics that I listed in my remarks is one of ignorance, with major serious consequences for the lives of many young people in this country. It affects not just individuals but the country as a whole. We need to take the long view and use, at this point, the lever of compulsion, because none of the other levers has worked. I am afraid that the Minister has not convinced me that the levers that he is proposing will work.

He painted a very confusing picture of how schools are delivering elements of PSHE and how they will do so in the future. I welcome what the Government are doing to strengthen the teaching, but making the subject compulsory would give more power and impetus to that programme. On the question of other subjects, I do not believe that any other subject has the same claim to have such an effect on young people’s lives as PSHE. This is about a child’s right to information.

If there is one thing our education system must do, it is to prepare our children for real life, and PSHE does that. It helps people to make the right decisions every day of their lives. I do not make decisions about quadratic equations every day of my life; people do not make decisions about the lifestyle of the frog or how much coffee is grown in Brazil every day of their lives. But the majority of citizens of this country make decisions every single day of their lives—large decisions and small decisions—which could be affected by good-quality PSHE education in our schools. They have a right to that. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 92:

My Lords, I shall be delighted to meet the noble Lord.

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 95:

My Lords, we are minded to support this amendment. We accept that it does not make all three sciences compulsory, but it gives children a choice in how to study science.

I am afraid that we do not agree with comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the Twenty First Century Science curriculum. It is a perfectly appropriate option for some young people. We are, however, concerned about the drop in the number of young people choosing science at A-level. For certain young people, studying separate sciences would be preferable. While the new science curriculum is so young and new, it would be dangerous to get rid of the three sciences—not allowing young people to make that choice—as it is evaluated.

There may be some practical difficulties. Not every school currently has people suitably qualified to teach the three separate sciences. However, if the Government are serious about encouraging schools to work together in federations, in groups within a trust and with colleges in the local environment, I see no reason why the separate sciences should not be offered by that group of schools to a young person who wants to take them. He may not be able to study each under a qualified teacher in his own school, but I am sure that, by working together in the sorts of ways that the Government have already envisaged, schools would be able to do it. They do so already, with their sixth-form provision; schools often offer subjects in the sixth form by working together so that some subjects are delivered in one school and some by the school down the road. That could also be done at key stage 4.

What we really should do is train more properly qualified science teachers, but will we achieve that by taking away the option to study the three separate sciences? I am not convinced about that. In the early stages of the Twenty First Century Science curriculum, until we are sure that it will increase the number of young people taking separate sciences at A-level, which they will need if they are going to go on to science careers, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is why we are minded to support this amendment.

My Lords, I apologise to the House because this is the first time I have addressed it on the Education and Inspections Bill. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber earlier will realise that I do so with a particular interest in the new science syllabus, Twenty First Century Science.

I have taken the Times for all my adult life, although I try to read other papers as well. I think some of its front-page headlines have become pretty silly, but when I read its headline on Wednesday, 11 October—“Science elite rejects new GCSE as ‘fit for the pub’”—I exploded. I thought of cancelling my subscription, but my wife said she enjoys other parts of the newspaper.

Twenty First Century Science has been a long time in gestation. It fits admirably with the chapter about science education in the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, Science and Society. I chaired the sub-committee, and we did not initially intend to have a chapter about education. However, we received so much evidence from all sides that much of the problem of the alienation of the public from science starts in the schools that we decided that we needed to address the subject as part of our wider study. I am very glad we did, because the people who devised this new syllabus—they were working independently from us—told me very early on that they applauded us for addressing the subject. We agreed that, as the new syllabus emerged, it would closely reflect the philosophy of the Select Committee.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe—who let me know five minutes before Questions that she does not agree with me on this—praised Sir Richard Sykes for his view. I have enormous respect for Sir Richard, and I had two long meetings with him in the past week. In the end, he agreed that we are fundamentally trying to achieve the same objective. However, not for the first time, Sir Richard is a bit out on a limb. When the Times reported that the science elite opposes this syllabus, it seemed to ignore that the Royal Society—its former president, the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, took part in Questions—the Institute of Physics, the Royal Institute of Chemistry, the Institute of Biology and the British Association for the Advancement of Science have all roundly supported the new syllabus as a valuable step in the right direction.

My noble friend suggested to me that the new syllabus fails because it does not meet the need for pupils to study the three sciences separately. I must say to my noble friend, with the greatest of respect—as they sometimes say in the courts—she has misdirected herself. I have a note from the Nuffield Foundation, which with the University of York has been the main intellectual powerhouse behind the new syllabus. It states clearly:

“Science education in schools has two jobs to do: to provide a worthwhile education for all preparing them for adult and working life”,

and,

“to lay the foundations for more advanced study in science”.

It goes on:

“Twenty First Century Science does both in ways that is attracting international interest—not least because the approach is based on a ten year programme of research and development backed up with trials and evaluation”.

Those promoting the syllabus have engaged the scientific community right from the start—names that are nationally known and others who are specialists in their special subject and may not be so well known. They have been a source—

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly, as my noble friend has suggested that I am wrong. I hope that I made it clear in Starred Questions earlier this afternoon that, in relation to the Twenty First Century Science syllabus, the separate sciences will be offered only to high achievers from 2008. I am asking this afternoon that we give all children, whatever their academic ability, the entitlement to learn the three separate sciences up to GCSE. I do not think that I can make myself clearer.

My Lords, I do not think that there is much difference between my noble friend and me on that. What I say from my study of this subject is that for many pupils the academic study of three separate sciences would be difficult.

The Nuffield Foundation writes:

“Alongside our scientific literacy GCSE we are offering two versions of additional science to prepare for more advanced study. One is more academic—the other more applied and work related. The applied science GCSE has turned out to be very successful in many schools—including schools in ‘deprived’ areas. In London there are a lot of schools in Hackney, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets that have adopted the programme. Haggerston School in Hackney was a particularly successful pilot school.

A very important point is that by offering a separate, academic science GCSE we have been able to make it more conceptually coherent and intellectually challenging”—

I stress the words “intellectually challenging”—

“than the National Curriculum that has just been replaced.

Within the programme”—

and this is where perhaps my noble friend has not fully understood the nature of the new syllabus—

“biology, chemistry and physics are presented distinctly and the option of taking three separate science GCSEs is available”.

Who can quarrel with that? It seems an immensely sensible approach. My noble friend shakes her head. You cannot teach the rigours of the separate sciences unless pupils are motivated to take them and understand how they will fit into their lives. That is the principal benefit of this new syllabus and it relates to why so many of us have shared concerns about the reduction in the number of pupils taking science A-levels and those going to university, and the decline in the number of university courses available. We have all been concerned about this and, as we pointed out in the Science and Society report, the disenchantment starts in the schools because the syllabus has not encouraged children to understand the nature of science.

The new syllabus does that and it should be roundly supported. I do not disagree with my noble friend’s second amendment, Amendment No. 96, which seems to express it perfectly. It states:

“a pupil in the fourth key stage who attained at least level six in assessments in science for the purposes of the National Curriculum at the end of the third key stage shall be entitled to follow a course of study in science which leads to separate qualifications in the three sciences”.

That sounds very sensible. We certainly need the rigour—the hard graft—necessary in physics, chemistry and biology if we are to create the next generation of scientists to take over from those who are currently carrying the load.

That syllabus has a great deal to commend it. I was grateful for the support of the Minister and from all parts of the House this afternoon at Question Time, because this is a notable advance. If I may say so, it is not presented in a way more suitable for the pub than the classroom. Unfortunately, that was a sound bite that the press found themselves totally unable to resist, so it was repeated in a great many newspapers and other media sources, but it is not true. The new syllabus simply would not have the support of so many eminent scientists and scientific bodies if that were all it was. It is much better than that and it deserves our support.

My Lords, I very much support the amendment. I find myself extremely confused. In the letter just read out from the people at Nuffield, the word “alongside” was used—alongside the new syllabus, as I understand it, there will be two further grades: one that is more applied and one that is more academic. As I understand the letter, all of those will be offered at GCSE alongside one another. What does “alongside” mean? Does it mean that people may choose whether to take the syllabus intended to make them scientifically literate but not scientists or take either a more practical application of science or the full, rigorous, three separate subject academic and experimental science to which we are accustomed? Or is it that, in some schools, it will be legitimate to offer only the scientific literacy syllabus, which seems to be more a matter of discussion than laboratory work?

I need that cleared up straight away before I can decide whether to vote with the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I confess that I lack any expertise in this area and my mind is rather transfixed on modern foreign languages right now, but I was involved in this matter when I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I have great sympathy with the concern of the noble Baroness to develop our capability in sciences at the highest level. I should like to clear my mind on some points.

Reference has been made to A-levels. One can take the individual sciences at A-level. The three amendments concern key stage 4. They state that if a pupil has reached level 6 at key stage 4, he or she may have the option of pursuing not general science but the individual sciences. My understanding is that the only duty of the school in relation to key stage 4 science is that the pupil should have followed the programme of study in the 21st century science curriculum. There is no obligation to take the GCSE in it, but they must cover the programme of study. The expectation is that they will do the single-science paper, but they can take any other single science they wish at GCSE. They can, for example, take a single science as an additional science, which can be in an individual science.

If the pupil chooses at the end of key stage 3 to study the individual sciences, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop that pupil taking the GCSE in all three sciences, provided that he or she has covered the syllabus of the 21st-century science. In doing those three sciences, apart from some geology and astronomy, he or she will have done so. It therefore seems that the opportunity is there for the pupil to do an individual science, and I am keen that there should be that opportunity.

When I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, I used to knock respectfully at the door of the Royal Society and ask about the individual sciences. There is such a gap between general science at A-level and individual sciences that we are not getting the through put to A-level from the other sciences. The Royal Society used to tell me that it was so important for pupils to have a general understanding of science and that it was worried that, if individual sciences were offered, girls would choose biology and not do physics or chemistry. I used to leave abashed and defeated and say that I could not contest against the Royal Society. I understand that the situation has changed since then and that the only obligation now is to have covered the syllabus for the general science—the 21st-century science. Provided the pupil does that, they can do all three sciences or take the syllabus for the general science for one and do one or two of the others. There are many options.

There is nothing between my objectives and those of the noble Baroness, who says that the cut-off point should be whether the child has reached level 6 at the end of key stage 3. That is a bit above average, but nothing spectacular. When I was revising the national curriculum, there were 10 levels. I recommended reducing it to eight levels, because the high levels were covered by the GCSE. The noble Baroness proposes level 6. As I say, that is above average, but nothing spectacular. I think I agree with the noble Lord that a general understanding of science is the important part of education. I would regret it if level 6 was regarded as adequate.

My main point—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; indeed, I am watching the officials’ eyes and mouths to see whether I am getting it all wrong—is that there are opportunities to pursue the individual sciences. I cannot contest with the noble Lord or comment on the value of 21st-century science, but I take his word for it. I wanted to clarify what I believe to be the reality of the options.

My Lords, there are clearly educational needs for at least two kinds of course in this area. One is to provide an understanding of science for those who will not become specialist scientists. There is a desperate need for that in our culture. Many of the issues on which voters will vote in the next election and in subsequent elections have a scientific content that requires a basic understanding, for example, of where we go on GM crops or nuclear power—I could list the issues. There is a great need for such education. Equally, there is a need for education in specialist science areas. The question is how we reconcile the two. As ever, my noble friend Lord Dearing is right—we are not divided over the objectives; the question is how we get there.

My worry is that the amendment would in effect compel the school to provide, in so far as it entitles the child. The alternative, of course, is to compel the child by loading up the core curriculum, which is what we used to do. What this amendment proposes would create the same problem that affects modern languages. We want to persuade people to opt for these courses, and the way to do that is not to compel the school to provide them but to ensure that teaching is improved and is of the highest quality. I have to say that the statistics given earlier about the recruitment of science teachers are very important. My feeling is that we tackle the issue in the wrong way by compelling schools to provide. We should look at ways to improve the quality of science education so that it becomes attractive.

My Lords, I should like to add one or two points. I agree with quite a lot of the discussion that has been put forward today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that we need the type of course being suggested. Having looked into this—not in detail, I must admit—and having spent the past 40 years involved in syllabus corrections and curricula dealings in chemistry, I can look at it with a degree of objectivity.

One problem is quite simple: we have two different sections of the community, as we have heard. We need to recognise that there is a need within the public to understand science. However, my experience has been that the correlation between that course and the A-level is a big step. A big difficulty that we face is that if we are to do this course as well, we should reconsider the A-level. This cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. In response to a question earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the Minister said that a larger number of people are taking AS-level, but those people do not necessarily go on to take A-level. They are encouraged to take AS- level because, say, chemistry attracts them. When they start AS-level or A-level chemistry, they find that it is not the same animal at all and that it is a much more difficult animal to deal with, so they very often drop it like a hot potato at that stage.

We cannot consider the curricula in bits, as we do. There is a continuum that must go from GCSE to AS-level to A-level and, perhaps I may dare say, to universities. In many ways, universities are the culprits in this because they set the standards of entry. Very often, they set the standards by saying, “We want the old A-level type of result” and do not recognisethe problems which have now become inherent in the whole concept of modern day society; namely, that we must educate people in a general way and then allow for specialisation to come forward. I have great sympathy with the suggestion being made. I believe that the only way we will deal with the present AS/A-level is by having specialisation at earlier stages. In my mind, the correct answer is to look now at the AS and the A-level.

My Lords, I should like to put a question to the Minister. I was a schoolboy science enthusiast and had my first chemistry set at the age of eight or nine. I have been stimulated by this tremendously important debate. Conducive to the ends of this debate, what is being done to enable pupils to have access to science laboratories during the school day and after school so that we can motivate and engage them to go into further and higher levels of study? It was valuable for me to be able to go to my science lab to conduct experiments at break time all through my schooldays. I hope that that question is helpful.

My Lords, this has been an immensely useful debate. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whose speech I greatly appreciated, that if every time I saw a tendentious front page of a newspaper I cancelled my subscription to it, I would be reduced now to reading House of Lords Hansard. Important as that publication is, one probably needs a slightly larger diet in order to survive from day to day. But the point that he made about the misreporting of the new science syllabus was correct: it was very poorly reported in the publication to which the noble Lord referred.

I was delighted to hear the support that has come from all sides of the House for the science syllabus. We believe, as do Nuffield, Wellcome and others, that it could play a very substantial role in boosting interest in science among young people and in making it more interesting and exciting to teach. Motivation is all when seeking to engage young people in an interest for new subjects, in the way that the noble Earl described. We stand by that syllabus, which has been well received in the schools.

I am able to offer a correction to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It is the first time in my life it has ever happened and I simply cannot resist doing so. I have received advice from the Box that although it is true that schools are obliged to ensure that students follow the programme of study, there is also a statutory duty on schools to put pupils in for public examinations for which they have been prepared. Therefore there is a duty on schools to put pupils in for at least the first of the science GCSEs. Wherever possible—which will be in the great majority of cases—we wish pupils to be put in also for the second general science GCSE. Indeed, we are about to introduce a performance indicator from next year which will publicly identify, school by school, the proportion of pupils who are entered for the two science GCSEs. This is in response to concerns that the take-up of the second science GCSE needed to be improved.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but we need a little clarification on these Benches which will be quite crucial to the decision that we make. Did I understand the Minister to say that students who have taken the Nuffield science course—for which, I repeat, we have enormous respect—cannot take separate sciences at GCSE?

No, my Lords, absolutely not. I shall come to the issue of the three individual sciences in a moment. Pupils have an entitlement to the two new science GCSEs and the programme of study that goes with it.

As to the issue of the three individual sciences, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is seeking to promote, there is a great deal of unity of purpose across the Chamber. I need to describe our policy because it accurately reflects what both the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, set out in their criteria for how we should approach the subject.

Taking up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made earlier, there has been no statutory entitlement to the three individual sciences. Before 1988, in the national curriculum there was no entitlement whatever—that was part of the great problem with the education system. There was an entitlement to the double science course thereafter, but not an entitlement to the three individual sciences.

However, when we sought systematically to review the improvements we needed to make to school science and to ensure an adequate supply of students going through the system, and published in March our Science & innovation investment framework 2004-2014, which my department conducted with the Treasury—it is a detailed publication which owes a great deal to the work of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I pay tribute to the work that he did—we identified precisely the point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham: that for those students who perform more highly in science and wish to proceed to AS and A-level, the individual sciences were likely to prepare them better than the general science GCSE courses, and that we should seek to extend the availability of the individual sciences alongside the new science in society syllabus and the new general science GCSEs.

The document Science & innovation investment framework 2004-2014 set out very significant new entitlements that we intend to introduce to the three individual sciences. It sets out two which are precisely captured in the noble Baroness’s AmendmentsNos. 96 and 97. First, those pupils who achieve level 6 or above, who are the higher performing pupils, in the key stage 3 test at the age of 14, should from 2008 have an entitlement to study the three individual sciences.

To give your Lordships an idea of the scale of the entitlement we are introducing, this year 41 per cent of pupils achieved level 6 or above in science—that is 259,000 students. As of this year, only about 45,000 students are doing the three individual sciences at GCSE. So we are increasing from about 45,000 to 259,000 over the course of the next two years the group of students who will have an entitlement to study the three individual sciences. As I say, that is about 40 per cent of the cohort going into GCSE which is a very generous interpretation of the group described by the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Lewis.

Our second policy announcement was that comprehensive schools which have a specialism in science, of which there are nearly 300, should also, from 2008, have a requirement to make available the three individual sciences, on the grounds that in addition to schools already offering the three individual sciences—and quite a number of state schools do—they would have the greatest capacity to have teachers in physics, chemistry and biology to offer the individual sciences. That highlights the type of networking and cluster-type arrangements which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described. We see them as hubs in their communities for excellence in science education; they are the schools most likely to be able to offer the three individual sciences, and to do so on a collaborative basis with other schools.

That is a very substantial addition to the entitlement that will be available to the three individual sciences. We believe that that very ambitious programme of extending entitlement to the three individual sciences is as far as it is practical for us to go at the moment, given the supply of teachers in the system. Despite the big incentives we have put in the system, which have led to significant increases in the recruitment of science teachers in all three disciplines, it is still not sufficient for us to have a universal entitlement in all schools and for all pupils to study the three individual sciences, much as I would like to make that available now.

As of January this year, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that 26 per cent of schools for 11 to 16 year-olds had no physics specialist, while 12 per cent had no chemistry specialist. We are significantly increasing the supply of both physics and chemistry teachers; we have set targets in the documents to which I referred earlier for a very significant further increase in both disciplines, and are increasing the golden hellos and other payments to encourage graduates to come forward. But I do not believe it would be appropriate and right for us to put in legislation requirements on schools which they simply cannot meet at present.

While Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 reflect accurately the policy we have set out to increase the availability of the three individual sciences and to extend the entitlement substantially in the way in which I have described—up to about 40 per cent of the cohort over and above those who can do the general science—to make it a universal entitlement at one stroke, as the noble Baroness proposes in Amendment No. 95, would simply put a burden and a requirement on schools which they are unable to meet. It is much better to go down the path described by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of having a great increase in the supply of science teachers, focused particularly on the science specialist schools, and then seeing how, from those hubs, we can spread out a steadily wider availability of the three individual sciences.

I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 95. If she does, we will simply be unable to support it because I cannot say that the school system can deliver the objective she wants. However, with regard to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, under Clause 71(5)(b) the Secretary of State has a power to prescribe entitlements in respect of science within the curriculum. If she does not press those two amendments, I will undertake to see how the requirements that the Secretary of State prescribes reflect our policy on the further extension in availability of the three individual sciences. I believe that that will secure the objective that she is seeking in respect of her second and third amendments. However, as I say, Amendment No. 95 is simply not deliverable on the current scale of resources and the current capacity of schools.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I accept that there is a critical shortage of properly qualified science teachers. But my concern is that as long as the three separate sciences are available only to those high achievers from the age of 14, we will have even fewer qualified science teachers for the future.

There is a downward spiral in terms of the number of science teachers. I appreciate that the Government are putting a number of incentives in place, and I applaud that. But the fact that there is a lack of qualified teachers should not be a reason why fewer pupils are allowed to study all three of the separate sciences.

The new curriculum may offer high achievers the opportunity or the entitlement to study the separate sciences, but my belief is that all children, no matter what their academic capability, should be allowed to study the three separate sciences up to the age of 16. That has always been the case in the independent sector. It is tragic that we are reducing children’s life chances in the state sector by making this possible only for high achievers.

I have never said that I am against the new curriculum for the 21st century, but having one system alongside the other is a problem. Unless we properly prepare students in all three separate sciences, or give them that opportunity right from the start, how will they then be able to go on to A-levels and universities such as Imperial College to become the next scientists and science teachers of the 21st century?

We are asking for a simple shift on the part of Government to allow all children, whatever their capability, to learn and develop their aspirations and inspirations in terms of the future of science. I therefore welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support. Children should be able to make the choice to learn those three separate sciences up to the age of 16.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness in her winding-up, but I thought that I had indicated to her that the Government had convinced us and that we would not support her amendment.

My Lords, that is a great pity. We are denying more than half of children who are learning science in school the opportunity to study the separate sciences. It is why parents from whatever background are doing everything possible to move their children out of the state sector and into the independent sector, where they are being given greater life chances. That is a tragic situation. I shall test the opinion of the House, because I believe that what I am asking for is reasonable.

moved Amendment No. 98:

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, regarding the IGCSE, the international baccalaureate and AS-levels. I touched on some of those points at Second Reading. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Amendment No. 99, standing in my name in this group, which also returns to an issue that I raised at Second Reading and concerns youngsters who may not be able to aspire to the levels of attainment that the noble Baroness has just outlined.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet Mr Mike Bell, who saw the Minister’s officials, along with colleagues from the Education Policy Network. I readily accept that some tentative steps have been made in the Bill to move in the direction that I have argued for.

As at Second Reading, in this amendment I hope to put the spotlight on the 30 per cent of pupils who leave education at 16 with few or no useful qualifications—ordinary young people who have simply found education difficult. Later in their lives, you may meet them as loving parents, excellent mechanics, first-rate shop assistants, skilful lorry drivers and a host of other careers that are vital to the economic and social life of our nation. Lest too rosy a picture of this group should lull your Lordships into complacency, consider that some 80 per cent of the prison population are from this group and some become the disaffected youth that so many towns-people fear on their streets at night.

I would like to tell your Lordships about real young people whose names have been changed, but whose stories have been told to me by practising teachers: of Janie, who worked hard every lesson, often got the work right in class, but who always did badly in tests and exams, however hard she worked, and of Bethany, who would often complete the work the teacher had set, but most of her answers were wrong. Both have now left school and are trainees in hair and beauty salons. Or I can tell you of Jamie, who arrives in lessons so eager to get his hands on things that he often gets into trouble for taking the teachers’ materials; or of Joe, who is expected by his GCSE entitlement to work out the percentage efficiency of a light bulb. He has struggled with ratio and never grasped percentages despite hard work by himself and his teachers and the word “efficiency” means nothing to him. And Ben hated school so much that he would work only under threat of punishment, but is now successfully engaged on an engineering apprenticeship. Those are just a few voices from around 200,000 young people who, in one year group, had academic abilities lying between the 5th and 30th percentiles.

The aim of the amendment is to give all those pupils the chance to leave school with certificates showing what they can do. For many in this group, the current system tells them only what they cannot do. Grades E, F and G at GCSE are of no value as entry to courses, and employers consider them to be “fail” grades. Around 55 per cent of pupils achieve five A to C grades, but that means that 45 per cent do not.

As I have indicated, this Education and Inspections Bill goes some way towards addressing the issue, and I welcome the fact that the new specialist diplomas will be available at level 1, as well as at the GCSE equivalent, level 2. I also welcome the introduction of the new functional skills, which should enable teachers to focus on the basics of maths and English with pupils for whom algebra and Shakespeare may be inappropriate. However, these new courses are not yet available and, while there is no guarantee that they will meet the needs of non-academic pupils, I ask the Minister, in responding to the amendment, at least to flesh out some of the detail of what they will involve and give us some kind of timetable for their implementation. We need to remember that the same institutions—the Department for Education and Skills and the QCA—which are drawing up the new courses were also responsible for the previous curriculum, which sadly has humiliated many of these less able young people, turned them off education and, in some cases, turned them against society.

Our gifted civil servants never were in the bottom set at school. They have probably never been in regular personal contact with the people whose plight I am trying to highlight in the amendment. When the national curriculum was introduced in 1988, teachers found it so impractical and prescriptive that in 1993 the Government very sensibly commissioned my noble friend Lord Dearing—then Sir Ron Dearing—to make it more manageable. As he indicated in our earlier debate on the previous set of amendments, he slimmed it down considerably.

The curriculum proposals in the Bill are further attempts to patch and mend the national curriculum to meet the needs of real children found in real classrooms by real teachers, rather than the intellectual model of a pupil which seems to stalk the corridors of the Department for Education and Skills. Teachers tell me that you have to teach these youngsters regularly for some time before you come to terms with the fact that they are not simply misbehaving. They tell me that, for some students, however many times you teach some topics, however helpful the worksheet and however interesting the presentation, some pupils continually report, “I've no idea what you are talking about, sir”.

Classroom experience and research evidence shows that the range of abilities in the average classroom is far wider than is reflected in current GCSE courses. Surely it is time to admit these facts and offer all pupils courses that stretch their abilities and also give them the chance to succeed. After all, the word “education” is derived from Latin. Its meaning is clear: to draw out; to lead forth. For education to work, it must start from where pupils are today and lead them forward.

I suppose that if I could caricature the amendment in one phrase, it would be “Let them succeed”. The problem that we see today derives from the concept of “entitlement”. It is used in the national curriculum and we have heard much about it this afternoon. The Minister may try to persuade the House that my amendment undermines the entitlement of all pupils to a broad and balanced curriculum. If he does tell us that, he will be wrong on two counts. First, my amendment applies to key stage 4—to 14 year-olds. It does not reduce the breadth of the curriculum at key stage 3—the first three years at secondary school. Secondly, it does not allow pupils to opt out of core subjects. It simply gives them the right to follow, for example, a course in mathematics to which they are suited.

This so-called entitlement is a dangerous corruption of the use of the word in common parlance. To most of us, if we have an entitlement, it means that we can choose to have it or not. In education, however, entitlement means compulsion. All pupils must follow this or that course. Let us imagine that when you joined a gymnasium you were “entitled”—for which we should read “compelled”—to run 10 miles on the treadmill and lift 100 pound weights. For some, that would be physical education; for others—probably people like me—it would be a disaster. It has been the same in education for 15 years. Some aspects of this entitlement have driven some pupils to despair, disengagement and disaffection. Any sensible gymnasium assesses each member and gives them a training programme designed for their particular needs. Although that cannot be done to the same degree at school, my amendment would move the curriculum in that direction.

Whenever teachers talk about their work, the same themes repeat themselves: staff leaving through stress, poor classroom behaviour, disaffection with learning and dumbing down of academic standards. Employers complain of skill shortages and low standards of literacy and numeracy. At first these appear as separate issues, but a closer look reveals deep connections. They all result from treating pupils as though they were similar.

Taking an average form-group of 30 pupils just starting their GCSE courses in year 10, their key stage 3 results from earlier in the summer tell us that there are three pupils at level 3 or below, five at level 4, 11 at level 5—the average for this age group—eight at level 6 and three at level 7 or above. Those figures may not mean much to the lay observer, so translating them into notional academic ages reveals that the average form starting at year 10 contains three eight year-olds, five 11 year-olds, 11 14 year-olds—the age of most year 10s—but also eight 16 year-olds and three pupils with the same thinking skills as good university students. That is a remarkably high range. We would find it strange if we were to have 11 year-olds and 16 year-olds in the same class, but, in terms of academic age, that is the pattern at age 14 in every non-selective school in the country. The idea that we should be offering all pupils variations on the same course, as at present, is simply nonsense.

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 103 to encourage the use of the international baccalaureate. My interest in this comes, first, from the fact that my elder son insisted on doing the international baccalaureate and it has served him very well, and secondly, and more objectively, I was a member of the European Union Select Committee’s Sub-Committee F when we examined labour mobility. It was quite striking to note that one of the obstacles for UK people with children moving into jobs in Europe was the non-recognition of the leaving exam. The international baccalaureate is the leaving examination in 124 countries and in almost all European countries.

In particular I want to remind the House of the evidence of the CBI in this matter. It is on page 23 of the evidence attached to the report. The CBI points out that,

“individuals in families are more concerned about the education implications of mobility”,

and that,

“many families like the opportunity to go and stay in another EU Member State, they want their children to attend a local school and acquire various language skills. They can actually see that as a very strong benefit of a relocation”.

But they do not move because their children's secondary education might be undermined by having to do a different examination system. The CBI goes on to state that,

“many employees find the international baccalaureate helpful because it is broad enough and deep enough to be able to go to universities in most European countries”.

Increasingly, UK universities are happy to use the international baccalaureate as an entry qualification. I think Oxford and Cambridge like it better because it is more rigorous and broader. My noble friend will know that it is also flexible enough to allow different levels of mobility within it. Today's Education Guardian says that,

“Wales has embraced the baccalaureate and is rolling out its own version”.

It is not always the case that where Wales leads the UK follows, but perhaps this ought to be one of those occasions.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Alton. I draw attention to the fact that the argument that he used applies to boys in particular. I believe that the average figure for gaining five GCSEs is 55 per cent, but for boys the figure is much nearer to 45 per cent. I should also point out that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 101.

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 100, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, I shall speak also to other amendments in the group. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, we support Amendment No. 103. It has long been our policy on these Benches that we should broaden out the offering to pupils aged 16, 17 and 18 and the international baccalaureate provides that.

However, we do not support Amendment No. 98. We feel that it looks back to the days of GCEs when there was a division between the sheep and the goats: GCEs for the brighter pupils and CSEs for the less bright pupils. On the whole, we feel that the IGCSE is based on the old GCE standard and is not necessarily appropriate as a broad examination across a whole range.

We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 99, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but our policy is to implement the Tomlinson report which would have brought this about. The amendment to which I want to speak tries to bring a little more flexibility into the system of specialised diplomas that is being introduced. I raised this issue in Committee and since then I have had an opportunity to meet the QCA and Ken Boston to discuss what is being proposed under the specialised diplomas. I now have a much better understanding of what is intended and how the process will work.

I tabled this amendment again largely because I want to continue to register the discontent on these Benches with the Government’s interpretation of the Tomlinson report. The new specialised diplomas, if studied through to level 3, which is the A-level equivalent standard, will incorporate many of the Tomlinson proposals: the broader base of studies with a continuing role for maths and English, side-by-side, for example, with engineering and the need for extended essays or the practical equivalent in terms of a completed piece of artwork or an artefact. We applaud that. We are pleased that these generally welcome aspects of the Tomlinson report are to be incorporated into the diplomas but we are disturbed about the degree to which the choice between diploma and the GCSE and A-level route is likely to be made at 14 rather than at 16, or indeed at 13 in terms of choices to be made at key stage 4.

As presented in the Bill, key stage 4 is when the routes divide and pupils are given the choice of the GCSE route, which leads on to A-level, or the specialised diploma route. We are all agreed that it is necessary to broaden the secondary school offering and provide more courses with practical, hands-on content so that the many who learn by doing rather than just by theorising may be better motivated to continue their studies. That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Nevertheless, it was intended that there should be an opportunity not only for the demotivated teenager to study construction skills or motor mechanics but for the aspiring engineer also to get his hands dirty with some practical studies if he wished to. As it is, with the key stage 4 diploma courses being the equivalent of five to six GCSEs, there is the opportunity neither for the construction skills student to study history nor for the aspiring civil engineer to study construction skills.

The Minister will emphasise, I am sure, the degree to which students may switch courses at 16 and that the diploma courses at level 3 will be an A-level equivalent and provide a good route to university entrance, while the student who has taken the diploma course rather than GCSE may be able to proceed to AS and A-levels. How many actually will switch at this stage is yet to be seen. However, it is very depressing to read in the Times Educational Supplement of 13 October that many schools and local authorities are currently planning to ignore these new specialised diplomas in the hope, as the headline has it, that they will “just go away”.

High-achieving schools focusing on GCSE and A-levels fear that if they shift their focus they will lose their current high position in league tables. Low-achieving schools are concentrating on raising their league table position and, again, do not wish to divert effort and training into the new, untried areas. I hope that that report in the Times Educational Supplement was unduly alarmist and that things may change when the programme begins to roll out in 2008. As things stand, however, we are fearful that diplomas will be seen as an appropriate route only for pupils who are not bright enough to take GCSE and achieve an A-to-C grade and that those who switch from the GCSE route to the diploma route at 16 will be those deemed to have poor prospects for A-level.

A key proposal in the Tomlinson report was for all pupils to have the possibility of studying the practical side-by-side with the more theoretical. The present proposals do not fulfil that ambition. This amendment has been tabled in the—I suspect rather vain—hope that the Government will even at this late hour introduce more flexibility into the choices available.

My Lords, Amendment No. 98 would give governing bodies the power to introduce IGCSE courses in English, maths and science and add the IGCSE to the list of qualifications acceptable for the achievement and attainment tables. This issue has been raised on several occasions during debates on the Bill in this House and in another place. We have given it a great deal of thought.

The IGCSE is a reputable qualification which some schools in this country clearly regard as beneficial to their students. However, we have a national statutory curriculum in place to ensure that all pupils receive a broad and rich curriculum. The Government must stand by the requirements of that curriculum. We would need to be sure, before we could allow the IGCSE to be used in state schools, that it met essential requirements in this regard.

In order to take that forward, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to study the IGCSE and to give us its advice. We have now received its report. My right honourable friend proposes to ask the QCA—with the agreement of Cambridge Assessment and Edexcel, the two awarding bodies offering the IGCSE—to publish its report so that the Government can invite a wider consultation within the education community and beyond on the IGCSE’s use in the maintained sector. We will then look at the results of that consultation with an open mind. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will find this a constructive way forward and that she, her party and other noble Lords who have expressed an interest will contribute to the consultation. At the end of that consultation, my right honourable friend and I will look at whether it would be appropriate to allow the IGCSE to be offered in state schools.

My Lords, will students who have taken the GCSE route have the opportunity of doing a diploma route at level 3?

Absolutely, my Lords; they have that option and it may be appropriate. We strongly encourage that the offer be made so that they can follow the most appropriate course for them.

The article in the Times Educational Supplement on the introduction of the diplomas to which the noble Baroness referred was unduly alarmist. We will be putting significant resources behind the diploma and exerting all the powers of persuasion and encouragement that the QCA and my department have. We do not intend the diploma to be yet another failed experiment in the introduction of a broader curriculum. Because of the important entitlement that is set out in the Bill, we will be in a very strong position to require schools and colleges to take the introduction of diploma lines very seriously. We are also establishing 14-to-19 partnerships across the country to ensure that the full range of the new curriculum, including the specialised diplomas, is available on a collaborative basis between schools and colleges in the partnerships. That will give significant impetus to making the enlarged curriculum properly available in all parts of the country. I hope that I have met the noble Baroness’s concerns on that point.

Amendment No. 102, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would mean that students are no longer required to complete assessment at AS-level in order to achieve an A-level. The AS-level currently makes up 50 per cent of A-level assessment and is an important step in the transition from GCSE to A-level. We agree that there should be less assessment and fewer units in the AS-level. As part of our response to the Tomlinson report we announced our plans to reduce the number of assessment units in A-levels from six to four so that students will have to study only two units in the AS year and not three as is currently required. In most cases that will lead to fewer AS assessments and will reduce the assessment burden of the AS-level and the A-level by a third. It is a significant reduction and goes in the direction that the noble Baroness wants.

Amendment No. 103 deals with the IB. I entirely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker in supporting the IB. It is an excellent qualification and should be widely available in the state system. However, the amendment is unnecessary as the IB is already an approved qualification in the state system. State-maintained and independent schools are already free to offer the IB to students and it is currently being taught in over 70 schools and colleges in England including a large and growing number of maintained schools. The Government are keen that students in the maintained sector should have a wider opportunity to study it if they so wish.

I hope that, on the basis of those assurances, the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome his response on Amendment No. 102, which relates to AS-level. It is a move in the right direction.

The international baccalaureate diploma is an excellent qualification and is supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I welcome that support. It is important that the Minister was able to confirm that Amendment No. 103 is unnecessary because local governing bodies are already permitted to introduce the IB diploma.

The Minister needs to take the IGCSE seriously. He said that the QCA has agreed to publish a report and to consult on its wider use in the sector. It is important that the Government respond to the need to look at the IGCSE and I welcome their offer to allow Her Majesty’s Opposition to contribute to that consultation. I want to encourage the Government in this direction and to send a strong message to the QCA that it is right to allow schools to introduce the IGCSE. Why should children in the state sector be denied that real opportunity to improve their life chances? As I said in speaking to the amendment on separate sciences, I know that many parents feel strongly that their children should have a much more rigorous curriculum. In recent days I have spoken to a number of heads in the independent sector and they have told me that the IGCSE truly teaches the language and vocabulary of science. That is why so many schools in the private sector have opted for it in science and mathematics. If we are to create scientists and mathematicians for the 21st century so that our children will be able to compete at the forefront of the global economy of the future, they must have the opportunity to study and cope with a harder and more rigorous curriculum. We need to establish a level playing field in choice. That is the message that I want to send to the QCA.

On that basis and encouraged by what the Minister said about the need for consultation and a real consideration of introducing the IGCSE as an option—this is not prescriptive, but as an option—for schools to be able to offer their pupils in maths and science, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 104:

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 104, in accordance with paragraph 6.54 of the Companion, because the amendment was discussed, in a way, a week ago before your Lordships. It was a casualty of what I call irrational grouping; that is, it was hidden in a grouping to which it manifestly did not belong. That is an important issue which your Lordships should consider this evening. Amendments remain the property of the noble Lords in whose names they appear. They can alter a proposed grouping, but very often—sometimes because the groupings appear rather late—that is impossible, as it appears to have been impossible for this amendment, which appeared in a vast, almost surreal, grouping with other amendments when it came before the House.

I shall use this occasion deliberately to deplore the proposals that departments sometimes advance for groupings that are manifestly irrational and unhelpful. We thought that we had seen the back of this sort of thing in the 1980s, but if 30 years’ experience in this House has taught me one thing, it is that proposals for groupings should be the basis of sensible and orderly debate. No department should try to hide an awkward issue—if that was the intention; no doubt it was not in this case—by putting it with amendments that are manifestly not on the same subject.

Amendment No. 104, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke last week, at cols. 706-7 of the Official Report, addressed a duty that was created only in 1944 for schools to have an obligatory daily act of collective worship. The amendment, as the noble Baroness made clear, would replace that duty with a duty to hold a daily assembly aimed at supporting people’s,

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural education”.—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 707.]

The importance of that phrase was made clear earlier this afternoon.

The act of worship needs to be broadly Christian, but the amendment is of interest not only to humanists, atheists or agnostics, or even to religions other than those with a Christian tradition. This is a fundamental issue, which the Government so far have not addressed. The Minister addressed Amendment No. 104 in another sitting, but I hope that he will not mind my saying that I thought that his reply to its case was rather perfunctory. Having been given a little more time, he may do better tonight.

The Minister claimed that this obligatory act of daily worship represented,

“the values and traditions of the majority in this country”.—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 736.]

I beg leave to doubt whether that is now the case and suggest that it is out of date. No doubt polls will be quoted, but I refer those who cite polling evidence to an article in the Times only yesterday, in which an expert on the matter said that polling is increasingly,

“being used to manufacture the headlines rather than uncover the facts”.

The expert is a chief executive of a very important polling organisation.

The Minister did not address the substantive case, made by the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society and many other organisations, that the time for this obligation in all schools has passed. I will not quote those organisations, because noble Lords will think that they are parti pris; I will quote what the Government’s inspectorate wrote in a document that was separately published, so important was it, a year later, under the heading Secondary Education. In 1998, Ofsted said that the whole question of daily collective worship,

“raises questions about the … Act and its interpretation, and in particular whether schools in a broadly secular society can or should bring their pupils together in order to engage in worship. For Roman Catholic, Church of England and other denominational schools the answer is clear in principle. For most LEA and grant maintained schools, however, the notion of worship, and indeed that of prayer, can be problematic at both an institutional and a personal level”.

In my submission, nothing has changed to make that decisive judgment inapplicable today.

Of course, the Government may refer to Amendments Nos. 79 and 151, which were passed in your Lordships’ House on 17 October. Those government amendments allow sixth formers to have a special right to escape from collective worship in which they do not believe. That right is for sixth formers, but what about the rights of fifth or fourth formers—or third formers, given that I have grandchildren who have reached that elevated level? Do the Government think that those students do not discuss such matters and that they do not have incipient and, in some cases, firm beliefs, and that sixth formers alone should be granted this inalienable right to get out of collective worship?

In order to clarify the point, I asked a very close friend, who is a devoted and devout Christian and a very honest person, what it was all about. He laughed and chided me, and said, “Come on, you must be joking. You know perfectly well what it is all about. We want to get at them early on. Give us a few years of prayer and worship and you can do what you like with them and, what’s more, the Jesuits can do what they like with them”. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am sorry to offer that to him, but that is what my friend said. It may be wrong, but if it is not the case, what on earth is the point of making these boys and girls go to a religious occasion in which they may already not believe or, more important, in which they may have begun not to believe?

Professor Richard Dawkins addressed this issue on page 185 of his recently published book, The God Delusion. He wrote:

“Could irrational religion be a by-product of the irrationality mechanisms that were originally built into the brain by selection for falling in love? Certainly, religious faith has something of the same character as falling in love (and both have many of the attributes of being high on an addictive drug)”,

which he names in the footnote—I did not know it—as “Gerin Oil”. That is not an oil company; it is the name apparently of an addictive drug. He went on to quote the neuropsychiatrist, John Smythies, who said:

“One facet of the many faces of religion is intense love focused on one supernatural person, i.e. God, plus reverence for icons of that person. Human life is driven largely by our selfish genes and by the processes of reinforcement. Much positive reinforcement derives from religion: warm and comforting feelings of being loved and protected in a dangerous world, loss of fear of death, help from the hills in response to prayer in difficult times”.

Your Lordships will forgive my reading, which has recently suffered an attack of something no doubt from beyond the hills.

In the face of the question that we are addressing, the point of the quotation is: what on earth is the point of getting together boys and girls from third, fourth and even fifth forms to obey an order that they must express warmth and loving hopes for help coming to them from beyond the hills? It seems a very strange thing to do, except perhaps in very unorganised and not advanced societies. Dawkins concludes his argument on such matters with words that I suggest the Government should gather together daily to read—aloud, if possible—on their sofas in an assembly devoted to collective inquiry. He wrote:

“An atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam”—

no doubt he would have added other religions had he time—

“and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage”.

That is important because this amendment does not seek to make anyone do anything except attend an assembly, which, as I have understood today’s debate, is a matter of common ground in the whole House, on all Benches, to advance the,

“spiritual, moral … and cultural education”,

of all pupils. There lies the nub of the amendment, which I am happy to support.

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and I support my noble friends who have spoken. It is desirable for school communities to have ways in which they can come together to build a common ethos and to explore and celebrate shared human values. This can be in assemblies, which is what our amendment is about, but it does not necessarily have to be under a system that requires religious worship, which, by definition, can never be common to all children, with their variety of beliefs and the wide diversity that we have in our society. The law needs to change to provide for inclusive assemblies instead—and that is what the amendment is about.

As my noble friends have indicated, there is widespread support for a reform of this law, not only from religious, humanist and secularist groups and the teaching unions but, as my noble friend has indicated, from Ofsted. It stated in its 1998 report on the matter:

“For most LEA and grant maintained schools the notion of worship, and indeed that of prayer, can be problematic at both an institutional and personal level”.

It is not surprising therefore that it was found in the same year that most secondary schools were not complying with the law. Teachers favour good inclusive school assemblies of a moral and reflective nature, which can bring the school community together to celebrate shared values, news and achievements. Many schools are holding such assemblies, and doing it very well, but they are technically breaking the law and so can attract criticism. It is a pity that a practice that is workable, honest and educationally and socially valuable does not remain legal.

I am a humanist and a member of the British Humanist Association. It is not only humanists who feel this way—as has already been indicated, Sikhs, Hindus and of course the teaching unions support our amendment—but all those who would like schools to be able to share their values and ethos without hypocrisy or fear of non-compliance with an outdated law.

At the moment, many parents do not wish to withdraw their children from religious assemblies; on the other hand, perhaps they do not want to withdraw their children and make them feel different, because that is often a rather harmful situation. I can remember what happened when I was very young. My mother was a Roman Catholic and I went to a state school. My mother indicated on the form that she had to complete that I was Roman Catholic and it was decided that when there were prayers I should sit outside the door. So, when all the other children went in for the religious assembly, I sat outside the door. When I went home, I said to my mother, “They don’t like me at school because I’m a Roman Catholic”. I immediately felt different. That is not a good idea for any child—it certainly was not as far as I was concerned. I support the amendment and I commend it to your Lordships.

My Lords, because of the uncoupling of these amendments we are revisiting issues that we discussed last week. I therefore do not intend to rehearse arguments that I have already put to your Lordships’ House and to extend this debate unduly. I should like, however, to make one or two comments about the contributions today.

The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was particularly critical of what he suggested was the style of education offered by the Society of Jesus—the Jesuits. He said that those who went through such an education came out indoctrinated. I smiled at the noble Lord, Lord Patten, because I think he and I are the only Members in your Lordships’ House this evening who were educated by Jesuits. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that, quite the reverse from being indoctrinated, most of my friends and contemporaries—and I dare say those of the noble Lord, Lord Patten—ended up with no belief whatever. Therefore, in that sense, that education failed because at the heart of their approach to education lay the principle that you should learn to think for yourself and reject those things that you cannot embrace. Therefore, far from being indoctrination, that education encourages a development of sensibilities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also touched on this issue when she said that she had gone through a personal experience of feeling excluded. What about those children at a school who believe in God and want to take part in an act of worship? If we are not careful, we could turn the tables on them and leave them feeling excluded if we remove something so central to their lives as the daily act of worship. When your Lordships gather for worship, as we do in this House each day, there are noble Lords on our Benches who have no Christian or other faith, yet they come here because it is a moment of pause, a time for reflection, when we can come to terms with ourselves and with God. Even if someone does not believe in God, they can at least clear their minds and perhaps think sometimes about the words that the right reverend Prelates leave before your Lordships’ House during those prayers. After all, it was a Member of this House, Alfred Lord Tennyson, who in the 19th century—in answer, perhaps, to the point being made today by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—said that more things are wrought by prayer than this world ever dreams of. Sometimes we in public and political life place our own material interests and our own personal aspirations and expectations too much at the heart of the equation and squeeze out the spiritual.

We should tread with care. The right of conscience is there, but if someone wishes to be excluded from daily acts of worship their parents can do that. Let us not exclude parents from the equation, which is precisely what the amendments would do. They would remove the role of parents in discussing with their own children their beliefs and where they are in their own spiritual development. It would be a tragedy if we did that.

More than 80 per cent of the people of this country still say that they believe in God. There are some things that bind us together as a nation. I think it would be a huge error to unravel those things without carefully thinking about the consequences. Syncretism, practised perhaps by the art teacher with the aid of some bean bags during an assembly that tells us about everything but teaches us nothing, is not a substitute for the daily act of worship. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not go in the direction that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, invites us to go.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. I preface it by saying that I have always admired him as one of the most broadminded members of the Roman Catholic community that I have had the pleasure to make the acquaintance of. But when he talks about the effect of prayer, has he read all the documents on the great prayer experiment? If he has not, they are described in Richard Dawkins’s book and are wide and scientific in nature. But perhaps the noble Lord has not looked at that in his broadminded education.

My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will want me to go into great detail about The God Delusion but I have read Dawkins’s book. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that although Professor Dawkins is unable to believe in God, I am glad that God still believes in him.

My Lords, I, too, will be brief. It will not surprise the noble Baroness that I do not feel able to support her amendment. I fully endorse the arguments made in support of collective worship on the first day of Report by my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. At column 699 of the Official Report he argued in support of collective worship and said it provided an important grammar and language for later life and is still part of our common culture.

Given the clear indication of the recent census, which is different from a poll, that the overwhelming majority of people in this country wish to identify themselves with one or other of the major faiths—including the fact, if my memory serves me right, that roughly 70 per cent identify themselves as Christian—the right reverend Prelate was right to say that this continues to reflect the grammar and the values of the majority of this country. We of course fully recognise the right of a minority of parents who wish to withdraw their children from collective worship to do so.

The issues were fully aired on the first day of Report and I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward then. I fear that I and my colleagues will continue to resist the amendment while continuing to support all that teachers and others are doing to improve collective worship in our schools, recognising that it is not always providing the focus that it should and can do.

My Lords, I guess that none of us is going to be persuaded very much by what has been said, so I, too, have an incentive to be brief. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I was invited by the Church of England to chair a review of the future of church schools, which caused me to go out and about in the land. One of the schools I went into was in Bradford, where it appeared to me that95 per cent of pupils were Muslim. That did not suggest to me that they were coming to be indoctrinated.

I turned to the Bishop of London on one occasion and raised this question with him because I was aware that Muslim children often went to church schools. He said, “I asked the same question to a leader of the Muslim community, and he said, ‘We look at it like this: there are those who believe in God and those who don’t. You do, and we feel more comfortable in a school where there is this belief than we would otherwise’”. That does not suggest indoctrination. If I remember correctly—and my memory is fallible—in the report of the committee which I chaired, we made it explicit that the business was not to convert but to offer young people the experience of what it is to learn and play within the framework of a community that had values and certain beliefs.

Some things about the amendment surprise me. I found no difficulty with proposed Section 4 because parents already have that right. They can withdraw from religious assemblies, but very few do, which suggests that they are not perturbed by them.

Proposed Section 2(1) refers to furthering a pupil’s,

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural education”.

That seems to deny schools that are not voluntary aided the choice of making it an act of worship. Subsection (5) of proposed Section 3 makes it explicit that voluntary-aided schools may do so; the implication is that others cannot. I wonder where that leaves voluntary-controlled faith schools, of which there are very many.

I was surprised that proposed Section 3(8) said that a voluntary-aided school may, on special occasions, use a church in which to worship. Why only on special occasions? There are schools which have a church on site; perhaps the church is the only place with a room big enough to accommodate everyone.

I must not go on about the detail. I just wanted to put differently the main point made by my noble friend Lord Alton. In the faith schools of which I have some knowledge, the business is not to seize minds, it is to open minds.

My Lords, I am in favour of the new clause from personal experience. I was a minority child in a faith school. Although when one is older one can see the benefits, at the time it can be very hurtful—indeed, off-putting—not to participate, excluding oneself, or to participate in an occasion when the majority indoctrination is not to one’s taste. One has to remember that children of that age can be quite brusque and unfeeling in their treatment of minorities. While there was no attempt to convert, being forced to participate did not endear the notion of formal religious worship to one. There is another place for those who want that experience, and it is not school. There are some similarities with the debate already held in this House about faith schools having a quota for minorities.

There is much to be said for a secular assembly that brings everyone together. That is a much truer form of multiculturalism, and no one need feel excluded. Adults’ attitude to this is very different from that of children, who were not included in any Gallup poll or census. I hope very much that the House will support the new clause.

My Lords, I find myself replying twice to the same debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that he thought my previous reply was perfunctory, I do not think that it was. Perhaps I am too sensitive to criticism of this kind; I have read it and regard it as a perfectly full and adequate reply to the debate. It is not so much, I think, that he found it perfunctory as that he disagreed with what I said. He has an absolute right to disagree with what I say. He takes what I would regard as a very extreme view in this debate, which he has set out in support of the views of Professor Richard Dawkins, and it is his right to do so. But those of us who take a different view should not be dismissed for being perfunctory just because he happens to disagree with us.

My Lords, the Minister may not know that I was not present on that day for medical reasons. Does he regard the previous occasion as one which some noble Lords referred to as a full debate of the issues? The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke and the Minister spent a small paragraph responding to the amendment. Otherwise, nobody else spoke at all; there was no real debate, except that between the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.

My Lords, there was a proper debate. The noble Lord takes, I fear, a different view of the matter. As for speaking for only one paragraph, I spent a good part of col. 736 in Hansard discussing the issues relating to the amendment. Since the issue has been raised again, the best thing I can do is go over the same ground. I am glad to say that although I am always open to persuasion, I have not changed my view since last Tuesday.

I deeply respect the position that my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Turner take in tabling the amendment. They wish to go further than the position we have established. The Government listened to the debates in Committee and have proposed a substantial change in allowing individual students to withdraw themselves from collective worship rather than that being solely the preserve of parents. However, we do not think it right to go further in the way the amendment suggests: abolishing existing collective worship requirements and putting in place a new requirement to take part in an assembly to further pupils’,

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural education”,

with no requirement, as now, for that education to be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.

We believe that assemblies and collective worship are important elements of school life in establishing their ethos and collective character. We believe it right that those under 16 should be required to take part unless their parents specifically wish otherwise. We believe that it is in accordance with the values and traditions of the majority in this country that such collective worship should be of a broadly Christian character, allowing also for the celebration of other faiths as appropriate.

The noble Lord asks for my evidence for that. In the 2001 census, 71.8 per cent of respondents identified themselves as Christian. Those are the facts, although the noble Lord may not like them.

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what the question was?

My Lords, it was to find out people’s self-identification of their religion.

In respect of the broadly Christian character, Section 394 of the Education Act 1996 allows community schools and foundation schools without a religious character to lift the broadly Christian requirement for some or all pupils when the local standing advisory council on religious education judges it appropriate to do so, having received an application from the head teacher. Before making such an application, the head teacher must consult the governing body, which, in turn, may want to seek the views of the parents. That is the position at the moment. Taken in conjunction with the right of parents to withdraw their children from collective worship, we believe this strikes the right balance. The Government do not intend to propose any further changes. Therefore, we oppose the amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and all who have taken part in the debate. We have had a good and sometimes erudite debate. Thinking for oneself is a good point, which arose thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a rigorous thinker himself. I am not sure how the noble Lord knows that God still believes in Richard Dawkins, however.

I am sorry that my noble friend feels he cannot go further. I shall continue to pursue this, but not today. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I have read some of the same books on delusions and selfish genes, for example. I do not like the idea of beanbags in assemblies, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned.

There is quite a lot of agreement on this issue. Discussion of all religions, not merely Christianity, is important. I do not want to squeeze out the spiritual. Of course school communities should come together, but it need not be limited to collective worship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said.

As I said, I shall pursue this issue in other ways; it is worthy of further discussion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 [Education and training to satisfy entitlements]:

moved Amendment No. 105:

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. The first three are essential if young adult disabled learners are to be entitled to continue their education and the second three, to which I have put my name, would ensure that they can actually get to their courses. Unlike my noble friend Lord Alton’s interpretation of entitlement, we are talking about enabling and actually making possible. I refer to the noble Lord’s remarks on Amendment No. 99.

I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy of his letter about transport, which he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I have no doubt of his commitment to making things work. The noble Baroness read out the passage where he says he hopes the LSC will work more closely with partnerships and will manage to encourage participation and be successful. The Minister went on to say:

“In my view this is sufficient. Where there is evidence of a specific breach of these duties, my officials will investigate thoroughly and pursue vigorously”.

It should not have to come to that. We have been here before—and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has cited instances when it was only with the intervention of a Minister that someone has managed to get to their course to pursue it. Skill and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association feel very strongly that further legislation is necessary, despite the welcome guidance in paragraph 12 of the transport support arrangements for students aged 16 to 19 2006-07. I should declare here that I am president of Skill.

We know that there are still problems with this group. Skill has produced some evidence as has the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The colleges and other providers say that there is a problem. The LSC knows that there is a problem; Through Inclusion to Excellence recognised that there was a major difficulty and recommended that the DfES and other government departments,

“consider and propose appropriate transport legislation”.

The LSC received a 98 per cent positive response from the sector to its consultation on that recommendation.

Another point is that in the main you really hear only of cases in which a problem has been resolved or there has been a struggle and a failure. The young adult disabled learners who have been turned down and are lost by the roadside go unrecorded. So it is possibly the tip of the iceberg. If there is not a real problem, as the Minister suggests that there is not, where is the harm in bringing in legislation? But the Minister is a very listening and thinking Minister and I hope for a positive response, as normal. Otherwise I hope that he might agree to, or consider, getting together with the LSC and the directors of children’s services to discuss the problem further and more deeply.

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107 relate to the entitlements in Clause 72, entitlements which will legally cease if a person has not started the course of study before they reach the age of 19.

We strongly agree that young people up to the age of 25 and beyond should also have entitlements to continue studying and acquire new skills that will help them to gain employment and once employed to progress in the work place, but we believe that these needs are properly served by specific non-statutory, funded entitlements which are already in place for young people up to age 25. I accept that by their nature, being non-statutory, they are less binding than statutory entitlements, but I equally believe that our commitment to them has been demonstrated not only by what we have said but by the substantial funding that we have put in place to enable the entitlements to be delivered.

The entitlements are for all adults to study towards a level 2 qualification and for young people up to the age of 25 to study towards their first level 3 qualification. From 2007-08, to fund this first full level 3 entitlement my right honourable friend the Chancellor made an extra £25 million available in the Budget this year specifically to ensure that there was proper funding behind that entitlement, so that it could actually be delivered. The existing entitlements give young people the opportunities that they need and deserve to prepare themselves for success in life. Although they are not statutory and do not have the absolute enduring binding force of those that are in the Bill, we none the less stand by them and they will be a first call on resources in our next spending review.

I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, about placing a duty on local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of transport for qualifying disabled young learners in the further education sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, I wrote to her on 10 October setting out our view on this. I must say that this is not my area of direct ministerial expertise. I shall give the House the response I have, but it may be useful if I arrange for the noble Baronesses to meet my honourable friend the Minister for Further Education, who I think would be happy to discuss these issues and take up some of the more detailed points that the noble Baronesses raised.

In my letter, I outlined our intention to strengthen the role of the Learning and Skills Council in transport partnerships locally. We look to the Learning and Skills Council to work closely with each partnership to help them fulfil their shared aim of improving the prospects of young people by encouraging participation in learning to enhance their skills. This builds on measures already in place to support young people and adults to access further education. For example, the DfES provides additional support to those who need it most via the learner support fund, which is delivered by the Learning and Skills Council. It is a discretionary fund targeted at local provision to assist learners in financial hardship to continue in learning. It is particularly targeted at disadvantaged groups such as those from low income families to help with learning-related expenses, such as contributions to costs of transport or books and equipment. Around one-third of the learner support fund for young people is used to help with transport costs for disadvantaged students.

In 2005-06, the learner support fund was funded to a total of £123 million. In this financial year, 2006-07, it is funded to a total of £122 million, of which£86 million is for adult learner support and £36 million for young people aged 16 to 19. The fund is awarded to learners on the basis of need. Colleges have to prioritise use of the funds within a framework that clearly identifies disadvantaged groups as a priority for funding. As I say, the fund can help with transport costs.

I hope that that goes some way to meeting the points raised by the noble Baronesses, but I would be happy to facilitate a further meeting with my honourable friend the Minister for Further Education if they would like to take advantage of that.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I understand the distinction between the two sets of entitlement that we have discussed under the first set of amendments. I take on board what he said. We will probably not pursue the matter further.

On the second set of amendments, it would be useful to take up his offer of a meeting and perhaps bring along our friends from Skill and Guide Dogs for the Blind, who are concerned about these issues and have a number of practical examples, which could be discussed at the meeting. I should be very grateful to the Minister for a meeting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]

Clause 74 [LEAs in England: provision of travel arrangements etc for children]:

moved Amendment No. 108:

My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Minister for these amendments, which, as he said, address issues that we raised in Committee and which have been discussed subsequently.

Sadly, I think that I am not the only bishop with responsibility for a diocese where a local authority has reduced parental choice by withdrawing support for denominational transport. Indeed, I received a letter this week from the parents of a child in one of our church secondary schools who were having to consider withdrawing their child from the school because of the increasing cost of transport.

We therefore welcome these amendments, which, as the Minister said, will ensure that more disadvantaged children will continue to have access to church schools, particularly in rural areas where distance can be a significant problem. That will not only improve parental choice but help to ensure that church and other faith schools continue to be socially inclusive and represent the breadth of the communities that they serve. While I speak principally on behalf of Church of England schools, I know that other denominations will share our welcome for these amendments.

My Lords, how many schoolsare likely to fall within the two but not morethan 15 miles provision? I am told that an area of700 square miles is covered. How many schools are involved?

My Lords, alas, I do not have that information in my briefing, but I shall get back to my noble friend with it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Travel to schools etc: meaning of “eligible child”]:

moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:

moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:

moved Amendment No. 116:

moved Amendment No. 118:

My Lords, though we had considerable reassurance from the Minister, there really is a case for making this rather more specifically a duty. We seem to hear the word “bullying” coming from so many different directions. If it was specifically a duty—not just of the headmistress but also of the governing body—to see that the whole culture of the school was addressing this worrying aspect that has been identified so often, that would be a help. Having a regular item on the governing body’s agenda when it met at least once a year might be one way of concentrating people’s minds. I hope that further consideration can be given to the matter.

My Lords, the issue of bullying in schools is immensely important, and we accept that a great deal more needs to be done, as the leaders of the school community accept that a great deal more needs to be done, to tackle it school by school and community by community. I am entirely with the noble Baroness in all that she said about its importance, including the issue of homophobic bullying, on which we are looking to publish specific guidance early next year. We are consulting interested parties on that at the moment. We also have our main bullying guidance toolkit, Don’t Suffer in Silence, which has been very warmly received and has made a big difference to the capacity of schools to deal with the issue. It is currently being updated, and we are looking to see that it reflects best practice in this area.

When it comes to the law, though, I am straining my powers of understanding to understand what the noble Baroness thinks that we could do that we are not doing. I will go through it so that my understanding is clear, and it may be that we can have a further dialogue on this.

Clause 86 sets out requirements on the head teacher, which must include, as Clause 86(1)(c) states,

“securing that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable”,

Also, Clause 86(1)(b) requires,

“encouraging good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils and, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils”.

I do not see that as purely restricted to bullying. It says,

“encouraging good behaviour and respect for others”,

so it is not just about bullying. It goes on to say,

“and, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying”,

so it goes from the general to bullying as the specific. I do not see it as couched in any way in terms of negatives as opposed to positives. I find it inconceivable that a head teacher could encourage good behaviour and respect for others if they did not have positive measures to promote respect and rewards for good behaviour in school, and if they did not have those properly recognised, as opposed to simply using sanctions or punitive measures. I hope that the noble Baroness is with me so far on the fact that I do not see this as negative.

In undertaking to meet those requirements in Clause 86(1), the head teacher must,

“act in accordance with the current statement made by the governing body”,

and the governing body, under Clause 85, must,

“ensure that policies designed to promote good behaviour and discipline on the part of its pupils are pursued at the school”.

Again, this is not just restricted to cracking down on bullying; it is about promoting good behaviour and discipline, although cracking down on bullying is one element of it. The points made by the noble Baroness are largely, if not entirely, met, but I am happy to have further discussion with her if there are specific issues.

The amendment says:

“The governing body … of a … school … shall have a duty to establish effective policies to prevent bullying”—

which, in fact, is a more specific area of action than we provide for in Clauses 85 and 86—

“and ensure the safety and well-being of all pupils”.

Here, we come to the issue of well-being, which the noble Baroness raised in our earlier debates on Report, where she was widely supported by other noble Lords in wanting to impose more extensive well-being duties. I said in response to that debate that we would look at this issue further, and I repeat that assurance. We are looking carefully at this, and I may even have some good news for the noble Baroness at Third Reading.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that, and I look forward with great anticipation to hearing what he has to say about it at Third Reading. The main point that I was trying to make is that, although all those good things in the Bill address pupil behaviour, the ethos, atmosphere and culture of respect and tolerance in a school do not just relate to how the pupils behave; they relate to how the teachers and the caretaker behave, too. If the caretaker refers disrespectfully to some children in the school using some of the very nasty homophobic language that you sometimes hear, that affects the children just as much as if other children made the comments, or if the teachers did. Unfortunately, it does happen that some teachers make these comments. Teachers also sometimes feel that they are being bullied by other members of staff for their sexual orientation or for some other aspect of their personality. Our amendment tries to include the whole school community in the duty to ensure that the pupils have their well-being cared for.

The behaviour policy is probably well catered for in the Bill as it refers to the pupils, but it does not refer to the whole school. The school is more than the pupils; it has staff, volunteers and all kinds of people who come into a school. It is important that the policy should take all that into account, so that you have that mutual respect between adults and children, between adults and adults, and between children and children. That would be covered by our amendment, and it is not covered in the Bill at the moment.

My Lords, I think that I now understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. It may be that what I have to say on well-being at Third Reading will meet her concerns.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry if I did not explain it well enough the first time, but I am delighted that he now takes the point. We really must go as far as we can to make sure that schools really understand that there are positive things that can be done—not just punishments when things go wrong. There are positive things that can be done to prevent these things from ever happening at all and to create the sort of culture in which such bullying never would happen and children would never dream of behaving to one another in the sorts of ways that they do.

I had intended to divide the House on this amendment but, given what the Minister has said about what he might do at Third Reading, I will save everyone’s legs. I really look forward to hearing what the noble Lord is going to bring forward then, because we on these Benches regard this matter as being terribly important. If we do not think that he has adequately addressed it with what he is intending to bring forward, we most certainly will divide the House at Third Reading. I shall tell my Whips, who have the troops on the front foot, ready to vote, that perhaps we should not divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13 September be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to commend to your Lordships the measures the Government have introduced to ensure that consumers of home reversion plans and Ijara home financing arrangements will be protected by FSA regulation. These changes are to be achieved through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2006. They take effect from April next year.

For completeness, I should also mention two negative procedure orders also before Parliament: the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2006 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Business in the Regulated Sector) Order 2006, both of which make consequential changes. They align the money laundering treatment of arranging or advising on the products that the main order deals with, and they reduce burdens on firms.

These changes follow the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Act 2005, which was widely supported by industry and consumer groups. That measure was also widely welcomed by your Lordships. It received Royal Assent last year. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there is equally widespread support for the secondary legislation on which the Government consulted earlier this year. The actuarial profession, Safe Home Income Plans—the self regulatory body—the Association of British Insurers and the Financial Services Consumer Panel were united in support.

Respondents to the home reversion proposals were generally strongly supportive of regulation and endorsed the approaches the Government had taken. They raised a number of points of detail, and the Government’s published response to the consultation analyses those. Nine respondents commented on the home purchase plan proposals. Generally, respondents supported the detailed proposals for defining and regulating these products. I want to put on record that the Government are extremely grateful to all those who took part in the consultation.

I shall set out briefly what we mean by these different products. Equity release schemes allow some elderly homeowners to release the value of their property in return for all, or a share, of their interest in the home. With home reversion plans, the consumer sells all or part of their home but retains the right to live there. These are not yet regulated by the FSA.

The second main issue is to extend regulation to what we describe in the order as home purchase plans. Sharia-compliant home financing arrangements have been developed to meet the same purpose as a conventional mortgage product while complying with Islamic principles. There are two main types. First, in Murabaha structures, an institution buys and re-sells the home to the consumer, accepting payment of the price over a lengthy period. These are already regulated by the FSA. Secondly, Ijara products relate to where the institution combines a sale with renting the un-owned share of the property to the consumer. These are not yet regulated by the FSA. Our aim is to remove the current regulatory imbalance between Murabaha and Ijara products. All consumers who choose to use these non-interest bearing products will benefit from FSA protection. This is basically a question of fairness and of a level regulatory playing field.

Consumers of home reversion plans are not completely without protection at the moment. The market is subject to voluntary protection through the industry group Safe Home Income Plans (SHIP). SHIP members agree to comply with a code of practice and undertake to provide a fair, simple and complete presentation of any plan that they offer. They also offer a guarantee that consumers will never owe a lender more than the value of their home—a “no negative equity” guarantee. These protections stop short of the protections offered by statutory regulation and the FSA’s regime. Such a regime would extend to consumers the FSA protections and would ensure a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market, removing any artificial regulatory distortions.

We are also committed to tackling regulatory barriers that may hinder the development of a Sharia-compliant financial product. Purchasing your own home is potentially the largest financial transaction people may make during their lifetime and all consumers deserve suitable protection. Regulation has an important role in protecting consumers of these products, building market confidence and facilitating innovation.

I have also been asked by the Merits Committee briefly to address in my remarks the Government’s approach to Islamic finance. London is already leading the West in Islamic finance. It has more banks supplying services in accordance with Islamic principles than any other western financial centre, and British professional services firms are leading the way in the development of Islamic business services.

It is the Government’s ambition to ensure that, through London’s international markets, Britain strengthens its position as the world’s leading centre for international finance. The Government will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority to modernise the regulatory and tax framework to ensure that it keeps pace with opportunities in matters of traditional UK strengths, along with new and innovative areas such as Islamic finance. For example, there is a nascent market for Sharia-compliant home financing products. The changes that we are making in this order are to avoid market distortion, ensuring a level regulatory playing field within the market and that all consumers who choose to use these non-interest-bearing products will benefit from FSA protections. However, I am sure that it will be understood that wider issues of Islamic finance go beyond the scope of this order.

The FSA has had responsibility for regulating first charge residential mortgages since October 2004 and, following consultations in 2003 and 2004, we decided to bring home reversion plans and Ijara home financing arrangements within the scope of FSA regulation. Because these types of transactions are based on sale and purchase arrangements in land, and are not loans secured on land which are specified in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, primary legislation was required. The Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Act 2005 amended the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to add an appropriate reference to these transactions. This order is needed to complete this process by defining in detail the new activities to be regulated.

In addition, the FSA has published its own cost-benefit analysis and draft rules and guidance. It proposes a range of rules tailored to deal with the specific risks inherent in the home reversion and Ijara home purchase markets. We anticipate that, subject to this measure completing its passage through Parliament, the FSA will make the final announcement of its rules next week.

This order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. It specifies as regulated activities entering into, administering, arranging and advising on regulated home reversion plans and regulated home purchase plans. This means that the FSA will be able to require firms undertaking these activities by way of business to be authorised unless they benefit from an exemption.

The order also clarifies an existing provision relating to high net worth “business angel” companies and amends the overseas person exception to replace the reference to a “non-resident individual” with a reference to a person who is not resident, in order to catch corporate trustees who are resident overseas. The order extends the existing exclusions from regulation for activities such as giving general advice in newspapers to bring them into line with the treatment of other mortgage-related activities.

The order defines home reversion plans and home purchase plans in detail and the activities to be regulated in relation to these products. These differ from the equivalent regulated activities for mortgages in two important respects. First, intermediaries for home reversion providers—“the lender”—and for reversion sellers will be regulated. Secondly, the acquisition of an existing home reversion by a new provider, including from a provider who is not the original provider, will be regulated. These differences were consulted on and received support.

Part 3 of the order makes consequential amendments to the Consumer Credit Act and other primary legislation. Part 4 also makes consequential amendments to secondary legislation, so that the newly regulated activities are dealt with elsewhere in the body of financial services and other secondary legislation. Part 5 establishes a transitional regime to provide a degree of continuity for firms which have submitted an application to the FSA for permission or variation of permission or an application for approval which has not been dealt with by 6 April next year, and which meet the other conditions. Finally, the schedule to the order sets out further details of the regime that will apply to persons who are subject to the transitional provisions.

In conclusion, I believe that this measure rightly commands wide support and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13 September be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, and I put his mind at rest immediately by saying that we support it. We supported the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Act when it was debated in your Lordships' House just a little over a year ago, and we now support its detailed implementation.

When I looked back at the issues that we brought forward when we debated the Bill, as it then was, in October 2005, I found that we raised concerns about the cost of regulation. I am delighted to find that the final estimate of the cost of regulation has proved lower than it was when we debated the Bill. I do not know whether that is a first, but lower final regulatory costs are certainly welcome.

At that time, we also raised concerns about timing. The Government started bringing home reversions within the FSA's regulatory ambit back in November 2003, nearly three years ago. I then asked when the new regulatory arrangements, and therefore complete protection for consumers, would be brought into effect. The Minister told me at the time that implementation would be in the first quarter of 2007. He concluded his remarks at Second Reading by saying that the Government,

“now wish to press ahead and implement it as quickly as we can”.—[Official Report, 17/10/05; col. 565.]

That sounded quite hopeful, but I now see that the implementation date has slipped back to the second quarter of 2007. It would be very easy to say that it is just a matter of two months, but we started this three years ago. The plain fact is that, although a voluntary scheme is in place, at present consumers have imperfect protection, and there has been a general consensus that that issue should be put right. I have never quite felt that there has been a sense of urgency in getting these arrangements in place, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

I also raised with the Minister last year the plight of those who had entered into home income or shared appreciation mortgages marketed in the late 1980s. At that stage, some, but certainly not all, lenders had entered into voluntary arrangements, which mitigated some of the worst cases of hardship. But not all lenders participated in that and I urged the Minister to use the Government’s de facto powers to achieve an equitable outcome. The Minister said that the Government would continue to do what they could. Can he update the House on that? Are all lenders now engaged in a process which has removed the problems often encountered by very elderly people, who have been enticed into these arrangements, as a result of the unregulated nature of home income and shared appreciation mortgages? If not, will the Minister say what else the Government will do about this?

My Lords, it is literally a year and a week since we debated the primary legislation from which this order flows. The Minister’s description of its purpose brought back memories of that happy time.

The noble Baroness has just made a point about timing. I have some sympathy with her, not least because there is evidence that some providers have been waiting for these regulations to come into effect before deciding to offer products to the market. These are useful products for a lot of people, so urgency would and should have been of the essence. However, we are grateful that the regulations are now before us and that they are coming into force reasonably quickly.

It is also pleasing to note that the likely cost of introducing and managing the order is less rather than more than was envisaged. The figures that were bandied about were very high, so I am particularly pleased. Without going into the minutiae of the new computer programmes or whatever would be required, it seemed to me that this would be a big barrier to entry for many providers. I think that during the previous debate we were talking of costs of more than £400,000 for a regulated firm.

I should welcome the Minister's view on the press speculation that these products might serve as a form of inheritance tax avoidance. Under these provisions, a person could sell a half or two-thirds of a whole house and at that point distribute the income to his heirs and successors but, at the point of death, he would not have ownership of the assets. Subject to the seven-year rule, this might be a rather crafty way of avoiding inheritance tax. It seems to me that the innovation used by—I shall not say “the accountancy profession” in present company—the markets for providing people with ways of avoiding inheritance tax knows no bounds. I wondered whether this issue had crossed the Treasury's path, whether the Treasury thought that it was likely to be significant and, if so, whether it had given any thought to the potential leakage of revenue that might flow from it.

Subject to that question, we remain as supportive of this measure as we were a year and a week ago.

My Lords, I thank both opposition Benches for their continued support for these provisions and the thrust of the order. I shall try to deal with their points.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about how the cost of regulation had gone down. This came about through the FSA's own calculations, which gave us better insight into what was involved, as it had become more focused on the detail of what its regulation might entail. Whether or not that is a first, I do not know, but it is certainly to be welcomed as good news.

Timing was also mentioned by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I accept that 6 April is just into the second quarter, although not by very much. As to why it has taken as long as it has, the Government will regulate only where there is a clear need. We are often accused of over-regulating but, on this occasion, it seems to me that we are accused of not regulating speedily enough. It is important to establish the costs and benefits of regulation before proceeding with it. These are complex products and it is important to get the regulation right. That is why two consultations were completed in advance of the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Act 2005, and we consulted earlier this year on the technical detail of the secondary legislation. We published the results of that consultation in mid-September. In addition, the FSA has consulted on its rules, but I hope that we will now have a shared interest in ensuring that this measure is implemented as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about home income plans, which we touched upon when we debated the primary legislation. That matter comes outside the ambit of the order but I shall update the noble Baroness as best I can. There is very little that the Government can now do; it is for lenders to resolve the situation with the people who took out these products. Most lenders have offered a package of measures to home income plan investors to deal with the residual debt, and the Government hope that all lenders will continue to take as generous and sympathetic an approach as possible to that debt. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate or desirable to go beyond the protections offered by the 1986 Act and the further steps taken to achieve retrospective redress for consumers in this instance.

The Government have every sympathy with consumers who find themselves in difficulty having taken out a shared appreciation mortgage, but no evidence of misselling has been found by the Financial Ombudsman Service to date, so it is difficult to see what grounds there are for compensation. Consumers can access the Financial Ombudsman Service if they feel they have been badly advised or that the mortgage has been missold. Although I reiterate the Government’s sympathy, if there has been no misselling it is difficult to see what else might be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked an intriguing question about inheritance tax. Of course, the Government are very keen to ensure that loopholes in inheritance tax are closed at the earliest opportunity. I know there are those who would wish to abolish inheritance tax, but perhaps that is a debate for another occasion. The Government have assisted some of these products which were in danger of being caught by the pre-owned assets legislation. Regulations came into force on6 April 2005 which introduced an exemption for equity release arrangements from the pre-owned assets charge. The commitment was made by the Paymaster General in autumn 2004 that arm’s-length equity release transactions would be exempt from the pre-owned assets charge, even if the owner sells only part of their home. That was a facilitating measure and not a restrictive one. The fundamental point is that we need to keep a close eye on all transactions of this nature if they are being abused as an inheritance tax or other tax avoidance device.

I thank noble Lords for their support for the order. If the order is approved tonight, the FSA will be able shortly to open its doors for applications from firms carrying out regulated activities. This will give firms the necessary time to prepare for the start of regulation next year. Subject to the order completing its passage through Parliament this evening, the FSA will take a further important step when it publishes its detailed rules and guidance next week. As set out in this legislation, regulation will take effect from 6 April 2007.

In general, our approach throughout has been to establish a new regulatory regime, broadly equivalent to the existing mortgage regime. It is only right that consumers of home reversion plans and Ijara home financing arrangements benefit from consumer protections afforded by FSA regulation, and I think that that view is widely held. This will strengthen confidence in the market, and consumer confidence is an essential base for diverse and competitive markets. That is an outcome which I think your Lordships will be keen to support, therefore I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate relates to proposed revisions to the code of practice published under the Treasure Act 1996 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It spells out the principles and practice to be followed by her in the treasure process and provides guidance to other parties involved in the treasure system. The Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to keep the code under review and to revise it when appropriate. It is being revised now to reflect the fact that certain administrative responsibilities relating to the valuation of finds of treasure and the payment of rewards are to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the British Museum.

Currently the DCMS undertakes a number of responsibilities relating to the valuation of treasure finds and the payment of rewards to finders and landowners. It is intended to transfer, with conditions, these responsibilities, in respect of finds made in England and Wales, to the British Museum. The museum already undertakes a number of other responsibilities in relation to the administration of the Treasure Act 1996.

This transfer of responsibilities is designed to have two primary benefits. It will improve the service offered to those who report and acquire treasure. No longer will they have to deal with two institutions as a find works its way through the system. They will have to deal with only one institution, the British Museum. By being involved throughout the whole process, staff at the British Museum will be best placed to ensure the smooth progress of any item from the beginning to the end of the treasure system. Locating these responsibilities in one body will also remove the current need to replicate files and expertise over two organisations. This will improve the efficiency of the treasure system, leading to related savings. However, we are also mindful of the need to preserve the integrity of the current system and to ensure that it retains public confidence.

We recognise that the British Museum is a potential purchaser of treasure finds and, at the same time, under these proposals, it will also be responsible for the administration of the system which recommends to the Secretary of State the price that museums should pay for such finds. It is because of these concerns that a number of safeguards have been built into this transfer to preserve the integrity of the system. These include: in all cases it will remain the Secretary of State’s responsibility to make decisions in relation to rewards and valuations; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will also retain its responsibilities relating to valuation in cases where the British Museum has shown an interest in acquiring a find; appointments to the Treasure Valuation Committee will continue to be made by the Secretary of State; the right for interested parties to make representations to the Secretaryof State against the Treasure Valuation Committee’s recommendations will remain; and a detailed memorandum of understanding will be agreed between the DCMS and the British Museum. This will spell out the responsibilities of both organisations and will be available for public scrutiny. We feel confident that these safeguards will ensure that the system retains a high level of confidence among those involved that all finds are fairly valued.

The code of practice needs to be amended to reflect the new procedures which will be followed once the transfer of responsibilities has taken place. A full review of the code is planned for 2007, when other proposed amendments to the treasure system will be considered. However, the last review of the code took two years to complete and it was considered that the benefits associated with this transfer were sufficiently compelling for these amendments to be made in advance of the forthcoming review.

Both the principle behind the amendments to the code of practice and the amendments themselves have been consulted on. The consultation documents were sent to stakeholders, including the British Museum, the National Council for Metal Detecting and various museums and their representative bodies. All responses to the consultation were supportive of the proposed transfer of responsibilities and of the proposed amendments to the code. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 20 July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

My Lords, we on these Benches support the code. It seems to us to be logical. I know that many groups have been consulted. Moving the responsibility from the DCMS to the British Museum, with the appropriate safeguards, makes all the sense in the world because the British Museum has extensive knowledge. Of course, it will cut down on some of the costs involved.

One issue that we have to raise is that of integrity. The Minister said that while those bringing forward treasure would have to feel that they were receiving a fair price, the Treasure Act itself is a law to try to stop those who take part in illicit activities and do not bring forward treasure finds to be valued. That is one of our major problems: the system of “night hawking” by metal detectorists who raid some of our find sites, taking metal objects which could have been used for dating purposes.

It is unfortunate that no prosecution has taken place under the Treasure Act, which is of course a valuable tool to show where the law lies. It has, however, been extremely difficult to bring about a prosecution. Despite some good work done by the police, the value of these finds often means that no prosecution is made, even though the damage to our ancient monuments in the acquisition of those illicit objects should not be underestimated.

My Lords, I, too, welcome these provisions, and the success of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme as a whole. These revisions, savings and proposed rationalisations are clearly entirely appropriate. Much of the scientific work is done at the British Museum.

However, the Minister was a little modest in his presentation of the scheme. One reason for the formal transfer of many of these responsibilities to the British Museum is the formidable success of the Treasure Act, as reinforced by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I do not think the late, lamented Lord Perth, when he was so vigorously pressing for the new Treasure Act, passed in 1996, could quite have envisaged the success of the scheme. In that year, about 25 treasure trove finds went through the appropriate procedure. In the most recent year for which we have figures, 2005, it was something like 596: an increase by a factor of 20. It has been an enormous success. As I shall say in a moment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has indicated, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the finds liaison officers have played an important part in that process.

The very success of the treasure trove scheme means that many more pieces are being offered to the nation’s museums, including the British Museum, and which it is desirable to acquire. Fortunately, it has been possible to provide the funding, in large measure through the Heritage Lottery Fund as well as the Victoria and Albert Museum scheme. I declare a benign interest as a trustee of the Art Fund which has also played a role. It is suggested that the Heritage Lottery Fund is likely to play a decreasing role in future. I wonder whether it is not time for the Government to set aside a modest sum—£1 million a year or so—for treasure acquisition. Otherwise, there will be a considerable problem.

Wonderful things have been acquired in recent years. One of the most remarkable was the Ringlemere cup: a wonderful gold cup from the beginning of the early Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, which compares with the Rillaton cup. I remind the House that the treasure scheme has been updated from earlier days. I think I am right in saying that on the death of King George V, the Rillaton cup was found on his desk, containing his cufflinks. In those days the treasure system clearly worked in a less formal manner than today. I am sure we welcome that, and the fact that it is now safely in the British Museum.

This is linked to the great success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The finds liaison officers, as the House will know, encourage not only the effective operation of the Treasure Act, but also the voluntary reporting of antiquities, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, reminded us., These antiquities are not treasure—they are not gold, silver or whatever—but are worth recording. In 2005, 57,000 antiquities were so recorded. The scheme is an enormous success on which the Government are warmly to be congratulated. It also has an outreach dimension: there are millions of hits on the website associated with the scheme, and the very efficient team based at the British Museum goes to schools and gives lectures. The nation’s treasure is not only being put in the right place—in museums, in many cases—but is being of educational value.

If I may be even more affable about the Government, it has been a good decade for antiquities. It started in 1996, when there was still a Conservative Government, as the Minister will recall, but since then a number of significant steps have safeguarded antiquities in this country. The ratification of the 1970 UNESCO convention by this government is one of them, and the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003—in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a significant hand—was a great step forward. However, the Act does not work retrospectively and, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am still uneasy about some of the things that go on.

For instance, the Sevso treasure was recently exhibited in a London saleroom. It is not believed to have been found in this country—although I do not think the Minister could give me an assurance that it was not—and it was probably exported from its country of origin, almost certainly illegally, after 1970 and must therefore be of uncertain ownership. I find it difficult to see how the Government could grant it an export licence. However, we cannot blame the Government for the failure of the legislation at that point because of the convention that legislation does not act retrospectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said in today’s Guardian, it is a knotty problem that requires resolution, but that will not be easy. However, the larger picture has been entirely positive.

I shall conclude on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, by pointing out that the success of the working of the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme depends on the team of 47 or so people based at the British Museum who work in liaison with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Comprehensive Spending Review is causing anxiety among those of us who admire the working of the scheme. I am told that it will require about £1.5 million to operate at the present level in 2008-09 and about £1.6 million in 2010. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I ask the Minister to consider ring-fencing those sums so that the scheme can go forward.

It is sometimes said that the present Government are looking for a legacy. There may be some areas where the legacy does not command my entire admiration, but in this area, for which the Minister is responsible, it is a fine legacy, and my advice to the Government is to safeguard it by ring-fencing it. I am therefore happy to support the code.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for his comments about the advances we have made in allocating finds to their proper place, which, in many cases, is for the good of the nationin museums. I could expand his praise of recent developments in terms of museum attendance, the figures for which are so much higher than they were in the recent past. That reflects the fact that we now address ourselves to a nation that is much more aware of this legacy and of the enormous rewards than can be derived from our museums and that takes a keen interest in this subject. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy.

Both noble Lords stretched the discussion on the code. I sought to emphasise not only that the code of practice is based on rationality, but also that there are administrative gains by effecting reductions in unnecessary expenditure, thereby releasing funds for necessary expenditure. I hope the noble Lords recognise that we are concerned about these matters, but they ranged much more widely than that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we have a genuine problem with those who do not declare their finds. Those involved in detection give enormous help in rescuing treasure. They play their part in archaeological digs and engage in their own forays. Many honest citizens and true ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, indicated, finds become available, and proper rewards go to those who have discovered them and to those on whose land they have been found.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.30 pm.]

moved Amendment No. 119:

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 129, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, relate to exclusions and parental responsibility for exclusions.

We had a very lengthy discussion in Committee about exclusions. The key issue was how far parents of excluded children can keep them under house arrest, which is what the government proposals in effect suggest. There was general agreement on all sides of the House that, for many families—one must bear in mind that the pupils who are excluded often come from disadvantaged, often one-parent, families, where the sole breadwinner has a relatively low-skilled job, perhaps paid at the minimum wage, and is likely to be dismissed if they fail to turn up for work—requiring a parent to take time off from work to supervise a child poses considerable difficulties for them. This was summed up rather neatly by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at col. 1708 of the Official Report, when he said:

“It is wrong to think that incarceration is the only form of punishment. The punishment is actually on the parents in this case. The people who will suffer are the parents, and the child will suffer because the parents are suffering. That is the mechanism being used. To inconvenience the parents sufficiently for them to want to discipline the child it is not necessary to tell the parent, “You go home and stay home for five days”, in order that the child should be properly disciplined”.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1708.]

In replying to these concerns the Minister rightly pointed out that the recommendation that parents should take responsibility for their children came in the first instance from the Steer report, which many of us felt was very good and well balanced. It stressed the importance of ensuring that exclusions are seen not as a reward with time off from school but as a punishment. I confess that that rang very true, as I am a governor of a small primary school in a relatively disadvantaged area and one of the problems we have faced is children on short-term exclusions from school riding their bicycles round the school property. The pupils involved see their bad behaviour rewarded with extra time off from school, and that is not what we want.

The Minister also pointed out that the provisions apply only to the first five days of exclusion and that the key issue was short-term, temporary exclusions. Of the 344,500 exclusions in 2003-04, 85 per cent were for five days or fewer, 50 per cent were for only one or two days and 26 per cent were for just one day. The very large burden of what to do with children during short-term exclusions is a real problem that has to be faced.

Other problems continue to arise. My noble friend Lady Williams, who is unfortunately unable to be with us today to argue this amendment in my place, wrote a letter to the Minister in which she said:

“First, the defence of ‘reasonable justification’ does not in itself address the situation that may arise when others are unreasonable. Some of the parents of excluded children will be single parents, trying to bring up children while holding down a full or nearly full-time job. If their employer is unsympathetic, and will not give them immediate leave to pick up the child concerned, the parent will be faced with a difficult dilemma. Does she or he conform to the school’s request, or to the employer’s order? Many parents particularly in low-paid occupations may be at risk of [losing their job] if they absent themselves from work.

Second, some parents will have jobs that demand their presence, and cannot easily be replaced if they absent themselves. Nurses and medical aides in NHS hospitals fall into this category. So do teachers and teaching aides. So do carers in homes for the elderly or the dying. None of these people can easily abandon responsibilities just as weighty as that of attending to their child.

Third, many parents have elderly parents they cannot call upon, or spouses/partners who are unreliable and who may be largely absent or addicted to alcohol or drugs. For such a parent, the conflict between the needs of other children or elderly relatives and the demands of the job they hold may be virtually irreconcilable”.

My noble friend makes very real points that led us to put forward Amendments Nos. 126 and 127, the thinking behind which I would like to explain a little more. I confess that Amendment No. 126 is not quite what we had in mind and I have, so to speak, an amendment to the amendment which I need to explain. The amendment reads:

“The local education authority for the area of the school which has excluded the pupil must offer a place at a pupil referral unit for the period of the exclusion referred to in subsection (2)”.

We were picking up on the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, discussed in Committee. He said that the right thing would be for three or four local schools to club together to form a pupil referral unit which could be used jointly. Not every parent will have problems when confronted by the need to look after an excluded child but some will face real difficulties—and where there are real difficulties they should have the option of asking for a place at a pupil referral unit. The amendment that we would like to see would state:

“The local education authority for the area of the school which has excluded the pupil must offer the parent the option of a place at a pupil referral unit”.

That would meet our requirements.

To some extent Amendment No. 127 follows on from that. It refers to the child accompanying the parent to a pupil referral unit and provides clarification, as do the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In looking at the concept of whether the parent is guilty of an offence, the alleviating circumstances must be whether the pupil is,

“accompanying a parent to the parent’s place of employment or a hospital or other healthcare facility”,

or

“with a parent at the parent’s place of employment”,

or—and this picks up on the point that I was making—

“accompanying a parent to a pupil referral unit.

We tabled Amendment No. 129 at the request of the Advisory Centre for Education. I believe that its representatives have been to see the Minister and discussed with him their worries about the whole question of what is “reasonable justification” and its interpretation. The Minister’s letter to my noble friend Lady Williams refers at length to the agreements that he came to with the Advisory Centre for Education. Perhaps I may read out the letter because it will be useful to have it on the record. It states:

“My officials have recently met with representatives of Parents’ Groups such as Parentline Plus and the Advisory Centre for Education, to discuss possible changes to my Department’s draft guidance to LAs on penalty notices and parental responsibility for the whereabouts of excluded pupils. We were able to agree several changes with the groups. The main changes are to: amend the model letter for schools to issue to the parent at the time of exclusion, to make it clear to the parent what their duty is for the first five days and outlining the principle of the defence of ‘reasonable justification’”.

One of the requirements of the Advisory Centre for Education is that there should be an understanding and information for the parent about what is meant by that wording.

The letter goes on to say that the main changes will also,

“reflect the wording on the exclusion of pupils with Special Educational Needs included in the recently issued Exclusions guidance in the new guidance we will issue on penalty notices. This wording makes it clear that schools must have regard to the SEN Code of Practice on identifying, assessing and making provision for pupils with SEN, including those with behavioural, social and emotional needs. We will also cross refer the reader to the full exclusions guidance, include a reference in the Penalty Notice guidance to encourage local authorities to collect data to help them monitor the use of penalty notices for whereabouts; and revise the wording in the draft guidance to emphasise that a penalty notice should not normally be issued for a first offence”.

I feel that that meets the requirements of the advisory centre for the provision of better information for parents on what “reasonable justification” means. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to clarify those issues. That covers the three amendments that I wish to speak to.

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, drew the House’s attention to an important point relating to the definition of school hours in Clause 100 and its implications for our policy on the whereabouts of excluded pupils. Our intention is for pupils not to be present in a public place during school hours on the first five days of exclusion without reasonable justification. In “school hours”, we include the lunch hour and other breaks that a school may permit during the day. Amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 128 and 131 in the name of the noble Baroness provide a more sufficient and robust definition of “school hours” than is in the Bill. They improve the Bill and we are very glad to accept them.

Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 129, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are concerned with the provisions the Bill makes for excluded pupils. We have given a great deal of further attention to that issue and the noble Baroness was good enough to quote some of the correspondence. However, I have a reply outstanding to the latest letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I will reply, but I hope I can give some indication of where we will be going on that and I hope that the noble Baroness will find that at least a move in the right direction.

Amendment No. 126 would mean that local authorities would have to make provision from day one of the exclusion, in the case of temporary exclusions, rather than, as proposed in the Bill, from day six. Under existing arrangements, schools and local authorities can and do make provision earlier than the sixth day either at a pupil referral unit or through another form of alternative provision. The issue here is whether we should require local authorities to make alternative provision earlier than the sixth day. We considered this issue long and hard, and I appreciate the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, but our conclusion was that to make a move in this direction was certainly unaffordable at the moment and probably unworkable. Let me explain why.

First, an appropriate place will not always be available immediately in a pupil referral unit unless there is a very significant expansion of supply. To have that significant expansion of supply and other provision that would be suitable for pupils would, in our view, be prohibitively expensive. Our estimate was that it would cost some £53 million a year, compared with the cost of making such provision available from day six, which is around £16 million a year. We accept that some local authorities are in a position to make this provision now because of the facilities they have available.

However, it is not simply a case of the availability of places in pupil referral units. It is important to note that under the law, quite rightly, provision for excluded pupils has to be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs that they may have. Although a pupil referral unit placement may be suitable for excluded pupils in the first few days of exclusion, it may not be. Therefore, that may not be the answer even if we were able to resource PRU provision. It may not be the appropriate provision for a particular excluded child in a particular circumstance.

The conclusion we have reached is that the position in the Bill is right, but of course we expect local authorities to be mindful of their responsibilities. A conscientious local authority would be very mindful indeed of the needs of parents who find it difficult or well nigh impossible to make personal arrangements for the supervision of their children during a short-term exclusion.

Amendments Nos. 127 and 129 address the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, about the duties introduced under Clause 100. Reflecting on the concerns expressed in Committee and following the meeting of my officials with several parents’ organisations to which the noble Baroness referred, we recognise that parents need a clearer explanation of their duty under Clause 100.

I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, undertaking to ensure that the model letter my department offers head teachers to send to parents when a child is excluded is revised to set out clearly the precise nature of their duty under Clause 100, the days on which that duty will apply, the consequences of failing in that duty and the availability of the defence of reasonable justification. Picking up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her latest letter to me, the model letter will also include the telephone number of local authorities’ education welfare services or equivalent. I undertake to speak to the Local Government Association about commitments it may be able to give about, for example, helpline arrangements with extended hours to ensure that this is as accessible as possible for parents, including those who are at work during the day.

I undertake to report back—I fear that I shall be unable to do so in the coming week—to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, on the results of those discussions, and to circulate details to other noble Lords.

However, after careful consideration, we are not persuaded that we should go further and seek to define “reasonable justification” in the way in which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would wish. There are two reasons. First, to include in the notice which the parent receives an indication of what is and what is not a reasonable justification may simply present parents with a list of ready-made excuses. Secondly, having considered what such a list might look like, we do not believe that it is viable to compile it. It would be well nigh impossible to predict the range of factual circumstances in which the defence would be available. The test of what is reasonable will depend on the merits of the individual case. What is reasonable in some circumstances will not necessarily be reasonable in all circumstances. Public libraries were raised in our earlier discussion. Let us take that as an example—I have given some thought to it. Going to a public library might be a reasonable justification for a pupil who needed to undertake specific study, particularly in the run-up to examinations, but it might not be reasonable if the reason for going was to play computer games and to lark around. That is just one example of how to seek to specify “reasonable justification” in guidance or a letter to parents would be well nigh impossible. Those who will bring forward cases under this clause will be reasonable people working for public authorities and they will make reasonable judgments.

I reiterate that we accept that parents, particularly those who may be disadvantaged, need clear guidance. I have gone some way towards clarifying that advice. I am happy to commit the Government to consulting interest groups on the wording of our guidance, but we cannot go as far as to agree to the notice from head teachers including a list of acceptable justifications.

I further stress that the duty placed on parents under Clause 100 is quite specific: they must ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours during the first five days of exclusion. There is no duty on the parent to supervise their child or to be with their child during that time. Where a child may need supervision, the clause does not require the parent to exercise that supervision; a friend or relative could do it. A parent, therefore, is at liberty to arrange for the supervision of the child in whatever way they choose and this need not be in person; hence, they have no need to take time off work, to take their child to work with them, or to accompany their child to a pupil referral unit. However, as I have said, the greater availability of advice from the education welfare service—which I hope we can provide—should mean that those parents who have no capacity to make arrangements will be given proper support.

I know that what I have said falls short of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was seeking, but I hope that I have been able to meet at least some of her concerns. I hope that she and the House will welcome what I have said as achieving the objectives that we all share. Having read the Steer report, I accept what the noble Baroness said. It is the professionals’ remark that the penalty of short-term exclusion often seemed to be no penalty at all which led us into this territory in the first place.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full response. I think I do so also on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. He was exemplary in giving a very detailed response to all the amendments. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted our Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 121, 122, 128 and 131; I am just sorry that he did not do so in front of a rather fuller House. Given that we were not so lucky when we divided the House earlier in today’s proceedings, it is such a shame that colleagues are unable to witness that sometimes we can agree. I am pleased that the Minister has listened to what we said in Committee and responded so positively.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 89 [Enforcement of disciplinary penalties: detention outside normal school hours]:

moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 122:

moved Amendment No. 123:

My Lords, Clause 90 re-enacts provisions that became law in 1998. As I said in Committee, we are not aware that they have caused difficulties over the past eight years and therefore we did not regard this as a controversial part of the Bill.

However, we fully accept that the use of force is a sensitive issue, so from the outset the legislation has been supported by detailed, practical guidance. As I have already indicated, we will review and re-issue this guidance. It will be made available on Teachernet, which is our usual way of communicating with schools. That should ensure wide dissemination.

Ofsted keeps all these issues under review, but I shall need to come back to the noble Baroness on the context in which it might carry out specific monitoring of this matter. I was looking for inspiration from the Box, which, alas, I have not received, but I do not believe that the guidance is statutory. I shall confirm that with the noble Baroness later. Our view, therefore, is that the first subsection of this amendment is unnecessary. There is no need to require my department to issue guidance because we are already fully committed to doing so. Enhanced guidance will be available to all schools when Clause 90 comes into force. I can also promise that it will cover issues highlighted in this and previous debates, including special educational needs and staff training.

The second subsection of the amendment boils down to imposing a requirement on every school to provide specific training for every member of staff who supervises pupils. We continue to believe that this would be disproportionate. Guidance will make clear that decisions about training should be based on risk assessments carried out by individual schools. Those should focus on the likely frequency and seriousness of incidents requiring the use of force. There may well be schools where the head teacher concludes that the risk is such as to justify training of all staff with supervisory responsibilities, but it is more sensible to let heads make decisions based on the needs of particular schools rather than seeking to impose a uniform regime from the centre. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I will not press the amendment at this stage, but I am not totally happy with what he said. Guidance on a website is all very well, but it is also all very theoretical. It is not really a substitute for the sort of training where teachers can discuss the issues and share their experiences, best practice, techniques for de-escalation and so on. If you are going to put a teacher in a situation where something dangerous might arise, you really must make sure that they are properly trained to address it, even if it is not very likely.

I used to be a science teacher, as noble Lords will know, and I would have hated to go into the laboratory without having been trained in how to respond if a child behaved dangerously with a piece of scientific equipment, or if a child had a fit in an environment where there was equipment with which they could hurt themselves. I am pleased to say such a situation never arose, but I would not have felt confident to go into a laboratory without such training.

The more we are successful in including children with severe difficulties in the mainstream—with all the benefits that can provide for certain children—the more we need to be aware that such difficult situations can arise and that all teachers have a right to receive proper training. Although I accept what the Minister said in good faith, I am not quite sure that it is enough. My noble friend and I will consult TreeHouse and the National Autistic Society, and we will consider whether we might want to bring this back at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

moved Amendment No. 124A: