House Of Lords
Tuesday, 30th June 1998.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
European Union: Uk Presidency
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they consider to be the most important achievement in the European Union during the term of their presidency.
My Lords, there were a number of very important achievements in the European Union during the term of the UK presidency. We achieved a real commitment to economic reform, made sure that jobs are at the top of the EU agenda, got enlargement off to a flying start, and oversaw the launch of EMU. We also made progress on the single market and reform of EC policies and on improving the environment, strengthened co-operation to fight organised crime, and ensured a more coherent and powerful European voice on foreign policy. We launched a debate about the future shape of the European Union and how to increase its democratic legitimacy, and a process to take it forward. Outstanding among these, as the Prime Minister told the European Parliament on 18th June, was the launch of two historic events, EMU and enlargement.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive list. Does she not agree that it contains one item of quite historic importance; namely, the fact that 11 independent member states, made up not wholly or indeed at all of idiots or dangerous men, agreed unanimously that they would give up their own currency and start a single currency? That was a free decision taken by them all. Does the Minister not accept that it is rather sad that once again we, the United Kingdom, will not be in at the start? I am not asking her to say when we shall join because I know that she will give me the answer which the Prime Minister reiterated this morning. But will she not accept the plain fact that once again we shall be on the fringes of Europe instead of leading it?
My Lords, let us be clear. Her Majesty's Government want the single currency to succeed. In principle the Government believe that British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. But it is not in Britain's interests to join a single currency in 1999. There is neither the flexibility nor the convergence with other European economies which would make joining the EMU during the course of the parliament in Britain's economic interests. To join now would be to accept a monetary policy which suited other European economies but not our own. We need a period of stability and settled convergence before we can join. In order to create a real option of joining early in the next parliament, it is essential that government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament. In that way, we could join if the single currency is successful and if the Government, Parliament and the people agree.
My Lords, will the Minister accept that while from these Benches we believe that the Government have done a lot in the six months to put the United Kingdom back in the mainstream, we are not forming the leadership of Europe because we have not joined the single currency? The Minister referred to the Government making preparations. We have all received a business pack about preparations. However, is it not time to make political preparations so that our citizens have a lead and can make preparations? I believe that our citizens are looking for a lead from this Government and they are not getting it.
My Lords, those preparations are under way. In the answer that I gave to my noble friend's supplementary question, I made clear that we must now use the next period to prepare for the possibility of joining the EMU should Parliament, government and the people agree so to do.
I agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that there is a leadership role for the United Kingdom in Europe. We believe that during the course of the presidency we re-established strong and positive relations with our European Union partners, and not before time.My Lords, the House will recognise the very difficult question which my noble friend has posed the Minister. But in that long list of amazing achievements by the European Union in the past six months, where does she locate the robust and united stance of the European Union when faced with a crisis—Saddam Hussein in the Gulf?
My Lords, let us be clear. I did not say that they were amazing achievements. They were professional, sound and solid achievements. I am not over-egging any puddings. But the noble Lord raises the question of how the European Union has reacted. It reacted by showing co-operation over the Gulf crisis. Moreover, in another international difficulty, the European Union has shown a unanimity of interest as regards its reactions to Kosovo.
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the effect of EMU on the European citizen will depend very much on where he lives? Can the Minister confirm that because of our particular system of loans for house ownership and such matters, personal borrowing in the United Kingdom amounts to 64 per cent. of GDP whereas in France it amounts to only 16 per cent., in Germany 3 per cent., and in Italy 2 per cent.? Clearly, interest rate levels and who sets them matter far more in this country than in those other countries. Did the Prime Minister take that into proper account when he so enthusiastically facilitated the setting up of EMU?
My Lords, of course the Prime Minister will take all those matters into account. Naturally he would do so, doing a professional job and receiving advice from the Treasury and other government departments during his presidency. I cannot confirm the figures which the noble Baroness has given simply because I do not have that information. If she wishes, I shall write to her confirming those figures. But I remind your Lordships that in going forward, the United Kingdom will see the papers for Euro-X, has had the opportunity to be present at the first of the meetings of Euro-X, and will be keeping a very firm eye on developments on that front.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as well as preparing for the possibility that it may be desirable for us to join a common currency, it would also be desirable and wise to prepare for the possibility that it may not be desirable for us to do so?
My Lords, I believe that both my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it abundantly clear that we will join the EMU if it is in the interests of this country and if Parliament, this Government and the people agree. I believe that that covers all eventualities.
My Lords—
My Lords, I wonder—
Order!
My Lords, we have now spent eight minutes on this Question. I think that it is perhaps for the Opposition Front Bench to wind up the debate.
My Lords, what assessment of the Government's performance as president of the European Union does the Minister think MEPs made when, the day after the Foreign Secretary addressed the European Parliament, they voted down the resolution to congratulate the UK Presidency on its stewardship of the EU Council of Ministers and its preparations for the Cardiff Summit, despite the fact that Labour MEPs constitute the biggest single group in the Parliament? To what does the Minister attribute that defeat in the European Parliament?
My Lords, the noble Lord tells only half the story. The result of the vote to which he refers was due to procedural wrangling between political groups. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, a vote is not normally taken before the European Council; indeed, that is a matter for the European Parliament.
However, the noble Lord did not tell the House that the European Parliament voted on a draft resolution tabled by the socialists on the Cardiff European Council. As a result of the postmortem vote, the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution of congratulation on the Cardiff European Council by 428 to 45 votes. It is the full story that matters, not half of it.Gibraltar Waters: Unlawful Fishing
2.45 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to prevent unlawful fishing in Gibraltar waters.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the seriousness of the problem. The Governor has made clear that the Royal Gibraltar Police has his full support, and that of Her Majesty's Government, in any measures needed to enforce the law in Gibraltar waters.
Our Ambassador in Madrid protested to the Spanish authorities following an incident which occurred on 13th March. Since then, the number of Spanish fishing vessels entering Gibraltar waters has decreased. They are now moving on when the Royal Gibraltar Police instruct them to do so.My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. It is a relief to know that a serious view is being taken, especially as there have been over 200 incidents of Spanish illegal fishing over the past 12 months. Will my noble friend ensure that this serious view is maintained as the response by Spanish fishermen to Gibraltar police boats is often extremely threatening? I should like also to ask my noble friend to maintain an interest in the matter as there are two species of dolphin which thrive in Gibraltar waters that are not likely to live very securely if such incidents continue.
My Lords, I acknowledge the environmental points that my noble friend raises. Of course, Gibraltar has no commercial fishing. On environmental grounds, it enacted in 1991 a local law banning fishing by net or rake. The Government of Gibraltar continue to seek a solution through dialogue at local level between the Gibraltar environmental organisations and the representatives of Spanish fishermen.
However, perhaps I may seek to put my noble friend's mind at rest a little further. I asked this morning for monthly breakdown figures as regards how many incursions there have been since the 13th March incident to which I referred earlier. I can tell the House that there were 73 in March, 26 in April, 12 in May, but only three in June. Therefore, I believe that the action so far taken has been effective.
My Lords, can the Minister affirm that all necessary naval support is available to support the Gibraltar police in enforcing the law in British waters?
My Lords, support is, of course, given. Our ambassador in Madrid has made the situation very clear. I believe that the very pressing need identified by my noble friend in his original Question has to a very large extent been met by the fall in the number of incursions, as I was able to tell him in my answer to his supplementary question. Therefore, we have so far been successful in tackling the problem in the way that the Government of Gibraltar and Her Majesty's Government have been able to do.
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there is sufficiently close co-operation between the Gibraltarian and Spanish authorities in combatting the very extensive trade in smuggling drugs and people across the Strait of Gibraltar?
My Lords, the drugs trade and the illicit trade in people are always a problem. We try to obtain co-operation through a number of different fora to combat these problems. We shall continue to press for co-operation in this area.
My Lords, will the Government consider that a better way to get the message over to the Spanish authorities might be if the Government here were to reconsider their hostility to giving votes in European elections to the people of Gibraltar, as we demanded during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last week?
My Lords, I remember that debate rather well because I sat through it. I remember that the noble Lord said this was an overwhelming case; so overwhelming in fact that when his party was in government it did nothing about it. Last week my noble friend Lord Williams explained that to do what the noble Lord suggests would put us in breach of EC law. The only legally secure way to extend the European Parliament franchise to Gibraltar is to amend the 1976 EC Act on direct elections. This would require the unanimous agreement of all member states. We do not believe that would be forthcoming.
My Lords, is this not the latest in a long series of incidents caused by the previous government allowing our waters and those of Gibraltar to be opened up to all the Community's fishermen at the time of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union?
My Lords, it is remarkable how the enthusiasm of the party opposite to put things right is much more evident now than it was when it had the opportunity to do so. Spain does not recognise British territorial waters around Gibraltar because they were not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht. Whatever I wish to lay at the door of the party opposite, I do not think I can manage to go that far back!
My Lords, we are all grateful for the fact that Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador has protested to the authorities in Madrid—I hope in the strongest terms—about the illegal fishing. Will the noble Baroness ensure that the British ambassador in Madrid goes back to the authorities and protests in the strongest possible terms about the harassment that occurs regularly to Spaniards, Gibraltarians, and indeed many tourists, entering and leaving the Rock of Gibraltar?
My Lords, Spain has the right to carry out customs checks because Gibraltar is outside the Community customs territory. It also has the right to carry out a light passport check, but we continue to urge Spain to ensure that such checks are proportionate to the need. We are pleased that the situation has recently improved, but we take any delays seriously. I can assure the noble Earl that we raise them frequently with the Spanish authorities.
War Widows: Reimbursement Of Tax
2.52 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reimburse British ex-prisoners of war, their war widows or dependants, with the present day value of tax deducted from pay due to them while in captivity.
My Lords, the assessment of prisoners of war for income tax was conducted in accordance with the normal rules, which provided that when service personnel were serving abroad their service pay was assessed to United Kingdom income tax. Service personnel continued, of course, to serve and to be paid while in captivity. The Government have no plans to refund the tax deducted.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he is aware that without taxpayers the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been able to give £300 million to those who have suffered strife for the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister aware that the amount that was deducted from the pay of the officers imprisoned in Germany and in Italy during the past world war—there were about 8,000 of them—amounted to about £1.8 million, or £37.5 million in today's terms, and that in Stalagluft III, which was an RAF camp, the officers provided financial help to the other ranks to the tune of up to about £2 million in today's terms? Can the Minister explain why, unlike our wartime allies—that is to say, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the former Rhodesia and South Africa—who promoted their officers, paid pensions and increased those pensions and did not deduct any tax from their pay, we did the exact opposite? Why is it—
Oh!
My Lords, this is my third question. I believe that I am allowed three supplementary questions. Do Ministers believe that the electorate, especially former prisoners of war, their widows and dependants, feel that Ministers are telling the truth when they stand by the Cenotaph and say, "Lest we forget"?
My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, right that a considerable sum was deducted from prisoner of war officer pay. When it was deducted wrongly—in the sense that camp pay turned out not to have been paid either during or after the war—refunds were made at repatriation. It was also the case—although this probably occurred too late and too slowly—that camp pay could be repatriated during the course of the war to dependants under arrangements organised by the protecting power.
As regards the noble Lord's question about comparisons with other countries, I acknowledge that there were differences. But the government policy on the deduction of income tax from service pay was publicly announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1943. It was well known throughout the period of the war and the period after the war when repatriation took place.My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that speaking only for myself, I find his Answer wholly satisfactory?
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and particularly grateful knowing of his experience in the war.
My Lords, speaking on behalf of the War Widows Association, if there should be any chance at all of money coming back to some of these ladies—they are few in number after 53 years—does the Minister agree it would be a happy day for them to have a present from their husbands 53 years on?
My Lords, of course it would, but the noble Baroness is as well aware as I am from her distinguished service as the president of the War Widows Association that the pay records of service personnel were destroyed some years after the war. Even those who have objected to the Government's policy and were dissatisfied with the review which was announced last year have never thought it possible that there should be individual restitution.
Film Review Group Report: A Bigger Picture
2.57 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made in the Film Review Group's report entitled A Bigger Picture.
My Lords, work is well under way towards the implementation of the action plan set out in the report A Bigger Picture. The proposed training strategy, which will include a major new skills investment fund, is being developed for launch later this year. Considerable progress has been made towards designing the new all-industry fund which is due to begin operating in mid-1999. A detailed work plan for the Film Education Group is being worked up for its first full meeting in September. Progress is also being made on the other recommendations in the report and we are on target to have a new strategy for the film industry in place by April 2000.
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while this report is to be warmly welcomed there is a long way for the British film industry to go before it catches up with the major Hollywood companies? Therefore, implementation of the report is a necessary first step. Is my noble friend entirely persuaded that a voluntary all-industry fund—he mentioned the fund but he did not say whether it was voluntary—is the best way forward? Of the many valuable recommendations which are made, will he say whether the Government can indicate their priorities in taking action?
My Lords, my noble friend is, of course, right. Despite the recent successes of the British film industry we are still structurally very much at a disadvantage compared with the United States film industry. To that extent the boom and bust—if I may use the Chancellor's term—which the British film industry has suffered in recent years is still likely to recur. As regards the all-industry fund, my noble friend queries whether it should be voluntary. The British film industry is not mendicant; £3 billion is spent by the British public on attendance at British films and on television performances of British films. It would not be right for the Government to throw money at the British film industry. What we can do is attempt to deal with the market failures that the industry has recognised.
If my noble friend is asking whether the all-industry fund is going to work, I draw his attention to the membership of the action group. It is very powerful indeed. Broadcasters, including Channel 5, Granada, BSkyB and the BBC, are included; the major American players such as Goldwyn, Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox are included; the major studios; British Screen Finance; the British Film Commission; the Arts Council; and the BFI are all included. That is good evidence that the voluntary fund will work.My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how the removal of tax relief on the travelling and subsistence expenses of film crews on short-term contracts on British locations helps to achieve the objectives of A Bigger Picture?
My Lords, it will hardly make a significant difference in either direction. However, it is in accordance with normal tax procedures. We ought not to be making special interest exceptions of that kind.
My Lords, following the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and the important point about the establishment of an all-industry film fund, is the noble Lord aware that many of those who will be asked to subscribe are not at all happy to subscribe to a fund, rather than doing as they presently do and will continue to do—namely, individually supporting the industry in ways that are fitting for commercial reasons? In the cost-benefit analysis now being undertaken as to whether this is the way to proceed, will the Government be reasonably impartial? Will they examine that concern, rather than trying to support the proposals contained in the document, A Bigger Picture?
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the cost-benefit analysis will be impartial. Regarding the noble Viscount's major question, he should see the all-industry fund as sitting alongside other public sector activities. After all, we are seeking only 0.5 per cent. of film-based turnover. Although there is presently no evidence, my conviction is that the powerful membership of the action group to which I have referred will secure that. It will bring £15 million to £25 million to add to the funds already available from the Arts Council, lottery financing and the production fund.
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the biggest difficulties facing the British film industry lies in the distribution of its films? Do the Government have any specific proposals in relation to that problem?
Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is right. We have a number of major players in film production. However, our exhibitors are very much in the hands of the major American players. The result is that, instead of the vertical integration that exists in the United States' film industry, our distribution facilities are very fragmented and under-financed. A substantial part of the effort described in A Bigger Picture is the provision of research, marketing and other support for that weak link in the film production, distribution and exhibition chain.
Pesticides Bill
3.3 p.m.
Read a third time.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving the Motion, I wish to thank those from all sides of the House who have contributed to the discussion. It has been an interesting initiation into the workings of the House, and certainly not as straightforward as I had imagined.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, taught me much about the interplay between business in this House and in another place. I shall know another time to look both ways, even when crossing what appears to be the quietest of country roads! The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has not only given us the benefits of her magisterial experience but also called on the juridical experience of close friends and helped me understand more about the processes of this House. I believe the Bill will now significantly improve the legal framework for the regulation of pesticides in the UK. I commend it to the House.Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—( Lord Stone of Blackheath)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.
School Standards And Framework Bill
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Chapter Ai
Key Stage 1: Annual Performance Tables
Key Stage 1: Publication Of Annual Performance Tables
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish annual performance tables for the results of National Curriculum assessments at the end of key stage 1 for all relevant schools.
(2) The performance tables defined in subsection (1) shall include the average class size.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of various amendments that we shall propose from this side of the House which in essence put forward the policy of using existing facts—I repeat, existing facts: facts that are ascertainable and about which we can find out—as a means of judging whether the proposals in the Bill actually improve standards. One of the problems regarding educational reform over the past 20 years has been that rhetoric has often replaced facts. Whereas we all agree that we are in the business of improving standards, we can often hide reality behind a cloud of words.
I and my noble friends accept the view put forward decisively by the Government that smaller classes are in essence better than larger ones. As a former independent school headmaster, I accept that independent schools have always valued smaller classes. However, I think we can enter into agreement in saying that reduction in class sizes is not of itself a universal panacea. On its own it may not be the total answer to the improvement of educational standards.
Perhaps I may mention a few other factors that we ought to consider: first, styles of teaching. There is sometimes a view that whole class teaching is better than dividing a class and in that case, some educationists argue, classes can be somewhat larger.
Another factor is care over correction of work. In this case, smaller classes are better than larger ones in that schoolteachers can devote more time to the class with which they are dealing. They can also give individual attention to pupils who have problems. Here again, smaller class size is of good value.
We can all agree on that. However, it is worth saying that problems exist. That brings me to the point of my amendment. It is concerned with those awful things, facts. It is concerned not merely with the improvement of standards, but with how they are improved and how they are judged. Our amendment proposes that a detailed analysis is made of the effect that reduced class sizes would have on school performance. We are offering the Government a means of knowledge. As Plato, Aristotle and many others said, knowledge is a means to truth—therefore, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, the more knowledge, the better. Knowledge is one of the most potent weapons in improving standards in education.
The amendment is very simple and direct. I suggest that it is well within the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill. The amendment would do two things. It would make available to all of us the overall performance of schools in relation to class size. That information would be of value to educationists. It would also enable us to judge the future. In my opinion and that of my noble friends, that could do nothing but good. It is on that note that I commend the amendment to the House.
I shall be interested to see how the noble Baroness can oppose the amendment because what I suggest is a study of facts. Her ingenuity in opposing my excellent amendments always amazes me, but in this case I am sure that she will say, "Well, I think I'd like these facts as well". I cannot see why she should not want them, but if she does say that, then I shall mistrust her motives, albeit somewhat slightly. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
3.15 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Lord properly spent time speaking about the other factors which contribute towards a proper and full education. As he said, he has had great experience himself as a former headmaster of an independent school in the independent sector. What concerns me is that the party opposite should say these things and simply diminish the importance of small classes. One thing that private schools have in common is their small classes. That applies to all the independent schools. I suggest that demonstrates it to be the most important factor in all of them.
We could go further. Brilliant teachers make a very big difference, as we know. I am glad that the noble Lord approves of that. However, he weakens his case considerably by saying that the number in a class is not all that important. It seems to me, and to those on this side of the House, that it is vitally important. That is why the Labour Party, and now the Labour Government, properly place such importance on it.My Lords, I support the amendment strongly. It gets close to the nub of the matter in this part of the Bill and I took an interest in it at Committee stage, as I do now. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said that my noble friend's amendment diminishes the importance of the size of classes. Perhaps we shall come to that when the Minister moves her amendment, if she is particularly concerned about it.
To publish annual performance tables of this key stage is an essential feature of the state school system. People cannot choose without information and the teaching profession in the area cannot tell how they are getting on without the information. It seems to me that parents, teaching staff and everyone else are perfectly capable of making distinctions between the possibilities there are for schools and what their problems are. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, shakes his head, but where it has been done it has proved to be the case. I know the party he represents does not like it—it is a historical matter—but the facts are that it is enormously helpful to everyone concerned. I support the amendment.My Lords, I support the proposal to reduce class sizes where possible, but I also maintain that it is the quality of teaching that is important. The Government have said that they have put aside a certain amount of money to assist in the reduction of class sizes. But I understand that it takes two or three years to train a teacher. When the Minister answers the question, can she say from where the additional teachers will come? If it takes so long to train teachers, it will take some time to find them.
My Lords, I see the Minister rising and I am tempted to let her answer first because I would certainly not claim her ingenuity in explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, why I cannot support what he believes to be such obviously sensible amendments.
I say that for a number of reasons. First, I welcome his clear statement, accepting that smaller classes are desirable and make a difference. Having sat on the Bench I still sit on during the lifetime of the previous government, that was far from clear to me when the other Benches were reversed and the noble Lord's colleagues sat where the Minister now sits. It is far from clear to me that they believed that smaller class sizes made any difference at all, whether at infant or later ages. So I welcome one part of his statement: the clear recognition that class sizes make a difference. The noble Lord went on to say that they were not a universal panacea. I do not think that any of us who are advocates of smaller class sizes would say that that is the be-all and end-all to better education for children. Of course it is not. A bad teacher will not necessarily be a good teacher in a smaller class and a good teacher will probably he better than a bad teacher in a large class. But there is no doubt that a good teacher will be an even better teacher in a smaller class where such teachers can give greater attention to the children. We are therefore now talking about the publication of performance tables, more usually known as league tables because once they are published at national level that is what they inevitably become. They become league tables like performance tables at any other stage which are published. There seems to be confusion about whether the information is available and, if it is, whether it is secret. The information is available, it is made available to parents and teachers. So judgments can be made. Where it is not available in published form anyway is at national level. I continue to have misgivings about league tables that are published. I will have even greater misgivings should we ever reach the stage of publishing crude league tables at key stage one. I do not think that we will do that. I read the Minister's reply when we had a debate on this at Committee stage. I thought that she answered the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, very well. I recognise that he was at a disadvantage at the time because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had just run out of the Chamber with his notes. We all felt for him on that occasion. Added value or value added are the buzz words. That is important. If this kind of information is to be able to make a valid statement about the effect of reducing class sizes we need properly to be able to compare the situation as it is now with the situation as it develops as class sizes become smaller. We are not in a position to do that. I argue that a better comparison which is fairer to schools would be between the improvement at the base line when they start and when they have reached key stage one. So I do not doubt that in the fullness of time the Government will move towards publishing such information at a national level, but I hope that, as and when it comes, it will not come in the crude form we have known in the past and will take account of the important differences. However, it is also linked to the publication of information about class sizes. Again, I read the Minister's reply and I do not want to steal what I suspect she will say. Publishing class size numbers is all right at a national level overall. It is probably all right at the LEA level, although with some small LEAs of which I have experience even that can be distorted. However, publishing it at individual school level can be misleading. Facts and information are useful. Misinformation and misinterpretation of facts are very dangerous. That would be my concern if the two are linked in this way. We all want to know how well the reduction of class sizes works. We are all committed to driving up standards. I have no doubt about that. We may have different ideas as to how it can best be done, but we all want to see it done. I would worry very much if this method were chosen. While I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I suspect that there may be some of his colleagues who a year or two ago were not committed to smaller class sizes. They want to go down this route to prove that the Government's investment in smaller class sizes is wasteful. I do not believe that to be the case and primarily for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.My Lords, I was interested in the final comment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This is not about scoring points or proving people wrong. The Government have linked class sizes with performance. That is the whole rationale for what the Government are doing because they believe that reducing class sizes to 30 will improve education.
There is a great debate going on about class sizes and I repeat something that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, as regards a poor teacher with a small class and a good teacher with a large class. Very often the better deal for the child educationally will be with the good teacher, whatever the size of the class. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, a good teacher with a small class can achieve that much more. Nevertheless, there is poor scientific evidence on the point and a great deal of debate on what is important. One of the factors to which I give great weight is the ability of head teachers to make a judgment about where, if they had more money, they would spend it in their schools. The chances are that in many primary schools the head teachers would spend it on keeping class sizes down. But there would be some occasions when they would spend the money in another way where it would be more beneficial educationally. One of the factors I support is giving that choice to head teachers. The rigidity of the Government's policy means that priorities of both the LEA and the schools will be pre-empted by the Government without any flexibility whatever. I find it difficult to understand what the arguments can be against obtaining the very information that will inform people about the effect of class sizes in our schools. If one has such information, bringing together the size of the class and the achievement of the school, it will be possible to make real, scientific judgments as to the effect of the policy. I cannot believe that the Government are not interested in seeing and evaluating the effectiveness of their policy. I want to leave one fact on the table as a contribution to this extremely confused debate as to whether it is a beneficial policy; that is, the statistics that went with the Inner London Education Authority. It spent the most on children in schools. It was the highest spender in the whole country. It had the most generous pupil:teacher ratios in primary and in secondary schools and yet produced the worst education in the country. That is irrefutable; it is part of the record. There is a good deal of confusion around the issue and, over time, this amendment would provide this Government and other governments with information that is important in order to make a real evaluation as to the effect of the application of the policy on class sizes.My Lords, I shall have to try to be ingenious again. When we last had the opportunity to debate the issues raised by this amendment in Committee, it was clear that there was a fair amount of common ground between us in several key areas. I believe that there still is.
We all share agreement on the need to make information publicly available, which enables comparisons to be made of the performance of our schools so as to enable us to inform the debate on standards in schools and to raise those standards right across the board. That is something about which there is common agreement. We can also agree that the way forward in improving the data provided in school performance tables, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, is the introduction of measures of value-added by schools from one stage to another or possibly at the beginning of the stage through to the end of it. That is the only fair and just way of assessing the quality of what schools are providing in terms of the performance of pupils. I believe also that we agree that the development of those value-added measures is complex and depends on suitable data on a pupil's prior attainment coming on stream. Research shows that prior attainment is the single most influential factor on performance in later years. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said: that is, that we cannot use class size as a universal panacea. The Government are not doing that. There are many other factors which affect the quality of what is being provided. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about the quality of teachers. That is of enormous importance and is perhaps the most important factor of all. However, he raised the question of where the teachers would come from. The one area where we can be confident is as regards infant school teachers. Applications for teaching at that level are buoyant and courses for infant school teaching are over-subscribed. I do not believe therefore that there will be a problem in the recruitment of additional teachers at that stage. I know that we also agree on the importance of early years schooling on the future development, both educational and personal, of the individual pupil and on the importance of reducing class sizes in those early years. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said in that regard. He is absolutely right. There is a great deal of evidence to support his position. However, the arguments against the amendment still stand. At the risk of repeating points that I made in Committee, we already have statutory provisions in place in the 1996 Education Act governing the publication of performance tables. We are currently in the middle of a programme of significant changes to the way in which information is presented in performance tables. They include, for example, helping parents to see at a glance how each school's performance improved over time; better reflecting the achievements of pupils across the full ability range rather than just looking at the achievements of the most able, and providing information for the first time on progress made in schools between Key Stage 3 in 1996 and GCSEs in 1998—an important step towards the development of full value-added measures. I do not believe therefore that anybody can claim that the Government are being idle in this area. We have also delegated the responsibility for publishing Key Stage 2 results in primary performance tables to individual LEAs, enabling them to provide additional data on primary school performance and to set the results in a local context, which is also important. We have encouraged LEAs to publish Key Stage 1 results alongside the Key Stage 2 results where they can obtain the data without adding to the bureaucratic burdens on schools, of which we must also be aware and take seriously. It is a significant point. There is always the risk, in introducing changes on this scale, that we shall place unreasonable demands on schools in checking or providing the necessary data for publication. We want to reduce the existing burdens overall. It is essential that we plan these developments carefully, taking all these issues into account and, wherever possible, balance any increases in burdens in one area with reductions elsewhere. I am sure that all noble Lords will share that objective. For those reasons I remain unpersuaded that the time is right to introduce a full set of national performance tables at Key Stage 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her noble friend Lord Pilkington both said that we need more scientific evidence. As a social scientist, I do not dispute that. But it is important that the kind of evidence we collect is genuinely helpful rather than misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was offering more knowledge as a way to truth. I agree that that is a desirable objective. But to go back to my elementary statistics, statistical data must be both valid and reliable for it to be useful; otherwise it will lead to misinterpretation and a failure to understand exactly what the data is showing. I do not in any way want to suggest that the Government do not agree with the publication of such performance tables. However, we must wait until we can base the related data requirements on the lessons learnt from the work that we are already doing on the later key stages. I explained to your Lordships during Committee that the collection of statistics on class sizes is not straightforward. It is based currently on a snapshot of the position in schools on a single day at the time of the annual schools' census. Nor do I believe that linking average class sizes with Key Stage 1 results in the way proposed will necessarily be helpful when assessing performance of schools at this stage or conversely, in assessing the effect on performance of reducing class sizes. As the noble Lord knows, there is not one, but a number of factors at work. To link achievement to just one of those would be giving an incomplete picture. Therefore I accept that there is a need to do further work in this area. I accept that at some point we should be able to publish performance tables. I accept also that it is important to evaluate new policies of this kind; and that we shall do. But I do not believe that the amendment as drafted would be helpful to parents. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.3.30 p.m.
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she very kindly gave me an answer to my question on infant schools, but what about the other schools in the education system? Where will the teachers be found to bring their class sizes down to at least 30?
My Lords, the Government are committed to bringing infant school class sizes down to 30. That is what these clauses are about and that is what these amendments are about. If I may say so, the noble Lord's question is not really relevant to the amendments here, but of course the Government are concerned to improve the recruitment of teachers at all stages.
My Lords, perhaps I may begin with my fellow teaching colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. I was not belittling the argument. Anyone who is a practising teacher knows that it is better to teach small classes than large classes, particularly if one is correcting work, even among junior or primary children.
I felt that the noble Baroness met me more than half way, but her ingenuity clouded the route. There seems to be agreement between us but I think that the debate revealed that there is controversy on this matter. The issue is about how one uses resources and whether in some cases to choose between a class of 32 and a better teacher or whether arbitrarily to say that 30 is the limit. I understand why the Government have committed themselves to this, but it is because their commitment has been so precise—30 and no further and the headmaster or headmistress allowed no choice—that my question mark is raised. That is why I want to put facts on the face of the Bill. I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about value added and I share her views on that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said in Committee, this is an enormously complicated matter. There was enormous trouble in finding a system for value added. Therefore, I cannot see that any harm is done by producing facts. They will not be the elixir of truth but they will give some guidance. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; and the Government could open one eye to this. I dispute whether it would lay such a burden on schools. All we are asking is that the class sizes should be put alongside Key Stage 1, which is very easy to do. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out that as things exist at the moment it is difficult. We on this side of the House are not making a violent ideological attack on this point. We are sharing some of the problems and we are saying that there are difficulties and there is agreed ground. But what we are asking is for facts on the face of the Bill, facts which will not lay such a burden on schools. As various surveys have shown, what really lays burdens on schools is the rocks they hit in the pass. Therefore, despite the noble Baroness's ingenuity, charm and her standing on her head, I am not happy. I should like to ask the opinion of the House on this matter.3.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 146.
Division No. 1
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Aberdare, L. | Hayhoe, L. |
| Addison, V. | Henley, L. |
| Ailsa, M. | Hooper, B. |
| Aldington, L. | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Ilchester, E. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Knight of Collingtree, B. |
| Bellwin, L. | Knollys, V. |
| Beloff, L. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Belstead, L. | Lindsay, E. |
| Biffen, L. | Long, V. |
| Blatch, B. | McConnell, L. |
| Boardman, L. | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Braine of Wheatley, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Broadbridge, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Molyneaux of Killead, L. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller.] | Monro of Langholm, L. |
| Butterworth, L. | Moore of Wolvercote, L. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Mottistone, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Mountevans, L. |
| Charteris of Amisfield, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Chelmsford, V. | Munster, E. |
| Chesham, L. | Murton of Lindisfarne, L. |
| Clanwilliam, E. | Noel-Buxton, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Norrie, L. |
| Cranbrook, E. | Onslow, E. |
| Crickhowell, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Cross, V. | Oxfuird, V. |
| Cuckney, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Davidson, V. | Pender, L. |
| De Freyne, L. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Dean of Harptree, L. | Rawlings, B. |
| Denbigh, E. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Denham, L. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Renton, L. |
| Eden of Winton, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Rowallan, L. |
| Elton, L | Sandford, L. |
| Erne, E. | Seccombe, B. [Teller.] |
| Feldman, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Fookes, B. | Sudeley, L. |
| Gage, V. | Swansea, L. |
| Gainford, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Garel-Jones, L. | Teviot, L. |
| Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Glentoran, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Grimston of Westbury, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Westbury, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Kirkhill, L. |
| Addington, L. | Linklater of Butterstone, B. |
| Allen of Abbeydale, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. |
| Alport, L. | Longford, E. |
| Ampthill, L. | Ludford, B. |
| Annan, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | |
| Avebury, L. | Mackie of Benshie, L. |
| Barnett, L. | McNair, L. |
| Bassam of Brighton, L. | McNally, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Maddock, B. |
| Berkeley, L. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Blackburn, Bp. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Blackstone, B. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Blease, L. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Methuen, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Milner of Leeds, L. |
| Callaghan of Cardiff, L. | Mishcon, L. |
| Calverley, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Montague of Oxford, L. |
| Carrick, E. | Morris of Manchester, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Murray of Epping Forest, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. |
| Chorley, L. | Northbourne, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Ogmore, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Paul, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Peston, L. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Pitkeathley, B. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Donoughue, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Rea, L. |
| Dubs, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Eatwell, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Exmouth, V. | Ripon, Bp. |
| Ezra, L. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Sainsbury of Turville, L. |
| Fitt, L. | Sandberg, L. |
| Gallacher, L. | Sandwich, E. |
| Geraint, L. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Gibson, L. | Serota, B. |
| Glenamara, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Gordon of Strathblane, L. | Shannon, E. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Shepherd, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Shore of Stepney, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Simon, V. |
| Grenfell, L. | Simon of Highbury, L. |
| Hampton, L. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Hardie, L. | Stallard, L. |
| Hardy of Wath, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Hayman, B. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | Taverne, L. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Holme of Cheltenham, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Howie of Troon, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Hoyle, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Hughes, L. | Tope, L. |
| Hughes of Woodside, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Hunt of Kings Heath, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] | Wallace of Saltaire, L. |
| Watson of Invergowrie, L. | |
| Jay of Paddington, B. | Weatherill, L. |
| Jenkins of Hillhead, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Jenkins of Putney, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Kennedy of The Shaws, B. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Kennet, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Kinloss, Ly. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Kintore, E. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.44 p.m.
Clause 1 [ Power to set limits on infant class sizes]:
moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert(".—
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations—(a) impose a limit on class sizes for infant classes at maintained schools; and (b) specify the school years in relation to which any such limit is to have effect.
(2) Any limit imposed under this section shall specify the maximum number of pupils that a class to which the limit applies may contain while an ordinary teaching session is conducted by a single qualified teacher.
(2A) Subject to subsections (3) and (3A), regulations under this section shall be so framed that—
(3) Regulations under this section may—
(3A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2A)—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 17, 172 to 175, 201 and 234. As Members of your Lordships' House will recall during Committee, following our discussions on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I undertook to return to the House with proposals on this matter. These government amendments will meet the committee's concerns and therefore I am very pleased to move them.
I said before and I say again, that we are keen to respond as positively as possible to the committee's recommendation, as we have done elsewhere in the Bill. Not only have we placed the maximum number of 30 on the face of the Bill, we have placed the deadline of 2001 on the face of the Bill, too. However, it would not be wise for the maximum number of 30 and the deadline of 2001 to be completely inflexible. The reason is simply that we may, at some future date, want to consider reducing infant class size limits even further to 28, 27 or, who knows, even to 25. In asking for these important powers to be placed on the face of the Bill, we do not believe that the committee intended to limit flexibility. Indeed, its report makes clear that it has accepted the need for flexibility in implementing this policy. Its intention—which we fully accept—was to permit informed debate on the government's central objectives in imposing infant class size limits, but I do not believe that the committee intended that the limit of 30 should be set in stone. That is why subsection (3A) gives the Secretary of State power by order to amend the maximum number and the deadline.
There is no question of this Government using these flexibilities to renege on their pledge to the British people. We could not have been clearer. We shall ensure that by the beginning of the 2001 school year—earlier where circumstances will allow—no child of five, six or seven years of age will be in a class of over 30. The fact that we are introducing this legislation and the £62 million that we have already made available, shows that we are determined that this pledge will be met.
If at some future date we find ourselves in a position to build on this well-supported policy, by reducing the maximum number even more, these amendments enable us to do so without the need for primary legislation. We would have to change both the maximum number and the target date because any new number would apply from a date other than that shown on the face of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 172 to 175. These are of an entirely technical nature. The standard number is the minimum number of pupils that a school must admit if it is asked to do so in the normal admissions age group. But admission authorities are free to set admission limits above this if they choose to do so. They must then admit pupils to this level. They must not set an admission limit below the standard number.
It is essential that arrangements relating to admission numbers do not in any way restrict the effective implementation of class size policy. We are taking measures in Clause 92 and Schedule 23 to ensure that admission authorities do not set an admission limit above the standard number if that limit would conflict with infant class size limits. These measures require admission authorities to review the existing standard number and to apply for a reduction where it is set at a level which would be incompatible with meeting the class size limit.
Clause 92 also gives the Secretary of State the power to disapply the standard number for a transitional period while the review is being carried out and a reduction is applied for. These amendments simply allow for transitional arrangements so that the measures we have set out in Clause 92 and Schedule 23 can take effect when the class size regulations come into force. They make no change to the provisions that we are putting in place to help admission authorities plan admission numbers in the light of the class size limit, as soon as possible.
Similarly, Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 are of a technical nature and reflect the introduction to the Bill of the new Clause 1(2A) which allows for only one class size limit. There is no change to the nature of the provisions contained in Schedule 23.
Amendment No. 234 provides for transitional provisions which are necessary following Royal Assent. The provisions on class sizes will come into force immediately. However, we intend the new admission framework to come into force on 1st April 1999. This amendment gives specific power to adapt the existing admission legislation in the Education Act 1996 so it is consistent with the class size provisions before the new admissions framework is brought into force. This is necessary to ensure that admission authorities can plan admissions so that they will be able to comply with the class size provisions. If admission authorities are to comply with the class size provisions by 2001, they need to have suitable admission arrangements, including planning numbers, in place for the beginning of the admissions round for entry in September 1999.
The amendment will allow them to plan for new infant class size limits to be an integral part of the admission arrangements over the three years of entry beginning in September 1999. Those children admitted in September 1999 would be subject to infant class limits in 2001.
Subparagraph (1)(b) will enable the existing legislation relating to appeals to be modified before the new admission framework is in force so that it contains provisions to constrain appeals panels from making decisions to admit children which would breach the class size legislation.
Subparagraph (1)(c) would allow transitional provisions specifically to cover the occasions where the published admission arrangements were not compatible or consistent with any modified arrangements that were necessary. Admission authorities would have to redetermine and republish their arrangements.
The Government have responded positively to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The Government are committed to limiting the size of infant classes and to doing so as quickly as practicable. I urge the House to support the amendments. I beg to move.
My Lords, I must point out to your Lordships that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 inclusive.
My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments. It is good to see the Government's broad intentions on the face of the Bill. However, I should like to ask one question about what I think may be an omission from Amendment No. 2. In Committee, the Minister told us that despite the expenditure that would be involved the Government were determined to keep class sizes to the number prescribed and that if necessary extra teachers would be recruited and new building work carried out. The Minister said that quite clearly. We hear that a good deal of money is to be moved into schools from other areas of expenditure on our national life, presumably partly to meet this extra expenditure.
I have read in the education press that one of the ways in which the Government's aim is to be met is by creating classes containing children at different stages, with two or even three-stage classes. Can the Minister confirm that that is a possibility? If it is, can the noble Baroness tell me whether the Government think that 30 children is the right maximum for a mixed stage class? In Scotland, the contractual limit on the maximum size of a class containing children who are all at one stage is 33, but when the class contains children at two different stages, the maximum size allowed is 25. Those limits apply at every level of schooling, right through a child's school life. It seems to me that it must be very difficult for a teacher to teach children at two or three different stages. It is probably not impossible with a smaller number of children, but if a class contained 30 children at three different stages, the teacher would have to be pretty good to be able to cope. I wonder whether the Minister has allowed for that. My reading of the text of Amendment No. 2 does not reveal that that is allowed for in future regulations. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to this important point.My Lords, I too welcome Amendment No. 2 and the fact that the Government have been able to go into rather more detail about their proposals. However, at the next stage will the Minister consider going just a mile further because class sizes seem an awfully blunt instrument in terms of very young children. Normally in classes containing four and five year-olds there will be at least one assistant and perhaps two. The quality of that assistant is important, as is the experience of the teacher who should have special training for dealing with very young children. Some people take the view that there should be at least one trained nursery nurse as an assistant in a class containing four year-olds. A class of 30 which is taught by a 35 year-old—by one young, inexperienced teacher alone—is very different from a class of 30 which is taught by an experienced nursery teacher or infant teacher helped by one or two assistants, perhaps one of whom is a nursery nurse.
I wonder whether there could be rather more precision in these provisions. I should like to take this opportunity to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, because there is, indeed, a very great difference if one is teaching children of different ages and at different stages of their development.My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can give us some figures. I know that the department has now carried out a great deal of work into ascertaining how many children are in this age group, where they are, and the size of their classes. I know that there has been a recent publication on this although I have not had all the details. At the last date for which information was available, how many classes at Key Stage I contain children of mixed age groups? My noble friend Lady Carnegy made an important point. The school in my village contains only three classes. The first contains five, six and seven year-olds; the second class contains seven, eight and nine year-olds; and the third class contains nine, 10 and 11 year-olds. That situation is very common in the rural areas of this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there is a world of difference between a teacher having to teach a class of 30 children of three different age groups and a teacher who teaches a class containing only five year-olds, or only six year-olds or only seven year-olds. The burden on the former teacher is so much greater. If the policy were applied inflexibly, the teacher with the mixed age group would be subject to the same limit on class size as the teacher with a class of only one age group. There is a great width of ability in the four, five and six year-old age group; in the five, six and seven year-old age group and in the seven, eight and nine year-old age group. The range of ability in such mixed classes is vast. However, it does not appear that any provision has been made to recognise that difference when applying the policy.My Lords, we are aware that in these amendments the Government have dealt with many of the issues that were raised in Committee. Effectively, they have rewritten the provisions dealing with class sizes in infant schools. I know that in Committee the Government were sympathetic to many of our amendments. At a recent conference of local education authorities concern was expressed about implementing the Government's policy. Many practical problems have emerged for both LEAs and individual schools around the country as they have tried to cope with what they thought was the Government's policy.
We recognise that the amendments give the Government much more flexibility in applying their infant class size policy. The amendments will give schools time to introduce the policy and may create less competition in terms of other policies, such as admissions policies, and with regard to the effect on classes for older children in schools that comprise both infants and juniors. However, we feel that the Government have got themselves into a bit of an unnecessary mess by pushing their policy a little too soon and even before it has passed through the legislative process. We accept—we have accepted for some time—that the costs will be higher. Indeed, over a period of time we have been giving detailed costings of how we suggest that our proposals should be enacted. Our proposals would go even further than the Government's and would ensure that all primary school classes are limited in size to 30 children. However, the difficulty remains that resources will be needed. We are not absolutely convinced that the Government have squared the circle. The nature of the Government's amendments makes life slightly difficult as regards our later amendments in relation to class sizes. The original provisions were intended to ensure that the size of classes in all primary schools was 30, in part because of the knock-on effects flowing from the Government's proposals. If we are to achieve that we believe that it should be done properly. The Government have a partial policy; and the amendments that they have tabled today demonstrate that that policy has a knock-on effect. The Government have responded to that today. It is likely that the policy on infant class sizes will not work its way through the schools in precisely the way intended by the Government. There have been discussions in another place and announcements have been made by the Government about how many new teachers will be needed, how much money the Government will give for that, and how much money will be made available in the immediate future. Originally a statement was made by a Minister in another place that 5,000 extra teachers would be required by the year 2001. My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Don Foster, has done some arithmetic. Being generous to the Government, it is difficult to understand how another 8,000 additional teachers will not be required. The noble Baroness the Minister has informed the House today that recruitment of infant school teachers is buoyant. We are pleased to hear that. However, we still believe that it will be difficult to find the extra teachers who will be needed. In a press release on 22nd May, the Government said that the sum of £22 million was being allocated from the standards fund to recruit 1,500 new teachers to ensure that just over 100,000 infant pupils are kept out of large classes from September. However, if one works out the cost per teacher the figure is about £18,000. That means a shortfall of approximately 250 teachers, unless the figures are wrong. When one looks more closely at the figures in the Government's statement one is concerned that there will be problems despite the fact that they have given themselves flexibility on the issue. We support small class sizes. As a teacher I have supported that concept on the Floor of the House many times. The question is always raised whether there is scientific evidence that small classes are beneficial to children. As a teacher I know that with small classes I was able to get more out of those children than with larger classes. I refer in particular to the average child who is able to achieve a great deal more. If I had been an even better teacher perhaps I could have gained the very best out of every child. I suggest that few people can do that. There is no doubt that for the average teacher to be able to carry out his or her job, and to feel satisfied about the achievement of the child at the end of that teaching, it is better for all concerned if there are smaller classes. I do not believe that scientific evidence is required to demonstrate that. It is possible that we shall not be able to move the next sets of amendments. I hope that I have indicated why we wish to move those amendments. In part we are concerned about the levels of funding and the recruitment of teachers. The Government recognise some of the points that we make. They believe that they are answering some of the questions that we raise. However, in the end more resources are required. During the general election we were clear as to where those greater resources would come from. I shall not bore noble Lords this afternoon with the figures. We worked out a five-year plan based on a penny on income tax and how much we would put towards it. In year five there would be a figure of £475 million which would ensure classes of 30 in all primary classes. Some of our later amendments seek to define primary school classes. That is also important. We welcome the Government's recognition of the issues that have been raised by ourselves and others outside this House. However, we do not believe that what they have done goes far enough. We regret that we shall not be able to talk about that at greater length.4 p.m.
My Lords, I begin by dealing with the question of mixed age teaching raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, which was also touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That matter was also commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Twenty seven per cent. of pupils in primary classes in January 1998 were taught by one teacher in mixed age classes. At Key Stage 1 21 per cent. of pupils were in mixed year group classes; and at Key Stage 2 28 per cent. were in mixed year group classes. There are already substantial numbers of pupils in these classes. I understand that the average size of mixed age primary classes taught by one teacher in primary schools is 27.4. Therefore, that is lower than the equivalent figure for all single year group classes except reception class. But I accept as a matter of common sense that if a teacher is asked to teach across age groups it may be more demanding. I also accept the point about the value of teaching assistants in classes of this kind.
We want to ensure that local education authorities come to sensible decisions. It is a matter for local decision-making. It is obvious from the figures that LEAs already take this into account, and I see no reason why they should not continue to do so. We do not expect an enormous increase in the number of Key Stage I infant school classes that are taught in mixed age groups as a result of the change that we make to the class size limit. I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The reason for that is that we shall provide the resources. We have not had to put a penny on income tax to find the resources for this initiative. Those resources are being found without increasing income tax. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her comments about the importance of small classes for young children. If there are smaller infant classes they will work their way through primary schools. As a result we expect to see rather smaller classes at Key Stage 2 as those smaller infant school classes work their way through. I believe that I have answered the questions that have been put. On that basis I hope that the House will accept this amendment.My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, is the Minister saying that, whereas it is a good idea to express in law the maximum class size for Key Stage 1 children, she does not think it necessary to stipulate a lower age for such classes when they contain two stages or more?
My Lords, yes, the Government believe that that is a matter for LEAs. There should be some flexibility here. It is clearly common sense that where teachers are having to teach across more than one age group that should be taken into account.
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not want to be a bore, but she did not deal with the qualification and numbers of teachers in classes of 30.
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was here for the previous group of amendments when I talked about the importance of the quality of teachers. I have just said that it is important that with young children there should be adequate additional adult help in the classroom of the type that I know that the noble Lord has espoused for a long time. I accept that. I hope that that answers his question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
My Lords, Amendment No. 2 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) No limit under this section shall be effective to prevent the admission of a child to a denominational school where—(a) the parent of the child has expressed a desire for the child to attend a denominational school; (b) the admissions authority of a denominational school have expressed a willingness to accept the child, notwithstanding the provisions of this section; and (c) no alternative place is available within a reasonable distance in another school of the same denomination.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Many parents throughout the land who choose denominational schools are worried. It is important to clarify what we believe to be the Government's intention. Where the parent has expressed a desire for his or her child to attend a denominational school, and where the admissions authority—in other words, the school itself, because under the new arrangements the school itself will be an admissions authority—has expressed a willingness to accept the child, notwithstanding the provisions of this clause, and where there is no alternative place available within a reasonable distance in another school of the same denomination, the school should be free to accept the child.
Amendment No. 8 goes a little further in saying that where it is considered that disapplication is in the interests of parental choice—in other words, of the child being accepted—disapplication can be supported only if it is decided in a ballot by a majority of parents for the time being at that school.
Amendment No. 9 provides again that the provisions can be disapplied where a brother or sister is seeking a place at the school. These are all practical manifestations of the policy. We know that there is concern, especially among the local authorities. Parents are just beginning now to get in touch with us about their concerns as to how this will work in practice. We know that some parts of the Church, for example, are concerned about how it will work in practice.
We are trying to exercise some foresight by saying to the Government that with these provisions, where everyone concerned is agreed, and where parental preference can be satisfied, especially when one is talking about an extra one, two or three children, it is important that the parents' wishes are acceded to.
There is real concern now that parental preference will have to be compromised. The Government's statements are unequivocal: parental preference will not be compromised. If that is the case, the amendments should go a long way towards reassuring parents that they will get the school that they wish for their child, particularly where the choice is a denominational one. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I speak in opposition to the amendment. I am aware of the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, have for denominational schools. I have no doubt of the integrity of their motives in moving the amendment. The noble Baroness referred to some parts of the Church. I was not clear to which parts of the Church she was referring. Those parts of the Church with which I am in touch do not support the amendment.
On previous occasions, I have said that we are anxious not to drive a wedge between denominational and county schools. It would be unfortunate were such a wedge to be driven, especially if it were to happen in relation to class sizes. It would be an odd situation if class sizes were limited to 30 in all schools except denominational schools. We do not wish church schools to be excluded from this provision. I recognise that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 provide other circumstances in which classes might conceivably be larger, but in terms of the overall category of schools, church schools wish to be in the same position as all other schools. I did say that I was not sure with which parts of the Church the noble Baroness had been in touch. I remember exchanges on this issue we have had previously in your Lordships' House during the Bill's passage. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, claimed to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. There was an exchange on another issue when I was speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Churches. I need to make it clear that the Roman Catholic, Anglican and free Churches work closely together on these matters. The staff of the board of education which I chair, the Catholic Education Service, and the education secretary of the Free Church Council meet to discuss issues. We met to discuss this issue. When we visit Ministers, as we do frequently, we do so not as separate denominations, but as the Churches together. It is out of that shared experience that I speak on behalf of the Church of which I am a member and the Catholic Education Service. Others in your Lordships' House might want to make other representations on behalf of other Churches. The Catholic Education Service and the board which I chair are not prepared to support the amendment. We do so in the understanding, and against, I believe, an undertaking, that the proportion of denominational places will be maintained: the reduction of class sizes is not to be used as an instrument for reducing the number of places in denominational schools. It is against that background that we welcome the additional finance that has been made available, not least for church schools. We look forward to the announcement of which church schools will benefit from the finance that has been made available. Against that background. I oppose the amendment.My Lords, perhaps I may repeat for the sake of emphasis an important point made by the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is aware that where a differential is made—the right reverend Prelate described it as a wedge between the two types of schools—there can be considerable agitation. If parents are refused a place for their child at a particular school while the church school—if I may so describe it—which is often just half a mile along the road, admits a child, that causes a great deal of anguish. People see differential treatment being given to their children. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that causes many parents a great deal of concern.
Secondly, if we feel that 30 is the correct limit for good educational purposes and reasons, that should apply to denominational schools as it does to any other school.My Lords, I am minded to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and the right reverend Prelate. I accept that it must be right that church schools should not wish to crowd in children to the disadvantage of those children. The Church of England has a different point of view from the Jewish religion and the Roman Catholic Church. As I understand it, the Church of England takes the view that Church of England schools are for all children, and its objective is to provide the best possible education with a Christian background.
The concern, particularly of the Catholic and Jewish communities, is to ensure that children of parents who adhere to those faiths have the opportunity of an education set in the context of that faith. It is important to stress that that is the objective of this amendment. I do not think it is a terribly good amendment, but I would be very much encouraged if the noble Baroness were able to say in replying that very careful consideration will be given to ensuring that, as far as is humanly possible, children from particularly the Roman Catholic and the Jewish denominations will have the opportunity of receiving an education in the context of their parents' faith.My Lords, I do not know about Church of England schools in particular because I have not lived in England. It sounds as if the Church of England, and perhaps other Churches that are agreeing with them, are falling into a trap when they are embarrassed by what they see as a conflict between fairness for children and what works for them in education.
There is no question but that Church schools work best of all for the children whose parents' motivation for them being there is that they want that particular ethos for their children. If those children are kept out of a school because of parents who choose on the basis of the nearness of the school, that is very sad. I am sorry to hear the Church say that, because it is probably a mistaken perception. I see their embarrassment; I think I understand it, but I believe it is a mistake and I wish that they were not opposing this concept. even if the amendment itself is not what they particularly fancy.My Lords, may I give a word of explanation in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy? I did make it clear that I was speaking against a background in which the total proportion of denominational places was to be maintained. It seems to me that there is no question therefore of those from a particular faith finding any difficulty created for them. I would entirely agree with the noble Lord. Lord Northbourne, that children must be educated in the faith of their parents, where that is desired. Nor would I see that the Churches are embarrassed by this. The Churches are fighting for their fair proportion, which has always been the case for denominational places, and I do not think the move to reduce class sizes to 30 affects that.
My Lords, these amendments cover the issue of whether there is a need to apply the class size limits in certain situations, and I will respond to all of them together. I recognise the particular concerns to ensure that school places are available in specific cases, but I believe that the arguments against these amendments, raised when we last had the opportunity to discuss them, still stand.
If I could begin with Amendment No. 7, which is the one that has led to the most discussion, it is natural that parents of a particular denomination will want to get a place in a school of the same denomination. I certainly do not disagree with that. Indeed, though it is not possible in all cases at present, we want as many parents as possible, from all schools and not just denominational schools, to obtain the school of their first choice or one that they feel would be most appropriate for their child. However, we also want all small children to share in the benefit of being in small classes, including those in denominational schools. The effect of this amendment would be to allow denominational schools to exceed the class limit so as to admit a child where a place in another school of that denomination was not available within a reasonable distance. The right reverend Prelate has clearly stated his position. This is not what the Churches want and nor do we. In their responses to our consultation on the draft regulations and guidance there has been a broad welcome from Church bodies to what we are proposing to do. Our approach does not guarantee a place in a school of a given denomination for every child whose parents may seek such a place; but there are no such guarantees under the existing arrangements, which were established by the previous government. One cannot easily envisage any arrangements that could offer a totally cast-iron guarantee. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we shall, of course, do our best to ensure—as I am sure the Churches will also ensure, in partnership with the Government—that we meet parents' wishes in this respect. Consultation is at the heart of our policy to reduce infant class sizes. We intend that regulations under Clause 2(3) of the Bill will require LEAs to consult before submitting their class size implementation plan, including with representatives of denominational schools. We made it clear that we want to safeguard the proportion of denominational provision in an authority, as the right reverend Prelate has already said. In the guidance which will be given under Clause 2(2), to which LEAs must have regard, we will be stating that they should consider the demand for denominational provision when preparing their class size plans. There should be no question either of schools being forced to expand against their will. LEAs will have to prepare plans that have due regard to parental preference. Our consultation document also states that the Secretary of State will not approve plans which do not demonstrate that the LEA has given due regard to the exercise of parental preference; but there does have to be planning and that is how we intend to ensure that parents' wishes are taken into account. Amendment No. 8 would seriously weaken our policy of reducing infant class sizes in all schools. It would enable any school to opt out of the class size limit if the majority of existing parents supported it through a ballot. In practical terms the amendment is unclear on a whole range of issues. For example, it does not specify the circumstances in which ballots could be called. It also only covers parents of existing pupils at the school. One must ask about the views of parents of pupils who are about to join the school. Would there need to be a ballot to opt back into the limits? Would schools have to ballot every year, so that at any one time the views of all the parents are covered? Who would pay for these annual ballots? There are a great many unanswered questions here. These practical difficulties are not central to the Government's objection, however. As I have said many times, the class size pledge is fundamental to our proposals to raise standards. It has the overwhelming support of parents, who for many years have wanted to see smaller classes for their small children. The Government made it a manifesto commitment and we intend to honour it. I therefore cannot support any amendment which would see these limits being set aside on a school-by-school basis. I also continue to believe that Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary as a means of ensuring that children may attend the same school as their siblings. This is best done through the admissions arrangements that individual schools make. While not every child with an elder sibling in the school can be given a cast-iron guarantee of a place in that school, nearly all schools already include a factor in their over-subscription criteria which gives priority to pupils who have siblings at the school. By giving priority to children with brothers and sisters in the school, as this amendment proposes, it would also allow any admissions authority to breach the class size limit by excluding siblings from the normal admissions criteria and admitting them after the admissions round. Giving priority to siblings has long been part of LEA and school arrangements, and I am sure that that will continue. We therefore see no need for this amendment and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.4.30 p.m.
My Lords, I am equally disappointed in the Minister's response. From the beginning of the school year in 2001 there will be no flexibility whatever. If parents who have been accustomed to sending their children to the local denominational school request another place making the class size 31 just one extra child over 30—the answer will be no, because one cannot overnight produce the classroom or the teacher in order to take that child at the beginning of the September term. LEAs do a great deal of planning, but they do not plan down to the exact number of children. Most LEAs act retrospectively and the Government will find that they, too, must do so. They make as intelligent a guess as possible about the intake of each school. So, too, do the head teachers of each school. However, at the end of the day the accuracy of that figure is judged retrospectively; it could be more or it could be less. Those of us who live in villages know that when a family moves in four children can be added to the school and that when a family moves out the school can lose four children. The position is as sensitive as that. My amendments are tabled against a background of no flexibility whatever.
I have no problem with the Minister's arguments about what parents want generally. They would like to see smaller classes, particularly in infant schools. The issue between us is one of flexibility. The issue between the Local Government Association and the Government is the flexibility they will need in order to deliver the policy. The right reverend Prelate asked me to which parts of the Church I was referring. Individual clergy within the Church of England have approached me. On every occasion I have invited them to get in touch with the right reverend Prelate because I believe that that is correct. They are most concerned about particular schools in their localities. I hope that some of them have been in touch with the right reverend Prelate and have had their fears allayed. Nevertheless, those fears exist. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, reinforced the point made by the right reverend Prelate that we should not make a special case for the Church. In fact, we do make a special case for the Church; there is special provision for the Church of England. Throughout the progress of the Bill the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues have visited the DfEE and have asked for and received favours. We are delighted that that has been the case. Many fears have been allayed as a result of denominational schools asking the DfEE for recognition of particular difficulties. I have absolutely no difficulty with that. Indeed, when I was a Minister, I, too, received special delegations from the Church asking for its particular denominational concerns and those of parents to be recognised. That is not an issue between us. As regards the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the truth is that there are many choices for secular schoolchildren. In my local town of Huntingdon, a child looking for a place in another secular school can walk to half a dozen or more schools. However, the choice of denominational schools is a very different matter. Children cannot go to the next school or the one beyond that. The right reverend Prelate referred to the story that was leaked to the press on Monday about the funding for 100 Church schools. We all look forward to learning which schools those are. But the perspective needs to be understood. There are 3,557 Church schools with infant classes. I understand that 46 per cent. of those schools have classes over 30. Forty per cent. of 3,557 is about 1,600 schools and we are talking about funding for possibly 100 of them. There are only two years to go before the policy must be put into operation when we must cope with all such classes. We must provide all the extra classrooms and all the extra teachers with all the planning that that will entail. Church schools are popular schools. One of the reasons why they have more than 30 children in classes for five, six and seven year-olds is precisely that they are so popular with local parents. The Minister rightly said that the Government could not guarantee a place for every child at a denominational school. I do not believe that any previous government have done so and I do not believe that any future government can do so. However, the inflexibility of the policy will mean that fewer children will be guaranteed a place. Perhaps I may give as an example a school with an intake of 62 children a year. The extra two children will not receive a place at the school unless the Government are prepared to change it from two classes of 31 to three classes of 20. Are the Government saying that they will do that overnight at a stroke? Will they find a brick-built classroom—we know from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there will be no temporary classrooms—in order to create three classes of 20 to accommodate 62 children? In the following year the intake might be only 58. That is what happens in rural schools. The inflexibility of the policy is incredible. I am depressed almost beyond words to know that the right reverend Prelate does not support the amendments. Parents will find that under the new system their child cannot have the 31st or 32nd place whereas under the present system that child can be accommodated. I am going to stand up and be counted and I hope that my colleagues will, too. We will fight for the right of flexibility that is agreed by the parents, the school and the community. I seek the opinion of the House.4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 131.
Division No. 2
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Abercorn, D. | Knollys, V. |
| Ailsa, M. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Alton of Liverpool, L. | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Arran, E. | Mayhew of Twysden, L. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Beloff, L. | Molyneaux of Killead, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Monro of Langholm, L. |
| Berners, B. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | Mottistone, L. |
| Biffen, L. | Mountevans, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Moyne, L. |
| Braine of Wheatley, L. | Munster, E. |
| Brentford, V. | Naseby, L. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller.] | Northesk, E. |
| Butterworth, L. | Norton, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Carnock, L. | Onslow of Woking, L. |
| Charteris of Amisfield, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Colwyn, L. | Pender, L. |
| Constantine of Stanmore, L. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Crathorne, L. | Rathcavan, L. |
| Cuckney, L. | Rawlings, B. |
| Davidson, V. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Denham, L. | Rees, L. |
| Dunleath, L. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Seccombe, B. [Teller.] |
| Erne, E. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Sudeley, L. |
| Grimston of Westbury, L. | Swansea, L. |
| Hayhoe, L. | Teviot, L. |
| HolmPatrick, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Hooper, B. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Jopling, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Kinnoull, E. | Wade of Chorlton, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Dubs, L. |
| Addington, L. | Eatwell, L. |
| Alport, L. | Erroll, E. |
| Ampthill, L. | Evans of Parkside, L. |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Falconer of Thoroton, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Farrington of Ribbleton, B. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Fitt, L. |
| Berkeley, L. | Gallacher, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Glenamara, L. |
| Blease, L. | Goodhart, L. |
| Bledisloe, V. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Graham of Edmonton, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Gregson, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Grenfell, L. |
| Calverley, L. | Grey, E. |
| Carlisle, E. | Halsbury, E. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Hampton, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Hardie, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Hardy of Wath, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Haskel, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Hayman, B. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Hilton of Eggardon, B. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Holme of Cheltenham, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Hoyle, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Hughes, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Hunt of Kings Heath, L. | Porter of Luddenham, L. |
| Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Ramsay of Cartvale, B. | |
| Islwyn, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Jay of Paddington, B. | Razzall, L. |
| Jeger, B. | Rea, L. |
| Jenkins of Hillhead, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Jenkins of Putney, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Kennedy of The Shaws, B. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Kennet, L. | Ripon, Bp. |
| Kintore, E. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Kirkhill, L. | Sainsbury of Turville, L. |
| Linklater of Butterstone, B. | Sandberg, L. |
| Lockwood, B. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. | Serota, B. |
| Ludford, B. | Sewel, L. |
| McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] | Shepherd, L. |
| Shore of Stepney, L. | |
| Mackie of Benshie, L. | Simon, V. |
| Maddock, B. | Simon of Highbury, L. |
| Mallalieu, B. | Slim, V. |
| Mason of Barnsley, L. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Merlyn-Rees, L. | Stallard, L. |
| Meston, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Methuen, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Milner of Leeds, L. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Mishcon, L. | Taverne, L. |
| Monkswell, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Montague of Oxford, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Morris of Manchester, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Murray of Epping Forest, L. | Tope, L. |
| Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. | Tordoff, L. |
| Ogmore, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Paul, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Peston, L. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Pitkeathley, B. | Whitty, L. |
| Plant of Highfield, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
[ Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 2 [ Plans by LEAs for reducing infant class sizes]:
moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("the limits imposed under section 1 are") and insert ("any limit imposed under section 1 is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not approve any statement prepared by a local education authority under this section which envisages an increase in the average size of classes in junior schools or secondary schools in that authority's area over the level prevailing in the same area in 1997.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. These amendments cover the issues of growth in junior schools; the costs incurred by the application of the pledge; distances travelled by children to school; and accommodation.
As regards junior schools, the Minister in another place, Estelle Morris, went to Derbyshire last week and met a large number of teachers. She was challenged a number of times about the subject of overcrowding in junior schools, which is a logical correlation with the proposals we have before us. The Minister replied:
"Our current priority is to fund Key Stage 1 and we do not have any plans to deal with Key Stage 2 at the moment".
I suggest to the Minister that the application of that class-size pledge leaves the Government with two choices: they either fly in the face of the proposition in the guidance—that it shall not result in increased class sizes at junior school stage—or the pledge must be continued throughout the school.
I give an extremely simple example. The intake of a school has 75 children. That is too many for two classes, so there would have to be three classes. The three classes would be in year one and sustained in years two and three. But at year four, either there are two classes of 34 or 35—and one can take any number of children over the magical number of 60 which is appropriate for two classes under the new proposals—or there continues to be three classes in years five to seven. Those are the two choices. They are stark but they are real. If those classes are to be sustained throughout the school, there is not a need only for one teacher in year one but there is a need for seven teachers in seven year groups. It is not merely one classroom that is needed for the extra class at year one, but an extra classroom is needed when that class becomes class two and so on. It is all very well for the Minister to say that she has no plans to address Key Stage 2, but I suggest there is no choice if the pledge is to be delivered.
In response to the previous set of amendments, the Minister said that as the classes work through, classes in the junior school will also become smaller. That is an absolutely logical progression from smaller classes in infant schools. As the classes become smaller in junior schools, there will be a need for more teachers, classrooms and so on. Therefore, it is not possible simply to say that there will be no knock-on effect.
Because we believe that that is a very real danger caused by the rigid application of that policy, we believe that it should help the Government, and certainly help them in their arguments with the Treasury to have this provision on the face of the Bill. After all, the Government have promised that under this clause, which envisages an increase in the average size of classes in junior and secondary schools, the Secretary of State said that he will not approve any statement from a local education authority that involves increasing class sizes at other key stages. It is such an important issue because, as was shown at the meeting with the Minister last week, teachers fear that it can only be achieved at the expense of junior school classes, unless a great deal more money is provided beyond Key Stage 1.
In Derbyshire last week, when speaking with the people from local government, the Minister of State, Mr. Byers, said that he could absolutely assert that there will be no reduction in parental preference. The conference went on to pass a motion to the effect that reduction in class sizes would constrain parental preference. The chairman of the Labour controlled borough of Lewisham, Mr. Gavin Moore, said that people should not make pledges that they are not in a position to carry out. The Government have made two pledges on class sizes and parental choice, but they are in danger of failing to deliver on both of them.
The concern is not just with teachers in schools; the concern is with the very people who will be charged with implementing the policy. The problems that they foresee are those which will arise because of the extra costs involved in coping in three years' time with the extra provision in junior school classes. The charge that they will have put upon them to enhance parental preference—indeed, not even to sustain it—is very important. The leader of Lewisham Council went on to say that the election pledge made by Labour last year to reduce primary class sizes to under 30 pupils will be impossible to achieve if parents have the right to decide which school their child attends. There are huge tensions, which must be addressed.
When responding to a similar amendment during the last stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave us an assurance—indeed, a reassurance because some of us rather gulped at what he said about the permanent classrooms pledge. However, he made it absolutely clear at that stage, and said:
"I have just said that our letter to local education authorities wishing to apply for the class size capital funds makes it clear that their plans will have to be for permanent classrooms, not mobile classrooms. As I have already quoted, the guidance we sent out states that.
'Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted'".
That was queried by my noble friend Lady Byford and, in response, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"I must be precise about this. We are saying that applications for funding for the purpose of reducing infant class sizes which rely on the use of mobile classrooms will not he accepted".—[Official Report. 5/5/98: col. 582.]
When speaking to previous amendments I said—and I repeat it now—that very often there is a bulge in the number of children coming through a school which then moves away in the course of time. Very often, where there are new developments of housing, large numbers of primary school places are required in the early stages, but the situation always settles down again later. The use of mobile classrooms, which have improved immeasurably over the years, has been the local education authorities' way of being flexible; in other words, they can take a mobile classroom, satisfy the school's needs for two or three years and then move the classroom to where it is needed.
The situation where every child in a class where the number has exceeded 30 whose placement might involve him travelling a longer distance to school, and mean putting him into a school where the performance is poorer than the school which he would have attended, could in fact inhibit all the promises that the Government have made. In that case, as Ministers said, a classroom and a teacher would be provided for any single child in a class where the number of pupils has reached over 30. If the Government are really saying that they can deliver that in every instance beyond the school year of 2001, then LEAs will need a good deal more assurance. The amendments are designed to take the Minister's own words in the guidance and put them on the face of the Bill, so that there could be no doubt in that respect: LEAs are bound by law to ensure that classes do not have over 30 pupils in those age groups, just as schools will not be allowed to have classes with over 30 pupils come the year 2001. Indeed, the Government require that parental preference must be enhanced; buildings must be permanent; distances travelled must be reasonable; and denominational choice must be adhered to as far as is possible.
In order to deliver that, it is right that the Government should have an obligation placed upon them to ensure that the money is made available in all those circumstances so that LEAs can be assured that, in order to avoid some of the side effects of implementing this policy, they will not be found wanting but will have the wherewithal to put it into effect. I beg to move.
My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 15 deal with the question of the Secretary of State's approval of LEA statements. As the noble Baroness implied, many of these points were made in Committee. Given the strength of the commitments that we made at that time, I am slightly surprised that they have been tabled again.
Amendment No. 12 deals with the effect on the size of classes at a later stage. Perhaps I may reiterate a point that we have already made strongly. There is no intention to fund reductions in infant class sizes by allowing class sizes to rise in later key stages. The noble Baroness also asked about resources. This year, we have already made available a total of £62 million of additional funding specifically designed to reduce the size of infant classes. More money will be made available in the future. In addition, the £835 million extra that we are providing for schools in England will keep down class sizes in all key stages. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the Government's commitment here or to believe that the size of classes in junior and secondary schools will increase as a result of this policy. We will ensure that it will not, through the regulations, guidance and the system of approval of LEA plans. As the noble Baroness said, we have made our position abundantly clear. Our consultation states that,It is clear from our commitments, and from the way in which our consultative document indicates that regulations will be drawn, that we will not allow that to happen. Therefore, the proposed provision is redundant. The noble Baroness turned the argument slightly on its head by stressing the point about class sizes which have been reduced working through the system. It may work through in certain cases, but our priority is on infant classes. Indeed, our priority is for the early years. We believe that we have good educational grounds for ensuring that that is the priority. Therefore, although it may work through to upper years, there is no requirement for it to do so. None of that means that junior school classes or higher level classes will increase as a result of these provisions, because of the commitments that we have made. I move on to Amendment No. 14 which deals with travel. We have made it very clear that no child will have to travel an unreasonable distance to school as a result of our pledge to reduce infant class sizes. Furthermore, it would be impractical as well as unnecessary to require that LEA statements should set out the travel arrangements for what would effectively mean every single infant school pupil. We have said that funds will be provided for an extra teacher—and, where necessary, an extra classroom—if there is a child who has only one school within reasonable travelling distance and he could not otherwise be admitted without pushing an infant class beyond the limit of 30 pupils. Our consultation paper makes it clear that LEAs will have to provide information on what they will do in those circumstances. LEAs have confirmed that what we are talking about here will be very much the exception rather than the norm. Where pupil numbers are growing, we would expect LEAs to apply for extra capital to provide the necessary number of classes. But, exceptionally, where a child requires a place and there is no other school within reasonable distance, we are talking about a second teacher in a class of 31, 32 or 35, as may be the case. The travelling arrangements of individual children is a matter of detailed implementation of the policy which is best left to the LEA to resolve in the context of the local situation, particularly in rural areas. We will provide the broad guidelines. Amendment No. 15 deals with the question of temporary accommodation. I had thought that my noble friend Lord McIntosh had made clear the Government's intention here, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, recognised that. Not only have we made that clear in this place, but we have made it clear in terms of our commitment of capital—the extra money through the New Deal for Schools invested in schools' capital. A significant part of the first tranche will be used to replace old mobile classrooms with permanent structures. We have made it clear that applications for capital resources which relate simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted. In addition an extra £90 million of capital is being made available, of which £40 million is to provide extra classrooms to accommodate smaller infant classes. We shall shortly announce the details of the allocation of that £40 million for this year. I can also confirm that Church schools are to receive 100 per cent. funding for school building work in order to meet the class size commitment. The most effective means to control the use of mobile classrooms is through controlling funding rather than by an amendment such as this. Amendment No. 13 deals with funding. I am not clear why the noble Baroness believes it is necessary to require implementation costs to be reimbursed in this way. She did not go into any detail on that. We have made it clear that we shall provide the funding that LEAs and schools need to enable them to reduce infant class sizes. We have pledged to use the resources available from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme which will amount to some £100 million in the financial year commencing April 2001. Some £22 million of this has already been made available to LEAs. There is, of course, also the £40 million to which I referred earlier. This will enable LEAs to make good progress towards meeting the class size pledge. This amendment would not require the Secretary of State to do anything more than he already has the power to do. We regard Amendment No. 13 as unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendments."plans will not be approved that show reductions in infant class sizes being achieved at the cost of increases in Key Stage 2 class sizes arising from a transfer of funding from junior to infant classes".
5 p.m.
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I welcome the comments about adequate buildings. I wonder whether he shares my concern that when we listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we are all expected to have amnesia about what happened before 1997 with regard to school space standards and extra resources that were not available for school buildings. I have mentioned my next question before. It concerns minimum space standards. Do the Government intend in the future to reverse the reductions in space standards that were permitted under the previous government?
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding us of what happened over the past 18 years. I have tried to steer clear of partisan points in these debates. However, I am glad that she has made them for me. As regards space requirements, the priority at the moment is to reduce class sizes. We shall examine space requirements but at this point we do not intend to alter the space requirements that we have inherited.
My Lords, may I just comment briefly on the statement by the Minister?
My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, we are at Report stage and interventions are not possible after the Minister has spoken.
My Lords, the reply was disappointing. It is interesting that local education authorities and schools will be bound in law to provide this policy. The Government are prepared to put on the face of the Bill that they are obliging everyone in the system to deliver this policy. There is only one body that is not bound by law to fund this policy, unless it wins the money from the Treasury, and that is the DfEE. The noble Lord must accept that local education authorities and schools are genuinely nervous about this provision. They are alarmed at the calls on them to deliver this pledge, for if they are not funded properly they will have to use moneys to meet this pledge rather than meet other priorities.
The Government have given their word on junior school class sizes but are not prepared to put that on the face of the Bill. That makes me deeply suspicious. They have given their word that junior school class sizes will not increase. It is nave to suggest that the same number of pupils will pass from an infant school to a junior school. If a two form entry school at present becomes a three form entry school, as night follows day those three form entries will pass into the following year and the year after that unless the children start in year one and then leave the school. As regards a large proportion of our schools, children stay in the same schools. There are areas of high mobility where children move in and out of schools—that causes another problem for teachers—but in most schools children who start in an infant school finish at the top end of that infant school. Those who start at the bottom end of a primary school finish at the top end of that primary school. As the three classes—that were two—progress through the school, those three classes will require three teachers and three classrooms. One cannot simply say that the numbers may work out, but that is not really an issue. The Minister in another place has said that the Government have no plans to deal with Key Stage 2. If these pupil numbers work through into Key Stage 2, will schools be guaranteed funding for them? If they are not, the other part of the promise cannot be kept; namely, that class sizes in Key Stage 2 will not be increased. Class sizes will either increase or there will be smaller classes but more of them. The noble Lord looks puzzled, but this is a simple equation. If you have 63 children as an intake into an infant school and they are divided into three classes because they cannot be divided into two classes any more, and it is too far to send the children to another school, and there is no other denominational choice—all the factors that have been built into the guidance—and that school has to have another classroom and another teacher, there will be three classes of 21 children. Those three classes become second year classes, and then third year classes. If you put them into two classes in the junior school—in other words, have bigger classes in the junior school—the teachers' worst fears will be realised in that they will have bigger classes in the junior school.My Lords, our pledge is that junior school classes will not increase above the size they would have been prior to the introduction of this policy. The noble Baroness is saying that the reductions in class size at the lowest level ought to be automatically reflected throughout the system. I agree that might be desirable, but that is not our priority. Our priority is to reduce class sizes at the lowest level. If, at junior school, there are two classes—where formerly there were three—we are not increasing the size of junior school classes above what they would otherwise have been. Therefore the noble Baroness's contention is incorrect. She wants us to commit ourselves to reducing the maximum size of junior school classes. At this stage we are not in a position to do that. I think that is understood.
My Lords, it is not understood, but it is now clear that children will revert to being taught in larger classes in junior schools. My next point is a logical progression from this policy. If two classes are made into three classes with 20-odd children in each, the capacity for that school to take more children is increased. It must be a popular school if it has that problem in the first place. Therefore it takes in more children and instead of having three classes of 21, the classes increase to 25 or 26. When those children enter the junior school, do the classes then become two classes or do they remain three classes? I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
My Lords, on a point of order, we are on Report. Is it in order for the two Front Benches to become involved in an exchange of this kind at Report stage?
My Lords, I remind the House that I was winding up on this amendment when I was interrupted by the Minister. I asked a question. My understanding has always been that with the leave of the House we can ask questions of the Minister. However, I shall leave the question on the table. We have received an interesting clarification that when two classes are split into three in an infants school, they return to being two classes in the junior school. That clarification is helpful and important.
Coopers & Lybrand produced a report for the Local Government Association on which the Government said they would not be commenting when I asked a Written Question. Following consultation with heads, teachers and governors, the report stated:The report went on to state:"Whilst there was widespread support for the policy of reducing class sizes in principle, we found that many heads were not convinced that a slight reduction in class sizes in their own schools would recompense for the upheaval and loss of flexibility that could result".
which is the point of one of my amendments—"At Key Stage 2"
that is, if local authorities have to compensate in other ways in order to fund the change—"if the development causes resources to shift towards Key Stage I at the expense of other Key Stages … at Key Stage 1 and 2 if the policy causes a change to mixed age teaching … at Key Stage 1 if non teaching classroom assistants are withdrawn"—
Those are real reservations that the Coopers & Lybrand report expressed to the local authorities. When the local authorities brought those matters before the Minister, they received short shrift. This is an important policy, and I wish to take the opinion of the House."at schools in areas of social deprivation if the policy causes a shift of resources towards schools in more prosperous areas".
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 140.
Division No. 3
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Ailsa, M. | Arran, E. |
| Aldington, L. | Astor of Hever, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Attlee, E. |
| Alton of Liverpool, L. | Baker of Dorking, L. |
| Beloff, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Luke, L. |
| Berners, B. | Lyell, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | McConnell, L. |
| Biffen, L. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Blake, L. | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Mancroft, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Midleton, V. |
| Braine of Wheatley, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Broadbridge, L. | Mottistone, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Mountevans, L. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller.] | Munster, E. |
| Butterworth, L. | Naseby, L. |
| Cadman, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Caithness, E. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Onslow of Woking, L. |
| Carnock, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Chelmsford, V. | Oxfuird, V. |
| Colwyn, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Constantine of Stanmore, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Cuckney, L. | Porter of Luddenham, L. |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Rawlings, B. |
| Dean of Harptree, L. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Elton, L. | Roberts of Conwy, L. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Grimston of Westbury, L. | Seccombe, B. [Teller.] |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Hayhoe, L. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| HolmPatrick, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Hooper, B. | Swansea, L. |
| Howell of Guildford, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Ironside, L. | Taylor of Warwick, L. |
| Jopling, L. | Tebbit, L. |
| Knight of Collingtree, B. | Teviot, L. |
| Leigh, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | Vivian, L. |
| Long, V. | Waddington, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Eatwell, L. |
| Addington, L. | Evans of Parkside, L. |
| Alport, L. | Falconer of Thoroton, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Farrington of Ribbleton, B. |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Fitt, L. |
| Avebury, L. | Gallacher, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Gladwin of Clee, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Glenamara, L. |
| Berkeley, L. | Goodhart, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Blease, L. | Graham of Edmonton, L. |
| Borrie, L. | Gregson, L. |
| Bridges, L. | Grenfell, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Grey, E. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Halsbury, E. |
| Burlison, L. | Hambro, L. |
| Calverley, L. | Hampton, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | Hardie, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Hardy of Wath, L. |
| Carrick, E. | Harris of Greenwich, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Haskel, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Hayman, B. |
| Chandos, V. | Hilton of Eggardon, B. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Howie of Troon, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Hoyle, L. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Hughes, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Desai, L. | Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] |
| Dixon, L. | |
| Donoughue, L. | Islwyn, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Jay of Paddington, B. |
| Dubs, L. | Jeger, B. |
| Jenkins of Putney, L. | Rea, L. |
| Kennedy of The Shaws, B. | Redesdale, L. |
| Kennet, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Kintore, E. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Kirkhill, L. | Ripon, Bp. |
| Linklater of Butterstone, B. | Rix, L. |
| Lockwood, B. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. | Sainsbury of Turville, L. |
| Longford, E. | St John of Bletso, L. |
| McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] | Sandberg, L. |
| Sefton of Garston, L. | |
| Mackie of Benshie, L. | Sewel, L. |
| McNair, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Maddock, B. | Shore of Stepney, L. |
| Mallalieu, B. | Simon, V. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Simon of Highbury, L. |
| Mason of Barnsley, L. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Merlyn-Rees, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Meston, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Methuen, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Milner of Leeds, L. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Mishcon, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Monkswell, L. | Thomas of Gresford, L. |
| Montague of Oxford, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Morris of Manchester, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Murray of Epping Forest, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. | Thurso, V. |
| Ogmore, L. | Tope, L. |
| Paul, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Peston, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Pitkeathley, B. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Plant of Highfield, L. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Prys-Davies, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Ramsay of Cartvale, B. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Randall of St. Budeaux, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Razzall, L. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
[ Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
Making And Approval Of General Guidance On Class Size Reduction Plans
(".—(1) Guidance given under section 2(2) may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters, including the interpretation of the law, in relation to the discharge by local education authorities of any function under sections 1 to 4.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish any such guidance for the time being in force which is applicable to all local education authorities, or a class or description of local education authorities.
(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise guidance provided for under subsection (1) he shall prepare a draft of the guidance, consult such persons about the draft as he deems fit and consider any representations made by them.
(4) If he determines to proceed with the draft (either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit) he shall lay a copy of the draft guidance before Parliament.
(5) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed guidance.
(6) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall issue the guidance (or revised guidance) in the form of the draft, and it shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(7) Subsection (4) does not prevent a new draft of the proposed guidance from being laid before Parliament.
(8) In this section "40-day period", in relation to the draft guidance. Means—
no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments put down by myself and my noble friends to express our concern on the issue of guidance. Since this is the first occasion on which it arises, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I spent a little time speaking generally about our concern rather than specifically to Amendment No. 16. Then I shall not need to do so every time one of our amendments is raised.
I can summarise our concerns on the issue of guidance and our reasons for the amendments as being threefold. First, we wish to draw attention to the increase in the statutory guidance provisions in the Bill. Secondly, we wish to find out why some guidance is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and other guidance is not. Thirdly, we wish to find out what the Government hope to achieve by making guidance statutory.
I say at the outset that I accept that the drafting of some of our amendments may not be perfect and in some cases they may be in the wrong place. I believe that that does not matter too much, as I do not intend to press them to a Division. Our purpose and intention are clear, or will become so.
On the general issue of statutory guidance, the Bill introduces at least 10 new powers, and perhaps more, for the Secretary of State to give guidance to which LEAs, schools and other bodies must have regard. They are: class size reduction plans, education development plans, sale of other premises, consultation on establishment alteration or discontinuation of schools, approval, imposition and revision of LEA financial schemes, exclusion of pupils, admissions, home school agreements, early years development plans and LEA/school relationships.
The status of the guidance seems to vary. The guidance on admissions and LEA/school relationships is accorded the title of "code of practice" and a form of negative resolution procedure is provided for parliamentary scrutiny. No such scrutiny is provided for any other statutory guidance in the Bill. Interestingly, our Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee commented only on the admissions and the LEA/schools relationship codes of practice, but not on the others. The DfEE memorandum mentioned only the admissions code of practice. Could it be that the term "code of practice" makes the guidance more important? The Minister's view on that would be welcome.
I recognise, of course, that the importance and role of the 10 areas of guidance which I have just mentioned vary. For example, the guidance on the sale of other non-school premises is minor and we have not raised any amendments on it. But the importance of guidance in other areas is enormous, in particular in education development plans and exclusion of pupils. Can the Minister therefore explain to us why some statutory guidance documents are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and others are not?
The mushrooming of statutory guidance has not been subject to any parliamentary debate and that is in part our purpose today. Our Amendment No. 16, and others to be moved, will ask for parliamentary scrutiny similar to that for codes of practice on admission and LEA relationships. There has been some confusion in the press and elsewhere about the effects of the Bill. Some argue that it gives enormous powers back to the LEAs. Others, for whom I have slightly more sympathy, take an almost directly contrary view.
Time will test the overall effects of the legislation. but the increasing ability of the Government to require LEAs and school governing bodies to take account of the Government's views is a noticeable feature of the legislation and must result in increased centralism over the next few years. Every new piece of statutory guidance takes away from local government and schools the ability to think through and act independently in their joint task of raising standards. It makes the LEA the authority of the GAPs. We shall have to look at a number of separate documents provided by central government to find out the LEA's role. Once the new arrangements are in force, there may not be much local discretion left which is not directly controlled by secondary legislation or by guidance.
The implications for free-standing LEAs and schools of having to work around an increasingly large number of codes of practice and guidance, all having statutory force to which they must have regard, reduces such bodies to mere cyphers of central government and, arguably, that is an impediment to creativity and innovation, the lifeblood of raising standards. By giving parliamentary scrutiny over the guidance, there will at least be some brake on the power of the Government.
I turn now specifically to Amendment No. 16, having made the general point which I shall not repeat with future amendments. The consultation on the draft guidance on reducing infant class sizes closed on 12th June. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about its outcome. That draft guidance contains a rather obscure paragraph, paragraph 13, which attempts to provide guidance on meeting parental preference, while still achieving the class size pledge. The Secretary of State will use the published guidance to determine whether or not to approve a plan, with significant consequences, if the plan is not approved, in loss of grant.
The problem with paragraph 13, as currently drafted, is that it is obscure. It uses terms which are not defined such as "poor schools" or "popular schools" or "schools with high standards". It does not address such issues as whether popular schools can be extended. Parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance would enable us to have a full debate on it, and to tease out and understand better the meaning of such guidance.
I hope that this first amendment offers the Minister an opportunity to clarify the three areas which I described. That would be of great service to those of us who will be subject to the guidance as it emerges. I beg to move.
My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, recognises the importance of the guidance and of some flexibility in guidance. We have obviously accepted the merits of wide consultation on guidance. As he said, in this area we have just completed the draft guidance consultation. To answer the noble Lord's last question, at present we are still analysing and carefully considering the responses. We shall put a copy of our summary of responses in the House Library in due course.
However, we do not accept that it is good use of parliamentary time to subject guidance to the procedure suggested in the amendment. There is already parliamentary scrutiny of the associated regulations relating to class size. The guidance will not, and indeed could not, contain any new obligations over and above that, but will give guidance to LEAs on preparing their plans for the reduction of class sizes. Moreover, there is no clear precedent for guidance at this level being subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is true that in the Bill both the code of practice on admissions and the LEA codes of practice are subject to the negative resolution procedure. The former was introduced only in response to a recommendation from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It is important to note that no such recommendation was made in the case of any other guidance which the department will be producing to support the implementation of the new measures introduced by the Bill. The Government accept that the negative resolution procedure is right for codes of practice which will have statutory force, in that LEAs will have to have regard to them in carrying out their relative duties and responsibilities. The same is not true of the other guidance, which will be non-statutory in that sense. The guidance will assist LEAs in implementing the class size regulations and, at later stages in the Bill, other aspects of the policy embodied in the Bill. Ultimately, however, it remains for the LEAs to decide how best to achieve their targets. The guidance is also of a different scale from, for example, the proposed code of practice on admissions. That code of practice will cover a whole range of admission points whereas the guidance that we are proposing under this clause will be much more limited in scope. I am sure that everybody involved in education recognises that the department issues a whole range of circulars and guidance documents. If each was subject to parliamentary procedures, I fear that there would be little time for anything else on the educational front. I have tried to explain the difference between where we accept that the negative procedures should apply with codes of practice of statutory force and the issue of guidance. Guidance is extremely important in guiding local authorities to take their own decisions. The codes of practice have more direct effect. The difference is understood in the education world and is reflected in the way in which we deal with it in the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, as he indicated he would.5.30 p.m.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall read it and try to understand it more fully.
I recognise that the noble Lord, understandably, was replying to the specific amendment I moved. However, I am not sure that he satisfactorily answered the more general points I made and there may be opportunities later, as we progress through the Bill, to return to them. As I said in my speech, I recognise that guidance is of different levels of importance and there are certainly some areas where guidance is to be issued where nobody—least of all me—would suggest that it should come before Parliament. But the Minister seemed to be saying that it was coming here for negative resolution because the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said that it should—that is a good reason in itself and I do not question it—rather than that it was of great importance. There are areas where guidance will have statutory effect: it will certainly have serious effect which is extremely important. Development plans are a case in point. But I am still not clear on the three questions that I asked at the beginning. One stressed the considerable increase in reliance on statutory and even non-statutory guidance. I particularly wanted to find out why some is and some is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If it is only because the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said so, that is not a satisfactory answer. I was trying also to find out what the Government hoped to achieve by making guidance statutory. I am less clear now than I was as to what is and what is not statutory guidance. I suspect that we shall return to this later. As I said at the beginning, these are probing amendments and I have no intention of pressing them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [ Payment of grant in connection with reductions in infant class sizes]:
moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("the limits imposed under section 1 are") and insert ("any limit imposed under section 1 is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 4 [ Interpretation of Chapter I]:
[ Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 5 [ Duty of LEAs to promote high standards in primary and secondary education]:
moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("of attainment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not simply a petty-fogging linguistic amendment. We are all concerned to improve educational standards. But, as we all know, education is a complex process containing many aspects. However, I am sure that we all agree that our fellow citizens want their children to improve their attainment levels; that is, within the limits of their potential to do as well as they can in the subjects that they are sitting at school. In general, that is what "attainment" is understood to mean.
The concerns of our fellow citizens are that their children should learn to read and write in the first stages and that that performance should be improved in the sense that it has not been as good as that in many of our fellow countries in the European Union. We would like to reach the same standards as them or better. We then move to the more advanced studies of science, the arts and much more. Again, there are certain areas where we face a somewhat alarming deficit in contrast to our neighbours.
The problem is that, unless we add the word "attainment", high standards can be lost in a fog of generalities. I am not against value added or anything like that, but I can assure noble Lords—I repeat for the second time this afternoon what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said at greater length—that it is hard to define "value added". One thing for which every education authority should strive is improvement in basic skills; that is, that people read better, write better, and have a better performance in maths, particularly in arithmetic.
It may be that the Minister will assure me that "high standards" mean exactly what I say they mean. However, I hope he will understand—I say this not in any critical sense—that it is often good to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's", particularly in the world of education. Therefore, I ask that we think of the words "of attainment" being added to "high standards" and in that way we shall get the best of all worlds. What could be better than that? I beg to move.
My Lords, I understand the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment. Over the weeks that we have been here—it has been a long time—we have all agreed that we want to see high standards of attainment. However, when I look at the amendment it seems to me that it narrows the meaning of "high standards" of education.
We have had many debates about what is included in education. I want high standards of attainment and assume—perhaps wrongly—that that must be part of "high standards". However, I want to see high standards in a lot of other areas—personal, social and health education; people's confidence and communication skills; cultural, moral and spiritual development. We have discussed those matters at some length over recent weeks and they are all important. If we change the wording of the Bill to insist on "high standards of attainment", what happens to the rest? I suggest that "high standards" of education include high standards of attainment and therefore I am not happy to support the noble Lord, though I support his intention absolutely.
My Lords, this is a slightly déjà vu debate. We have had this debate before and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, have been made before.
This amendment would change the LEAs general duty to promote high standards to one which I assume is attempting to focus on raising standards of measured or measurable attainment. Indeed, the noble Lord. Lord Pilkington, seemed to narrow it even further to something approaching the three R's. All of those things are vitally important in raising standards, but the connotation of attainment is often that which relates to performance, tests and exams, and excludes issues such as the attitude to school, attendance, exclusion, personal development and moral, social and cultural development. If attainment were written in that way it would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, limit rather than focus the role of LEAs. That is not to say that the Government are in any way diluting the need to achieve high levels of attainment in that sense. Raising the levels of attainment is one of our major focuses and is something to which the Government attach great importance. If the amendment seeks an assurance that raising levels of attainment must be a priority, I can certainly give that assurance. However, noble Lords will know that this duty to achieve high standards of attainment is part of a package of new measures which will be designed to improve the effectiveness of local education authorities in a wider sense and to ensure that their activities are focused on raising all standards. One of the main ways in which we shall be monitoring LEAs' performance is through the education development plan, covered by Clauses 6 and 7, which will require specifications from LEAs on how they aim to achieve higher standards. LEAs will be required to include in their EDP targets for raising pupils' attainment in literacy and in numeracy, as the noble Lord wants, and in GCSE qualifications. These standards will indeed clarify goals and provide specific measures against which we can judge LEAs' and schools' successes. We shall be monitoring that performance. However, as I said, local authorities also carry out many other functions—in relation to school education, management services, the management of school places, behaviour support and special services in support of particular groups of pupils. All those functions must be carried out to the highest standards if they are to contribute most effectively to providing the best quality of education service in our schools. We believe that LEAs should be striving for excellence in all that they do and, consequently. that the duty to promote high standards should apply much more widely to all their functions relating to the provision of education. We would not wish to go along the road of this amendment in reducing the effect of this clause by implying that it was limited to levels of measured attainment in the narrower sense, albeit, as I have said, that this is a vital part of their role and will be a vital part of our monitoring through education development plans and elsewhere. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that his amendment in one sense achieves the opposite of what he intends and that the limiting effect of the amendment would not be helpful. We need to recognise all aspects of local education authorities' responsibilities and we believe that the current wording does that.My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the desire of the Government to raise standards of attainment in the work children do at school in literacy, numeracy and much more.
I respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said; and of course I do not have a narrow view of education. What worries me is that those from the more deprived areas of our community—those from a different ethnic background or from deprived families—will not be expected to attain as well as others have attained. That has not been the case in the past when people from those areas have attained high standards of literacy and numeracy—often immigrants who came to this country at the turn of the century from Russia and many other countries. While I respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, we must never hide behind saying, "Little Johnny may not be able to read or write, and in fact he cannot add up either, but, my goodness, he is a confident little fellow when you see him walking down the street". That may be very desirable, but it does not get little Johnny a job. We must be practical and not take the rather high and mighty attitude of saying that if you make a person confident everything else will follow. He also needs to read and write and achieve examination success. That is the point I and my noble friends sought to make. I am delighted that the Minister understands it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [ Preparation of education development plans]:
5.45 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 11, after ("area,") insert ("specifying the targets for attainment for individual schools at key stage 2 and key stage 4,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back again to those nasty things called facts. I always think it best to set targets in order to know what one has achieved and what one will aim at. Fortunately, in Key Stage 2, which is at year seven, and Key Stage 4, at year 11, we have two crucial points in a child's career: when he leaves his junior school and when he takes his GCSE examinations. At those points we have records of achievement. In this amendment I suggest that the education development plan for any school, in discussion with the school and the governors of the school, should take into account the achievements at those key stages and then say what the target should be and what improvements are necessary. It should not leave the issue vague but say, "We achieved this".
One could take into account the background of the pupils in the school. But if one is to improve standards, one has to look at the reality of the situation and then decide in a co-operative way how far those standards can be improved. I suggest that these facts are the skeleton and that the flesh which is to clothe the skeleton should be the education development plan based on those facts.
For example, if a school has consistently under-performed at GCSE in six subjects, one should analyse those subjects, first, as would any headmaster or headmistress, and decide how the performance could be improved. Otherwise, it can become mere rhetoric. I hope that the Government can assure us that they will at least put into directions on education development plans some reference to what is being achieved and what is expected to be achieved. It is not Gradgrind; it is just facts. Anyone looking at a business, a factory, or even at one's own individual performance, would do the same. When I hear confessions, I do not say to the person, "It's got to be the same as last week"; I expect an improvement in performance over the years. It is the same with regard to a school; otherwise, salvation would be denied us all. I hope that some thought can be given to these key stages in deciding the education development plan. I beg to move.
My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 may be taken together. Their effect is to require local education authorities to include in their education development plans specific targets for individual schools at each of Key Stages 2 and 4 and that the targets so specified should be based on prior attainment of pupils at individual schools. The noble Lord tabled similar amendments in Committee but they went further than these amendments. I am pleased that he has taken on board one of the reasons that we resisted the first amendment; that is, that the previous version, which covered all key stages from one through to four, would have seriously over-burdened schools and local education authorities. But I am afraid that the amendments now before us still represent a backward step in the arrangements for target setting that we currently propose under the Bill.
Our intention is to have a small number of challenging but not burdensome targets in education development plans. These—and they are set out in the draft guidance on education development plans—are precise and clear, both to local education authorities and to schools. They are also able to change over time because the Secretary of State can issue regulations on target setting to focus on subject areas that changing circumstances may make it appropriate to include as targets, or to phase out an existing target if circumstances justify that. But by placing targets at Key Stages 2 and 4 on the face of the Bill, Amendment No. 21 would require new legislation in order to vary the targets; for example, by removing a target at Key Stage 2 or adding targets at Key Stage 4. That would introduce inflexibility and delay which cannot be to the benefit of the local education authority and still less the schools. So I do not see any advantage in the amendment to which the noble Lord has principally spoken. There is at least one potential difficulty. Once the Secretary of State has approved LEAs' education development plans, they will be required, as the guidance states, to update them annually to review progress against the achievement of targets agreed between LEAs and schools. That is an education development plan. The second year of education development plans will provide a bench-mark for tracking the progress of schools and LEAs regarding performance and the achievement of targets on the basis of actual performance in the first year. Of course, prior attainment is very important. Indeed, the value added measures which the department will be publishing relate specifically to prior attainment. But research suggests that other factors such as free school meals or English as an additional language, are of less significance once prior attainment is taken into account. The noble Lord understands the interaction between those things. We discussed that in Committee. Value added measures are one of a range of tools alongside, for example, bench-mark information which schools have available to them to help them set realistic but challenging targets. We believe that this information will greatly enhance schools' understanding of their performance and it will help with their efforts to improve. But there will be no compulsion on the schools to use it or to use it in any particular way. It will be for the schools themselves, perhaps in discussion with the LEAs, to decide on how best to use this and the other performance information which will be available to them. A requirement to base targets on one of these sources of information would not help to set realistic targets. It might make the process less effective. We are really continuing to argue for flexibility. I do not believe that we are doing so in conflict with "the facts" as the noble Lord expressed them, in his introduction to these amendments. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord has said. I hope that the House will bear with me if I am anecdotal for a few moments. When I was a headmaster and took over a new school, I used to do an analysis of its performance in every subject. As often happened, the school was weaker in certain subjects than in others. I regarded myself as successful when I had improved the school standard in those weaker subjects. I discovered the weakness in those subjects by looking at the results achieved in internal or external exams.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. One would look at the discipline of the school and things like that. But in every case one would look at an existing situation and decide what one wanted to do about it. I am not saying it was the total way of dealing with the situation, but one takes two important points such as when the child leaves the junior school and when the child is 16 years of age and takes the GCSE. I say this because it is educationally important. It is also what the citizens of this country value very greatly. I shall not dwell on some of the instructions for the education development plans, but they were needlessly complex. They were more within education jargon than in terms which the parents and others would understand. I shall not press the amendment. I merely state that in many ways it is a good way of judging whether standards will improve. The Government may find that, in a year or two, the guidance they have put forward for the education development plans is not so direct as they would wish it to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 30, after ("regulations,") insert—
("( ) show how the special educational needs policy of the local education authority will raise the achievement of children with special educational needs;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to the interests of pupils with special educational needs. Before speaking to the amendment, I would like to say how much everyone concerned with moving amendments at an earlier stage appreciates the tabling of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. That shows a great step forward. It satisfies a great deal of the general anxiety felt by people concerned with pupils with special educational needs when they read the Bill and followed its progress through another place.
Amendment No. 23 is not meant to contradict in any sense the amendment put forward by the Minister; namely, Amendment No. 27. On the contrary, it puts on the face of the Bill an example as regards the statement of purpose which is part of the education development plan. It adds the requirement that the proposals should,
"show how the special educational needs policy of the local education authority will raise the achievement of children with special educational needs".
I believe that many people feel that local education authorities need to face up to the fact that their policies should be directed towards improving the attainment of pupils with special educational needs. They should demonstrate in their proposals how their education development plan will have that effect. It is clearly a practical example of having regard to children with special educational needs. It is something like the terminology of the amendment tabled by the Minister. It is a way of showing how "have regard to" shall be implemented in practice in the presentation of the education development plans. Therefore, it is a practical mechanism for ensuring that the education of children with special educational needs is placed firmly within the framework. I shall leave my noble friend to speak to Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
My Lords, in the world of the theatre, the importance of top billing is quite straightforward. It relates to the amount of money that one will receive. If you have second, third, or fourth billing, it generally means that your attainments are less and that your remuneration at the end of the week is consequently reduced. I am very happy to take second, third and even fourth billing on Amendments Nos. 23, 26, 27, 79 and 142. I should like to speak to them together and, as a Cross-Bencher, to support everybody in sight.
As we have just heard, Amendment No. 23 stands first in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It provides a link between the education development plan and a local education authority's SEN policy. Amendment No. 26, which stands first in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would make it a requirement that an LEA's SEN policy was annexed to the education development plan. Amendment No. 27 stands on its own in the name of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we are all grateful for the amendment. We are delighted to see it and we hope that it will soon be on the face of the Bill. Naturally, I am supporting Amendments Nos. 79 and 142, which are government amendments, because my name appears to them in second billing. I am delighted that the Minister, her department and the Government have taken notice of the great stress that many Members of your Lordships' House laid on the question of bullying. It is a major step forward to see that on the face of the Bill, particularly with regard to children with learning disabilities who attend SEN or ordinary mainstream schools. Perhaps I may again express my gratitude for these amendments to all concerned. I am sure that we shall not be seeking the opinion of the House because everybody concerned recognises the worth and the scope of the government amendments as well as those which stand in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington.My Lords, my name appears to Amendment No. 26, in top billing, to borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. If I may first be a little sour, perhaps I may say that we could really have had this debate in Committee. I hope that in the future when we deal with the issue of special educational needs and bring that matter into our overall educational policy, we shall not need such debates. I hope that those of us with an interest in this will be brought together; that a discussion will take place and that the Government will not have to move such amendments because these provisions will, we hope, already be part of any future education Bills. Perhaps I should add that I was hopeful of that happening under the previous government because a similar process took place then. However, that did not occur.
I hope that this Government will learn from this experience and recognise the fact that, generally speaking, some attention has to be paid to this even if that means that our prepared set speeches cannot be rolled out quite so often. I hope that we shall then be able to deal with the other more controversial parts of such Bills where there is real disagreement between us. I think that this has been a victory for the House, but it is a victory in a battle that we did not need to fight because we have all discovered that we have been shooting in the same direction.My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lords in first, second and third billing have said. Coming on as fourth billing, I should like to do a little more than merely respond to the amendments or speak to the government amendments. I should like to say a few words about special educational needs in the wider context of the Bill, given the concerns expressed at both Second Reading and in Committee that there has been only limited reference to SEN pupils on the face of the Bill. We know that the importance of ensuring high standards of special needs provision is an issue that is dear to Members of this House, as it is to the Government.
Following the Committee stage, officials from my department had a constructive meeting with the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Swinfen, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, at which they discussed a number of issues. In response to that helpful discussion and the earlier debates, we are proposing three amendments which we hope will address key concerns. I shall deal with those in a moment, but I should like first to mention one or two other important areas. I begin with education action zones and education action forums. The issue becomes particularly important in education action zones, where poor health, low levels of family literacy and a large number of disaffected pupils are likely to lead to higher numbers of pupils with special educational needs. It is reassuring to see that these issues are being addressed by the EAZ proposals themselves. I will give three examples. In Herefordshire, teams of support staff will work across the zones addressing problematic behaviour and learning difficulties. In Thetford, the EAZ will include specialist, localised speech and language therapy provision; and in Leicester there will be multi-agency support teams to endeavour to help address special needs from early years. Concerns have been expressed that the establishment of foundation special schools will create difficulties in planning specialist provision. There are fears that foundation special schools will be able to change their schools in ways that will not reflect local and regional plans for the development of SEN provision; or, indeed that they will not change to reflect such developments. Those fears are unfounded. Foundation special school governors will be able to bring forward proposals to alter their school, but LEAs will also be able to propose changes to foundation special schools. Our guidance to proposers will make clear the plans they should consider when bringing forward proposals to reorganise special needs provision. These will include school organisation plans, proposals for the regional development of SEN provision and education development plans. We are also very conscious of concerns about how children with special educational needs but without statements will be treated under the new admission arrangements. We have stated clearly and unequivocally in the draft interim guidance on school admissions that children with special educational needs but without statements must be treated no less favourably than other applicants. The interim guidance also covers pupils with disabilities and reminds schools that they are under a duty to admit a child where the school has been named in the child's statement of special educational needs. It stresses the importance of schools and LEAs working together to agree strategies that will allow all schools to admit a more even share of children with challenging behaviour. This guidance is the first consultative step on admissions leading to the statutory code of practice to which all admission authorities will be required to have regard. We shall continue to work with representatives of children with special needs as we proceed to finalise the interim guidance and to develop the code. I will speak further about how SEN issues have been addressed in developing other policies when the relevant clauses are reached. I now turn to the specific amendments we are proposing. These relate to Clauses 6, 25 and 61. Amendment No. 27 to Clause 6 would place a requirement on LEAs when preparing their education development plans to have regard to the education of children with special educational needs. We have sought in this amendment to address some very important concerns. EDPs will be the key mechanism through which LEAs will play their part in raising standards in schools. Children with special educational needs are an important part of this agenda. We want to raise standards for all children. That is why the draft guidance which we issued drew special attention to their needs and required LEAs to include significant action to support them. But in response to the concerns that have been raised, we have looked again at this question to see what more needs to be done. The definition of "children" in Clause 6 includes children with special educational needs. Clause 6 therefore requires LEAs in their EDPs to address education for pupils with special educational needs. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, confirming the position following concerns raised by her and others on Second Reading that, as drafted, the Bill may not fully reflect the Government's commitments to SEN. We are minded of those concerns and attach the greatest importance to ensuring that LEAs are continually reviewing and improving provision for these pupils. We have concluded that to put the matter beyond doubt there should be a specific requirement on the face of the Bill. Special educational needs should be part of the mainstream programmes of LEAs with clear targets for improvement. Therefore, LEAs' targets for raising standards for pupils with SEN should be contained within the main body of the EDP. That is in line with the spirit of inclusion and will ensure that LEAs are held to account for raising standards for pupils with special needs in the same way as for pupils who do not have special needs. We also want to ensure that LEAs' EDPs reflect the broader range of the Government's key objectives for SEN. We therefore propose that LEAs should set out in a separate mandatory annex what they will do to make progress towards those objectives. This measure and our amendment to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for LEAs to have regard to SEN when drawing up their EDPs will send a clear message to LEAs about the importance that we attach to SEN. The precise balance between what should appear in the main body of the EDP and what should appear in the annex needs careful thought. I know that there are differing views among those with an interest in SEN about exactly how EDPs should reflect SEN. We shall therefore be consulting organisations who have a particular interest in this matter on the details. We need to keep EDPs as streamlined as possible. Attaching these policies may make EDPs more lengthy than we believe is desirable; but we would expect LEAs to reflect key aspects of their policies and priorities for SEN in their EDPs. What exactly should be attached as an annex is a matter we can consider after further consultation. I turn to school organisation committees and school organisation plans. It is important that school organisation committees should have access to appropriate SEN expertise covering provision in both special and mainstream schools. We are committed to achieving that. But there are a number of ways of doing so. We shall consult specifically on this point before making clear in guidance and in regulations how special educational needs will be represented on school organisation committees. We are determined to get this right. Amendment No. 79 responds to concerns expressed by your Lordships during Committee stage about the proposed school organisation plan. The plan will set the crucial context for decisions on school organisation proposals and will be a very important part of the process. Clause 25(2)(a) already provides that the plan shall describe how the authority intends to meet the needs of the population of its area. Pupils with SEN would clearly be covered by that provision. However, your Lordships expressed concerns during Committee stage. I am happy to respond with this amendment which puts beyond doubt that the plan will always have to take explicit account of the needs of pupils with SEN. Finally, at Committee stage we undertook to consider further the arguments of my noble friend Lady David and others that there should be a specific reference to bullying on the face of the Bill. We have accepted the force of those arguments. Amendment No. 142 would require the headteacher to determine measures, as part of the school's discipline policy, to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. We attach a high priority to helping schools prevent and combat bullying. This is by no means an issue only for children with SEN. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear on a number of occasions that bullying in whatever form, be it racial or because of a child's special educational needs, or for some other reason, is a pernicious problem which puts the emotional well-being and educational achievement of pupils at risk. Bullying is disruptive and intolerable and it must have no place in our schools. It can lead to disaffection and truancy that totally blights a young person's life. We want all schools to treat bullying very seriously and we are determined to help schools take steps to combat it promptly and firmly whenever and wherever it occurs. I hope that the House will feel that, taking together what I have said today and the amendment that I move, the Government have shown in a very practical way that they are ready to listen to genuine and clearly articulated concerns. It was in order to listen to the widest possible range of views on SEN that last year we published our consultative Green Paper on the subject. Taking account of the thousands of responses we received, we shall in the early autumn publish our action programme designed to take forward the principles set out in the Green Paper. In the light of what I have just said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, will be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 23 and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 26.6.15 p.m.
My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to respond to the Minister. The noble Baroness has given an excellent exposé of the Government's approach to special educational needs and described how the amendments tabled by the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, help to reflect on the face of the Bill the concerns that we have expressed in relation to educational development plans, school organisation committees and bullying. We are grateful for what the noble Baroness said. I shall read the words of the Minister with great care. I listened as carefully as I could to a long and (if I may say so) rapidly read statement. I believe that it satisfies a great number, and possibly all, of the concerns that have been expressed. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 25 and also to Amendment No. 32, which is consequential on these amendments. I shall not detain the House long because we dwelt on this matter at Committee stage. Our worries on this side of the House have always been that to refer all of the education development plans to the Secretary of State is needlessly bureaucratic. We understand that it is not sufficient just to leave the matter to the schools or the local authority. For that reason we suggest the involvement of Ofsted, the chief inspector and the governors of all the schools who are concerned about the particular educational development plan and are aware of the details of their local area.
It is very much against the traditions of English government to refer so many detailed plans to the department. I have grave doubts whether the department has the speed or skill to cope with this. I believe that there will be delays and bureaucracy. I do not want to embarrass the noble Baroness or any of her colleagues, but they have not shown enormous skill in producing regulations while this Bill has been passing through both Houses. In many cases we have had to wait. Further, my noble friend Lady Blatch often receives letters without their enclosures. If the education development plans experience that, I fear that there may be problems.
I make no criticism of the department. I refer merely to the pressure of work. If the Secretary of State and his officials have to approve every education development plan for the schools of this country it will be a great burden. I am not a member of the Government; no doubt I never shall be, but I believe that the department has many more important tasks to perform than this. It would be a kindness to the department and to the country and a mercy to the many trees that will die in vain if the Secretary of State was taken out and Ofsted was brought in. Ofsted has inspected almost all of the schools. I believe that that would be a happier arrangement. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am more grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments than he knows. They cover a range of important aspects of our proposals for education development plans. The fact that he has tabled them gives me the opportunity to describe what we undertook to do on Second Reading, which was to give the House the result of our consultation on EDPs. I hope that they may allay some of his fears.
I shall say something about the changes to the EDP policy which we plan as a result of the views expressed in the consultation. A summary of the responses to the consultation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses today. I am pleased to tell the House that there was generally a very positive response to our policies on education development plans. This came through clearly in the responses to the consultation and at the six regional conferences the department held in February and March to explain the guidance and obtain feedback. Almost all the respondents agreed that EDPs would be a key mechanism for raising standards in schools and welcomed the guidance. There were some who were concerned about what they perceived as additional bureaucracy, but in general there were very few critical comments. The main points to come out of the consultation related to three specific aspects of the guidance: setting targets; LEAs' school improvement programmes to achieve their targets; and the supporting information that LEAs will provide to underpin their EDPs. Target-setting attracted the largest number of comments. There was broad support for the five targets proposed, but some requests for additional targets, for example, at Key Stages 1 and 3, and for attendance and exclusions. There was some concern expressed about the timescale for LEAs to agree targets with their schools. We are confident that the timescale we have set for LEAs is a viable one, and that is certainly the view of those authorities that have already begun the process of consulting their schools as the first step to drawing up their EDPs. There were also requests for greater clarification, which officials will take on board, in revising the guidance. There was general support for the school improvement programme which respondents saw as a sound approach to raising standards, but some calls for greater clarity in the guidance. Officials are in the process of revising the guidance and respondents' comments will be helpful in that regard. I turn last to supporting information. Some respondents thought that too much information was being asked for under this heading, but more thought that the information required was what LEAs are already collecting. There were continuing concerns about resources which we will take into account alongside the consultation on fair funding which ends on 31st July. It is clear that the general content and broad thrust of the draft guidance is accepted and welcomed and we intend to retain it. We have given careful consideration to the suggestions made. We have concluded that the following changes should be made: the guidance should be streamlined and unnecessary bureaucracy reduced; GCSE equivalents (such as GNVQs), should be included in the targets currently proposed for pupil attainment in line with the targets we recently announced for 16 year-olds; special schools—my noble friend the Minister has referred to this—should be listed separately in the school-by-school targets in annex 1 of the guidance, rather than grouped with other schools; and a new, mandatory, annex on SEN should be included in the guidance. We cannot of course finalise the guidance until after other related consultations such as fair funding and the LEA school relations code of practice are completed and until Royal Assent of the Bill. We plan to make that available as soon as possible in the autumn, but we will be writing to all LEAs to inform them of the immediate changes. I turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 24 would remove the Secretary of State's power to approve education development plans and together with Amendment No. 32 would remove his powers to modify and review LEAs' statements of proposals and the requirement for LEAs to publish their plans. Clearly that would considerably reduce the effectiveness of EDPs as a mechanism to ensure that LEAs play their part in raising standards in schools. That is not the message we received through the consultation responses: LEAs welcomed the opportunity to contribute to raising standards and generally found the draft guidance a helpful aid to strategic planning. The Secretary of State's powers to approve, reject or modify EDPs are an important part of the process to lever up standards across all LEAs. Without them we cannot effectively ensure that all LEAs reach the level of the best. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, thought that the department had more important things to do than that. I cannot think of anything more important than the thrust to improve school standards. That is what EDPs are about. Unless we ensure, giving proper respect to local initiative, an oversight by the Secretary of State, we cannot stand up before the electorate again and say that we have done whatever was necessary to improve school standards. Amendment No. 25 requires LEAs to publish and send their draft EDPs to the Chief Inspector of Schools for England and governors of schools affected by the plans. That is not a realistic or practical alternative to sending them to the Secretary of State who has the responsibility for schools as a whole whereas the Chief Inspector of Schools has the responsibility for the inspection of individual schools and groups of schools. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, we are determined to root out bureaucracy wherever we can. That applies just as much to EDPs as it does to other areas of educational policy. We shall be seeking to streamline the EDPs as we finalise the guidance. These amendments are not just unnecessary: they are positively undesirable.My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, there is an ideological divide between us as to how schools should be improved. The noble Lord and his colleagues prefer the heavier hand of bureaucracy; we would leave more initiative to the schools. I shall go no further on that point.
I was a little surprised that only 54 LEAs replied to the consultation document. I think that there are over 100 LEAs. On an important matter like this, 54 is a low number. Even more surprising was the fact that only five responses came from 25,000 schools. A consultation document that has replies from only five schools raises certain doubts in my mind. The noble Lord painted an optimistic picture of the consultation. I point out again that it was a limited consultation. He did not mention certain less than complimentary comments which noble Lords should hear. The resources section of the EDP attracted considerable comment. There were four main concerns: too much detailed information was required; many of the resources spent on school improvement by LEAs would not be captured through EDPs; the purpose of collecting the information was unclear; and the lack of resources for LEAs for EDP-purposes would take money away from schools. That is a point which noble Lords will note that we on this side of the House have often stressed. There was some difference of view between LEAs and school-focused organisations on those points. As there were only five schools, their representation was slight. Many respondents were worried about the tight timetable proposed by the draft guidance, particularly the timetable for target setting. There was a perceived lack of time for consultation and approval. My worries about bureaucracy are, to a degree, compounded by those criticisms. The thing has been rushed, as instanced by the paucity of reply. I am still worried about this matter. The amendments were tabled mainly to obtain the noble Lord's response, for which I am grateful. We will see how the proposals work in practice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
[ Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 33, after ("prescribed:") insert—
("( ) must in particular include the special educational needs policy of the local education authority;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I missed the general debate on Amendment No. 23, I wish to thank the Minister for these three government amendments and for the most useful meeting that we had with her officials.
[ Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing an education development plan the authority shall have regard, in particular, to the education of children (within the meaning of subsection (2)) who have special educational needs.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 6, after ("guidance") insert ("subject to section ( Making and approval of general guidance on education development plans)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment in a group of amendments concerning guidance. It relates in particular to draft guidance on education development plans, which is another area where we have concerns. We believe that some parliamentary accountability would improve the quality of guidance. Consultation on this guidance—and here I share some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—closed in early May. Unlike him, however, I cannot tell the House exactly how many people responded. The draft guidance is very complex; it contains seven annexes and six appendices.
Expenditure on education development plans is related to the fair funding proposals in a manner which is not described in the draft guidance. Local education authorities have to choose from three key areas and take into account seven aspects when considering the guidance and in drawing up their plans. Once the plans are approved, the local education authorities will no doubt have to follow their plans and the guidance. The consequences of not doing so are significant. The Secretary of State can withdraw approval of the plan under Clause 7(5). This presumably would have a number of consequences for those who are part of the plan going forward.
The amendment makes Parliament a little more accountable in relation to the very real new powers which the Secretary of State is acquiring. As my noble friend Lord Tope explained earlier, in many ways the group of amendments, of which this is one, seeks assurance and perhaps more detail about how the Government view the development and approval of education development plans. These matters are obviously of concern to both Opposition Benches in the House.
That is the spirit in which we put forward these amendments and we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. These matters are complex and the Minister can be in no doubt regarding our concern. I hope that the noble Lord can throw some light on how that complexity will be dealt with, and perhaps convince us that the drawing-up of these plans will go smoothly. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. First, they are clearly thoughtful and serious amendments and a good deal of work has been put into them. Secondly, by raising the issue of consultation again she enables me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, which I was not able to do under the rules of debate at Report stage.
The noble Lord complained that there had been a low response to the consultation, in particular from schools. I think he overlooked the fact—and I am sure he will forgive my saying this in his absence—that the formal written responses were only part of the process. All local education authorities came to the consultation conferences—I described them when I responded to his amendment—and their views were taken into account in the Government's responses. The consultation was designed in the first instance for local education authorities, since it is they who have the responsibility for drawing up the plans. Schools could respond if they wished, but there was no particular reason for them to do so, and it is not all that surprising that a small number of schools responded directly. In addition to the local education authorities responding individually, the two local authority associations and the four major teaching unions responded to the consultation process. We do not feel therefore that the response to the consultation, given the time available—it was not particularly short—was unsatisfactory. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked me to say more clearly how the drawing-up of the education development plans fits in. What we have sought to do with guidance—it is in turn guided by the consultation we have carried out, but in a form where the local education authority has to have regard to the guidance rather than the more specifically dirigiste provisions in Amendments No. 30 and 31, the new clauses—is to give local education authorities the opportunity to reflect their area's needs in their education development plans. As I said in defending the role of the Secretary of State's duty to review and, if necessary, reject or modify education development plans, the Government as a whole have the responsibility for the raising of school standards. If we do not believe that the result of the local education authority's consideration will do the job, we have the right to do something about it. We do not want education development plans to be formulaic—to be expected responses to specific questions at every stage. We want them to be creative, imaginative, thoughtful and to reflect the needs of their particular areas. I am afraid that by putting these new clauses on the face of the Bill, the noble Baroness's proposal would add more unnecessary bureaucracy and cost to the preparation of education development plans. I am afraid that the same argument applies to Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 and to Amendments Nos. 29 and 31. It is desirable to consult on guidance on who should be consulted before the publication of statutory proposals. However, I suggest that it is not a good idea to use parliamentary time to submit that guidance to Parliament for consideration. It has never been the practice in the past and I do not see why it should be so in the future. Guidance is a lower level of the regulatory process than regulations. The very phrase "have regard to" is the appropriate description of the status of guidance. Existing guidance is included in circulars; for example, on consultation on proposed changes. Circular 23 of 1994 provides all that is necessary to inform local authorities about what they have to do for consultation purposes. Existing guidance includes any LEA which is likely to be affected, the relevant diocese, the FEFC where 16 to 19 year-old provision is affected, any school which is subject to the proposals, other schools in the area, parents and teachers and any other interested party. I give that as an example of the way in which guidance and circulars provide a natural way for communication between government and local education authorities. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will agree that it is not appropriate to change them as her amendments propose.My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that long explanation. It points out why we were right to be a little concerned about the issue and to explore it. So much of the Bill involves guidance being drawn up after consultation and while we are still examining it during its various stages.
I recognise the Minister's explanation of how guidance works and I understand that. A great deal of legislation and the interaction between central and local government is dealt with in guidance. However, we on these Benches are concerned about the fact that so much of the Bill provides for guidance and codes of practice. We consult more than we used to do. We on these Benches approve of that and we do so as regards local government. In drawing up guidance, we are involving ourselves more in consultation with a wide range of people and therefore perhaps this House and another place should examine that. The purpose of our amendments is to explore the changing way in which we consult people, draw up guidance and keep legislation flexible, thus enabling us to change. I thank the Minister for his reply. We made it clear that we would not press amendments to the vote and therefore I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
[ Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 7 [ Approval, modification and review of statement of proposals]:
[ Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 9 [ Education committees to include representatives of parent governors]:
moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 3, after ("elected") insert ("without voting rights").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a full debate on the subject in Committee and therefore I do not intend to dwell on the matter for long. However, for us it is a matter of principle that people who serve and have a vote on local authority committees, including the education committees, should be democratically elected to the local authority and thus accountable to the democratic process. That is the first reason for tabling the amendment. It would accept parent governor representatives on education committees, but they would have no voting rights. Indeed, a number of other people, teachers included, serve on education committees without voting rights.
The first and most important reason for tabling the amendment is one of principle and democratic accountability. As one who has served on and has been associated with education committees for more than 20 years, I wonder about the practice of the proposal. In rejecting a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
"We want to ensure not only that parents have a strong influence in discussions about education matters but that they can also play a full part in decisions taken by the relevant committees or sub-committees. Only by having a vote can they do so".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1541.]
None of us would question parents' opportunity and right to play a full and effective part in the decision-making process. However, I would certainly question whether the best way to achieve that is by having two parent governor representatives on an education committee and I would question most strongly the assertion that that can be done only by having a vote on the committee. The Minister is saying that non-voting members on education committees, social services committees and other local authority committees do not play an effective part. The opposite is true; they play a most useful and effective part and sometimes more so for not having a vote.
There is a supposition that most things which are decided by an education committee are decided by vote. In reality, the opposite is the case. Generally, there are few votes. Often a vote takes place because of a party political difference. In my experience, non-voting members—for instance, those representing the Churches—will not normally take part in the vote because they do not wish to be seen to be associated with party politics. It is right that they are not seen to be associated with one or other political party in a vote. Therefore, I doubt whether in practice the proposal will have the effect that the Minister suggests. To use words that are so often quoted to us, I do not believe that the proposal is necessary. I certainly do not believe that it is desirable and as a matter of important democratic principle if we are to have parent governor representatives on education committees they should not have voting rights. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
My Lords, this is a matter of principle. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, numerous practical problems arise. I received a letter from the Minister giving an explanation of how the measure would work. I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I believe that it would not take a prize for plain English. It was the most convoluted letter I had ever read. The measure is incredibly impractical and ours is an issue of principle. I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, most strongly.
My Lords, after all the discussion we have had on the subject, I am surprised that it is still an issue. Our intention to include parent governor representatives on education committees has been clear for a long time. It was a manifesto commitment and was highlighted in our earlier consultation papers, Diversity and Excellence and Excellence in Schools. Last summer's White Paper, Excellence in Schools, stated our intention that these elected parent governor representatives would have voting rights. Furthermore, there was a very wide welcome to this proposal in responses to the White Paper.
I recognise that giving parent governor representatives voting rights will have implications for the way in which the relevant committee works. However, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may be exaggerating a little the complications that she sees arising. It seems to me that none of the issues which has been raised tonight or in earlier debates is insurmountable. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out that representatives of the Churches often decide not to vote when a political issue arises and is being argued between the parties. Parents can abstain in such circumstances, too, if they do not wish to become involved in political argy-bargy on education committees. The noble Lord also said that he was aware that votes occur relatively rarely and he asked whether the Government were aware of that too. The Government certainly are aware and it is my own experience of education committees. In that case, it is all the more surprising that the noble Lord is so worried about the issue. We certainly accept that parent governor representatives should not vote on matters which relate to the determination of the overall budget for education or where there is a conflict of interest. It may be right to say, as was suggested in Committee, that this will apply to a good number of issues. I personally believe that this argument has been overstated. But if it is true, it will mean that parent governor representatives will be able to exercise their vote only in limited circumstances, to reiterate what I have said. That must surely mean that there are fewer concerns about how that vote is used. Our intention is to provide guidelines, both through the regulations and through non-statutory guidance, on the circumstances in which it is appropriate and is not appropriate for parent governor representatives to exercise their vote. I do not accept that giving parent governor representatives the right to vote will disrupt local democracy. That is a rather over-stated argument. Following the local government elections on 7th May, around two-thirds of councils still have sizeable majorities. Only 13 councils have a majority of less than five. There are 39 councils which have no overall control. It is for councils to decide what committees to set up and to determine the size of each committee, but they need to ensure that they reflect the requirements of local government legislation in respect of proportionality and maintaining the political majority. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about this point on 22nd May following our discussion in Committee. In short, where the relevant committee has a majority fewer than the number of diocesan representatives and parent governor representatives combined, the council will need to appoint additional members from the majority party to that committee in order to preserve the majority. If this proves difficult in practice, then it is always open to members of the committee to make pairing arrangements. Where the committee has no overall control, then yes, the appointment of parent governor representatives will make a difference; but since they will be voting on issues rather than along political lines, this will ensure that the views of parents are properly represented and will count. This is precisely what we intend. Noble Lords will know that the Government are encouraging authorities to look at ways of improving local accountability and of streamlining the decision-making process. Their committee structures are an important part of that, and I know that many are already contemplating changes. Ultimately, it is up to councils themselves to decide on their committee structure (subject to the legislative requirements) and the size of those committees, so the impact of the voting rights of parent governor representatives will rest in their hands. We accept that there need to be safeguards built into the system; in exactly the same way as any amendments recommended by this House will be considered in the other place. In the case of decisions taken by a local authority committee, it will always be open to the full council to override any decision which they feel is not in the best interests of the local population as a whole. This is a more than ample safeguard against improper use of those voting rights. We do think that parent governor representatives, along with diocesan representatives, are in a different position from other interests. We believe it is right that diocesan representatives should have a vote on decisions about education provision because of the significant part which they play in providing church schools. We believe also that parent governor representatives should have the right to vote on decisions about education because it is the children of the parents whom they represent who stand to succeed or fail because of those decisions. We believe that the voice of parent governor representatives will be much stronger if it is supported by voting rights. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
My Lords, the Minister has replied to a number of points that I did not make. I certainly did not make such an exaggerated claim that there would be a disruption of local democracy. It would not have enhanced my case to overstate the position to that extent. Nor did I even make reference to the effect that an additional two parent votes on a committee might have. However, the Minister was perhaps overstating her case when she suggested that they would have no effect on the relatively large numbers of councils where there is no majority.
I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and myself in support of this amendment. This is a matter of principle. People serving on local authority committees should be those who have been elected to the local authority. I do not believe that there is anything that the Minister can say which will convince me otherwise. I hope she will therefore concede that principle. I am fully aware of the proposed changes and the moves which many local authorities, without prompting from the Government, are taking to modernise and streamline their committee systems and decision-making structures. In general, I welcome that. This measure seems to me to date back more to the 1960s and 1970s than to look forward to the new millennium. One of the more serious concerns that I have—and the Minister referred to the support that has been received in some quarters—is that it gives parents and parent governors a false impression of the amount of influence which they will actually have by serving and voting on education committees. I stress that my colleagues and I are wholly and strongly in favour of the best possible involvement of parents, their representative governors and all governors in the decision-making process. I do not believe that the best way to achieve that is by having a place on an education committee. The Minister has not only failed to convince but the more she spoke, the more I could hear her convincing my colleagues—although they do not need convincing—that we are right with this amendment. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 86.
Division No. 4
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Addington, L. [Teller.] | Calverley, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Carlisle, E. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Carnegy of Lour, B. |
| Belstead, L. | Chesham, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | Colwyn, L. |
| Blake, L. | Crathorne, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Dean of Harptree, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Deedes, L. |
| Burnham, L. | Denham, L. |
| Cadman, L. | Dixon-Smith, L. |
| Elton, L. | Maddock, B. |
| Fookes, B. | Mountevans, L. |
| Fraser of Carmyllie, L. | Pender, L. |
| Goodhart, L. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Grey, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Hampton, L. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Hamwee, B. | Renton, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Rowallan, L. |
| Seccombe, B. | |
| Holderness, L. | Steel of Aikwood, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Inglewood, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Kingsland, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Knight of Collingtree, B. | Thomas of Gresford, L. |
| Leigh, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Linklater of Butterstone, B. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Thurso, V. |
| Luke, L. | Tope, L. [Teller.] |
| McColl of Dulwich, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. | Ullswater, V. |
| Mackay of Drumadoon, L. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
| Mackie of Benshie, L. | Wise, L. |
| McNair, L. | Wrenbury, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Jenkins of Putney, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Judd, L. |
| Blease, L. | Kennedy of The Shaws, B. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Kilbracken, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Kirkhill, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] |
| Chandos, V. | |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Manchester, Bp. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Milner of Leeds, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Desai, L. | Montague of Oxford, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Murray of Epping Forest, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Norton, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Paul, L. |
| Dubs, L. | Pitkeathley, B. |
| Elis-Thomas, L. | Plant of Highfield, L. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Gallacher, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Gladwin of Clee, L. | Rea, L. |
| Glenamara, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Gregson, L. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Grenfell, L. | Ripon, Bp. |
| Hacking, L. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Hardie, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Simon, V. |
| Hayman, B. | Simon of Highbury, L. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Howie of Troon, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Hoyle, L. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Hughes, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Hughes of Woodside, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Hunt of Kings Heath, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Watson of Invergowrie, L. | |
| Islwyn, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Jay of Paddington, B. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Jeger, B. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Clause 10 [ Establishment of education action zones]:
moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 40, after ("maintained") insert ("school or group of).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 to 37. We now find ourselves at the beginning of the four clauses on education action zones. To say that I wish to express my disquiet about this part of the Bill and about the way in which I have been treated as a Member of the Opposition Front Bench is an understatement. I have now asked three times for straightforward information which is now publicly available everywhere and to everyone but not to me as a Member of this House. I hope that the Minister will give me some answer tonight as to why I have not received the necessary information. Indeed, I have not even received a copy of the letter which has been sent out to the action zones bidders asking whether I can be given the information. I am not sure whether they were asked if it mattered whether the information went to local government associations or was given out in a press conference when the bids were announced. There is serious disquiet about the procedure which has been used and about our rights not only as ordinary Members of this House but also as Members of the Opposition Front Bench.
I have asked who the bidders were, but have been refused the information. I have asked about the percentage of bidders—for example, which were LEA and which were private or voluntary—but, again, I have not received that information. As I said, the information is readily available to people outside this Chamber. I am delighted that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is present tonight. He has not sympathised with me in the matter but, nevertheless, he is aware that I have not received this information. I believe that the usual channels have made strenuous efforts as regards the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that I receive as much information as is permitted to be available publicly. However, as I said, I have not to date received the information that I have requested. I am indeed disquieted by the situation.
This group of amendments is designed to ensure that a school or a group of schools should be allowed to have special status. They also insist that parents should be part of the consultation process. Where a school is taken into an education action zone, it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that there is no requirement on anyone to consult with parents and take note of their opinion. There is no formal requirement to ascertain whether they believe it is a good, bad or an indifferent process. Moreover, there is no requirement to ask parents whether they would approve of having the national curriculum disapplied. Indeed, there is no formal requirement in the process to ask parents whether they approve of whatever is to be substituted for the national curriculum.
There is the mildest possible hint—indeed, it is not even a requirement—that teachers should be consulted if the forum and/or a governing body of any school in the action zone wishes to disapply pay and conditions. Again, the whole process is very unsatisfactory. Almost every other part of the Bill has regulations flowing from it. However, this part does not deal with the details as regards the setting up of education action zones. For that reason, it is probably the most depressing part of the legislation.
Having only had access to what is written in newspaper reports and the information which came out on the day of the publication of the 25 winning bidders (and what we know of them), it seems to me that the education action zones are committees which will orchestrate a collective effort where schools have failed. Indeed, that is what they are because there does not appear to be any direction or any lead body in that respect. It is not mentioned in any of the information that we have seen thus far. The committees will be numerous and it is quite clear that they will consume time, money and effort. I suspect that the impact on the classroom will be in inverse proportions to the bureaucracy and what is now very confused management.
The EAZs are free to innovate, but they are subject to education development plans; they are free to innovate, but the teachers and staff are employed by the local education authority; they are free to innovate, but they are subject to almost all the other measures in the Bill. So, policies on the part of the LEA, the gathering of information and the intervention in terms of standards and whether or not they are being achieved are all in place for education action zones.
If the Government really want fruitful and effective partnership enterprise to improve education, they could do no better—certainly when one thinks of the kind of money they are putting into this—than to follow the model set by the city technology colleges which are truly independent and are part of the state family of free education. They provide education in areas which are challenging from an education point of view. There is also the model set by some of the technology colleges that have raised specific sums of money, which can be identified, and which have positive links with companies providing that money. They work well in partnership and they are free to run their colleges without the incredible bureaucratic network that surrounds the education action zones.
It is important that where it is possible for a school or a group of schools to be included in an education action zone, that should be allowed. Mr. Byers talks enthusiastically in the "back room"about single schools being leased out. We know that he is keen to give the education action zones more independence than they are given in the Bill. We believe it has been said that the education action zones as they have materialised are not quite what was intended in the first place, but that will be put right later. It would be nice to know exactly what is meant by all of that. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
I end as I began. I would be happy to be advised where I can find out what my rights are as a Member of a Front Bench. Why cannot I obtain straightforward information that has been provided to public bodies outside this place? Do we have any rights as Members of Parliament to see information that is publicly available? If that is not the case, this is perhaps a matter that should be addressed by the Procedure Committee, to advise me how I can proceed as a Member of this House trying to do a job as a member of the Official Opposition. My hands are tied behind my back because the information that I require to do my job effectively is denied me. I beg to move.
My Lords, I hope that I can help the noble Baroness. I am fortunate in that I live in an area which has action zone status. Last weekend I spent some time discussing the implications of that status with governors, teachers, parents and business people. I heard nothing but favourable reports from all of them. They thought it was an excellent idea and they welcomed the partnership. They welcomed the opportunities the scheme offered. I went out of my way to try to find some criticism of the scheme but I found none. We in Blackburn are fortunate to be part of such a scheme. I am sorry that more authorities have not achieved action zone status. I am all in favour of the CTCs. I have encouraged a number of companies to put money into them. However, the concept we are discussing is completely different from that of the CTCs. I hope that as the action zones develop the noble Baroness will consider that we should have introduced them a long time ago.
7.15 p.m.
My Lords, the education action zone is an interesting concept which many people find exciting. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has just explained how excited people are in Blackburn about the concept. I am a little worried about the concept but I understand that it is about partnership and about involving many people in what is going on. Although deep in my heart I am a little worried about democracy, at least many people are being involved in these zones. However, I am concerned that under the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, there could be an education action zone comprising one school, which could be a grant-maintained school by another name. Under her amendment parents would be able to opt into an education action zone which comprised just one school. That seems a rather cunning wheeze. Each school whose application is approved by the Secretary of State will be able to suspend the national curriculum, get its own money, manage itself and create a different salary structure. However, there would be no strategic view of what is going on in an area. Education action zones run for a certain period of time. We have discussed in this Chamber what might happen at the end of that period.
Under an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, parents and governors would apply for action zone status. That is a similar process to opting out, but there is no mention of a ballot this time. Who would make the decision? As I said, I believe that education action zones will gain strength from partnership. I believe they need to comprise at least a dozen schools. It would be nice to involve the primary and secondary sectors so that everyone benefits from the new ideas, the money and the innovation that is made available. I view the amendment as a rather sinister move to return to grant-maintained status which we on these Benches have been, and remain, firmly against.My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said. I think she has seen through what these amendments seek to achieve. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I wish to make some positive comments about education action zones and comment on what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn said. I am grateful for his comments. I believe that we have something to celebrate here rather than denigrate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, zones are about partnerships—not the public or private sector alone, but partnerships. A number of businesses are taking part in the scheme, in spite of the scepticism that we heard from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches at an earlier stage.
A number of household names have decided to become involved in the scheme. Shell will provide the chair of the forum for the education action zone in Lambeth. Yorkshire Water and Midland Bank between them will provide extensive support in Sheffield. British Aerospace will provide video links for all schools in the Hull zone. Scottish Power will provide an open learning centre for schools and the community in Brighton and Hove. Comcast in Middlesbrough will provide 100,000 in cash. I shall not continue but there are many other companies involved such as American Express, KPMG, BT, Tesco, Tate & Lyle, Cadburys and so on. There is a long list of companies that are involved in the scheme. These partnerships seek to improve standards in areas which we have been concerned about for some time—I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with that—both as regards the schools and the areas that they serve. I am a little disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was not able to be more welcoming towards what we intend to do. The noble Baroness asked about the rights of Members of Parliament. I remind her that she told this Chamber in Committee that she had seen all the applications for education action zones. She said that she had seen them through her political contacts in the LGA. In the light of that, to say that she does not know anything about them seems a slightly hollow claim. On the day of the launch, Tuesday 23rd June, the noble Baroness was sent a letter. The list of proposals and partners was published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. That was specified clearly in the letter. It was not possible to do that earlier. As was made clear to the noble Baroness—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to whom I also wrote, will confirm this—the Government did not feel that, until decisions had been made as to which of the applications were successful, it was right to publish the names of the private sector partners unless they had given explicit permission. Unfortunately, we did not obtain that permission from all who had taken part in the bidding process before announcing the successful bidders. That is the reason why the noble Baroness was not given further information before 23rd June. As I said, she stated that she had already seen the applications. I now turn to the amendments, beginning with Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. When the noble Baroness put forward the first amendment in Committee, I made it clear that this was not what education action zones were about. As the applications I mentioned all made clear, a key element of the zones is partnership. The partnership concept applies not merely to outside agencies and businesses, but to the schools themselves. A major achievement of the applications, which we welcomed when we were able to publish the outcome of the bids a week ago, was the way in which they bring together primary and secondary schools, grant-maintained and county schools to work together. I believe that education action zones are healing some of the wounds left by the previous government. If the amendment completely removes the partnerships from zones, I wonder whether it has any merit in terms of broadening the scope for innovation. Of course we want schools everywhere to innovate, and I am sympathetic to the notion that an individual school may wish to do that, as is my honourable friend Mr. Byers. I repeat: a large part of the innovative nature of zones is based on their working in partnership—teachers working across a number of zones; communities being drawn into their children's education; and using information and communications technology to link schools within an area. Removing that partnership and allowing a single school to go it alone would mean that much, if not all, of that would be lost. What about the specific legislative freedoms that apply to zones? Taking each in turn, the noble Baroness separately proposed an amendment relating to teachers' pay and conditions, which we shall debate later. The national curriculum flexibilities apply to every school. Because of the benefits of partnership I am sure that we shall see them being used more frequently in education action zones, and certainly more than they were under the previous government. The remaining freedoms apply to the way in which the governing body can give its powers to the forum. That is intended to allow the forum to act as the governing body for a group of schools. I am therefore at a loss to see what this proposal can mean for a single school. In the light of my remarks I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw these amendments. I turn now to Amendment No. 37 on parental agreement to zones being created. Of course parents must be included in helping to shape the education action zones. We hope to see parental representation alongside teachers, governors and business people on the action fora. However, we should remember that the key form of accountability—the governing body—will remain in place. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that this radical proposal will take schools out of local authority control and place them in the hands of third parties. I am afraid that that seems to me to be living in the past. Local authorities do not "control" schools; schools control themselves, unless they are failing and have their budgets withdrawn. The schools in action zones are not being placed in the hands of third parties. They are entering, voluntarily, a new kind of partnership. In all the zone applications that we have approved, the governing bodies very much intend to continue working. Parents have nothing to fear in terms of losing a voice. If, once in a zone, a governing body wishes to vary the national curriculum, parents will have a voice through that governing body, as they do outside zones. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.My Lords, on the point of information that I am allowed or not allowed, the noble Baroness rather dismissively referred to political colleagues at the LGA. It was an official of the LGA who wrote to me personally, and to LEA leaders, sending copies to me as vice-president of the association. The letter stated that a full set of applications had been received. It was very unfortunate that that official was deemed to have breached a confidence.
There are two points in relation to that. First, I do not believe that he breached a confidence. The box of applications was simply sent to the LGA, and there was no requirement for confidence to be kept. Nor would he have sent out letters so publicly had that been the case. He would have been much more covert. I do not believe that this particular officer was guilty of the kind of action to which he would have had to resort in order to be covert. Therefore, I heard about the matter officially and was free to go into the LGA offices to see them. My question to the noble Baroness is this. As a Member of the Official Opposition and a Front-Bencher involved materially in the making of this legislation—as a Member of Parliament, party to the whole of Parliament—why am I not allowed the right to that information? Why were an official of the LGA and council leaders written to by that official? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give an answer to that question.My Lords, we have had this debate before. It was made absolutely clear that the information was given to the LGA by an official of my department on a confidential basis. The noble Baroness denies that that was the case, but I assure her that it was. The information was then passed on.
My Lords, that brings me to my second point. I believe that that response calls into question the character of the official. I defend the right of the official, who was not asked to keep the information confidential and was not under the belief that that was what he had to do. If the noble Baroness can give me proof that that was the case, it will call the character of the gentleman into question. I do not believe that that is the case.
Secondly, is the noble Baroness saying that, as a Privy Counsellor, I cannot see a matter in confidence, and that the LGA, not members of the Privy Council, can see papers in confidence? The Local Government Association is the servant of the local authorities. It has no status whatsoever other than to be of service to those authorities. In other words, if it has information it is wrong that it should keep it to itself. Its officials are there only to serve councillors; therefore that information should be made available to them—as indeed it was, in good faith, by a particular official. His reputation has been called into question by the noble Baroness's officials at the department and by the noble Baroness across the Dispatch Box. Is the noble Baroness saying that there is information which is denied to Members of this House and to Members of the Privy Council but which can be given bona fide to those outside this building, and that therefore my rights in this matter are definitely given secondary credence to those of outside bodies? I should genuinely like an answer to that point. When the Bill has been passed, I intend to take the matter up in another way. I have been trying to find out where Members of this House can go when they have been at the receiving end of such shabby treatment. I wish to rejoice with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, because I hope that the Bill works. But he is privy to much information which I was not. as a Member of these Benches. There is nothing in the Bill as to how it will work. There are four clauses which say very little. The Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 22nd December. On 5th January, before it had even started its Committee stage in the House of Commons, the bidding documents had gone out to all the potential bidders. The closing date was 10th March. It was still proceeding through another place and it is now proceeding through this House. The bidding is over, the considerations have been made, action zones have been named and still the information is denied me as a Member of the Opposition. I do not wish to confuse this with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor; we wish the action zones well. This is a way of tackling failing education. However, I believe that the way in which it has been set up will not tackle failing education. There are huge problems. as will be manifest as time goes on. It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me to give us an idea of the breakdown of the money. It is not surprising that there is a great deal of excitement out there; the action zones will receive £1 million each year for three years. There is no promise about what happens after that, but it is serious money and there is great excitement. Some of the areas in the country with the worst education and the most failing LEAs have not received action zone status. Some authorities, not reputed for having failing schools, have received action zone money. We do not know why, we do not know the criteria for considering the bid. The Minister has not imparted any of that information, we are completely and utterly in the dark about it. The noble Baroness made comments about me being something of a wet blanket about the policy. I am not. I said right at the beginning that innovation is good when trying to tackle some of the challenges in education which have eluded good teachers and good headteachers and even well-intentioned LEAs over a long period. I am all for that. But I believe that there is no sense of direction, no real idea. It is just a series of committees, a network of contacts. There is nothing in the information we were sent the other day that tells us precisely what the financial input is from the companies. There is nothing in the Bill that tells us where the particular company giving the money to the action zone will be materially involved in its management. That is also not included. There is nothing in the Bill or the bidding documents that tells us what is the process for discussing with parents their involvement in ceding powers to a forum, or even when the national curriculum is to be disapplied. At least when it is disapplied under the present system in a school that has good reason for it to be disapplied, there is a process to go through. There is no process here. no process laid down, there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in regulations. Those are my complaints about this. I shall leave the matter for the moment, but I must say to the noble Baroness that I hope I receive the information and see copies of the letters that have gone out and that the information can be made available to me. It will be interesting to see how long after my first request I receive the information. It would be helpful to have it before the Bill has gone through this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Council Of Europe
7.34 p.m.
rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to promote the work of the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate about the future of the Council of Europe. In my short time as a delegate to the parliamentary assembly, my understanding and respect for the work of the institution have increased exponentially. I took the trouble to look up the last time this House debated the work of the Council of Europe; it was in December 1994. The debate concentrated on the proposed admission of Russia to the Council of Europe. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill will remember the debate as he took part in it. On reading the debate, I was struck by how much the institution has grown and developed since 1994. I was also struck by how the issues surrounding human rights have remained much the same.
When I first went on the delegation, I was taken aside by an old and somewhat grizzled journalist and told what he saw to be three home truths about the Council of Europe. They were, first, that the parliamentary assembly was a talk shop where many people talked and few listened; secondly, that it was a waiting room for countries that wished to join the European Union; and thirdly, that the British Parliament was not interested in the work of the Council of Europe. I now believe those views are unduly negative, but I wish to address the issues they raise because next year we will have the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe. That will give us a tremendous opportunity both to promote a greater understanding of its work and also for the Government to consider how they wish the institution to develop in the future.
The first home truth I was told was that the Council of Europe is a talk shop. Of course that is true, but it is a talk shop with real moral authority. One has to look no further than last week's business in Strasbourg to see the respect which the Council of Europe commands. Last week we were addressed by the King of the Belgians, the managing director of the IMF, the president of the EBRD, the chairman-in-office of the Committee of Ministers, the chairman-in-office of the OSCE, Mr. Paul Murphy, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, and Liz O'Donnell, foreign minister of the Irish Republic.
On top of that, a number of reports were debated by the assembly, perhaps the most controversial of which addressed the situation of the Kurdish refugees in south-east Turkey and north Iraq. The debate stirred real passion and I believe it was a testament to the parliamentary assembly itself that it is the only forum where parliamentarians can directly tell their Turkish colleagues the strength of international feeling about the human rights abuses in Turkey.
The Council of Europe is an outreach organisation. It has knowingly and deliberately taken in members who do not meet all the criteria for membership. Last week some 50 national delegations were present, made up of 40 member states plus other visiting delegations. Yet this was not some international jamboree, it was an ongoing working session of parliamentarians addressing real issues in a way that countries' ministers sometimes feel inhibited in doing. I believe that the assembly, together with the European Court on Human Rights, works to ratchet up standards in practical ways which will affect people's day-to-day lives.
The second home truth my old and grizzled journalistic friend told me was that the Council of Europe is a waiting room for those who wish to join the European Union. I believe that point is untrue, but it raises profound questions about the future of the institution. If countries do come to see the Council of Europe as only a waiting room rather than as an institution which confirms a country's democratic vocation and commitment to human rights, then frustration and disillusionment will set in.
I believe that it is likely that the negotiations for European Union expansion will become ever more intractable and difficult and that the majority of members of the Council of Europe will not become members of the European Union in my political lifetime. It follows that both the European Union and the member
states of the Union have to give a greater status and authority to the work of the Council of Europe if such frustrations are to be avoided.
I am sure that my noble friend will point me to the second heads of state summit in October last year which set out an action plan for a united Europe. It is a laudable document. But I say to my noble friend that the fact that there has been no increase in the budget as a result of the summit reflects on the reality of achieving those aims. If governments are to will the end, they have to will the means. I also remind my noble friend that, with little exaggeration, our own Parliament has not got a clue what the 36 delegates it sends to the Council of Europe actually get up to.
And that brings me to the third home truth of my old, grizzled and somewhat tired friend; namely, that Parliament is not interested in the work of the Council of Europe. I would like to think that the only reason that this debate is not better attended is that it is now only 21 minutes until England kick-off in St. Etienne, but, sadly, I do not think that is the case. The truth of the matter is that Members are not interested in the Council of Europe because they are not told about its work.
And that brings me to the question of parliamentary scrutiny. There are many examples of conventions which this House could have scrutinized during the drafting stage. Parliament simply does not know the content of those conventions or, indeed, whether the Government signed them. I shall give two examples: first, the convention on human rights and biomedicine and, secondly, the convention on the prohibition of cloning human beings. I know that this House has a lot to say about bioethics and it is a loss to all parties concerned that it did not have a role in scrutinising that type of work. While I am on the subject it would be interesting to hear why the Government have not ratified either of those conventions. I suggest that scrutiny could take place within the existing committee structure which is currently used for scrutinizing European Union legislation. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Communities, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will treat that suggestion sympathetically as I believe that it will not only better inform Parliament, but will raise the status of the Council of Europe itself.
As I said in my opening comments, we have an opportunity to promote a greater understanding of the work of the Council of Europe through next year's 50th anniversary celebrations and I would hope that we take full advantage of that opportunity.
My Lords, I do not want to intervene for more than a few moments in this timed debate. However, as the noble Lord is aware, I am extremely sympathetic to finding ways in which these subjects may be brought on to the Floor of the House. The possibility of organising an extra sub-committee to deal with the affairs of the Council of Europe is, frankly, remote. To include it in the work of Sub-Committee A is also difficult.
As a starting point, one suggestion is that Members of your Lordships' House who are members of the Council of Europe might submit a report—perhaps to the Library—and then table a Motion to debate that report in the House. We may then he able to proceed to a position where we can debate these matters in this Chamber. I agree with the noble Lord that it is scandalous that we do not take more notice of the Council of Europe.My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for that response. I shall discuss his suggestion with other delegates and see whether we can react to his proposals.
I referred to my old and grizzled friend who is tired, but still hopeful. He came up with one final home truth; that is, that the Government do not listen to the views of the parliamentary assembly. I leave it to my noble friend the Minister to answer that point.7.43 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for raising this matter tonight. I had the honour of being in the British delegation to the Council of Europe in the 1970s, first, as an alternate to Alan Beith and then to David Steel—now my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. Finally, I was leader of the Liberal delegation and vice-president of the Liberal Group.
I made many friends when I was there, not least because I had the dispensation of the delegation car. But I also made some good, genuine friends like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I am delighted to see that he too is speaking in the debate this evening. Belonging as I did to the pro-Europe party, I thought it a second best to the EEC which, as the saying went, "Had teeth". I should have known better. My mother's Quaker background should have taught me that it is better to move slowly by consensus than fast by applying force, even if the force is merely the force majeure of adversarial politics. I have grown to dislike and distrust the European Union, its dominance of culture by economics and the growth of bureaucratic laws produced in aid of an even playing field which inevitably favour the strong and handicap the weak. We are now dominated by economics. It is much better that we should encourage this House as far as we can—I agree with the suggestions made by the noble Lord and the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—to take on discussion and examination of a Europe which is proceeding culturally and humanely; which deals with civil rights; and which at times can act strongly. The Council of Europe may not have teeth as such, but noble Lords may remember when it expelled Greece because of the Greek colonels and the wonderful moment—I was there—when we were able to welcome Greece back after the colonels had been expelled from government. The Council of Europe has a great deal going for it. It fills a vision of Europe which some of us had at the beginning of the adventure with the EEC, but have been in the way of losing it. Anything that we can do to strengthen bodies like the Council of Europe—I do not know whether there are any—which are not dominated by TNCs and economics, would be for the better. I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this debate today and look forward to hearing what everybody has to say. I hope it will end up in action in your Lordships' House in making certain that we debate it much more often.7.47 p.m.
My Lords, I start by commending my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his initiative in tabling this time-limited debate for your Lordships this evening.
All of us may know that it was in 1949 that the Council of Europe was formed. It was formed by like-minded nations which rejoiced in the name of "democratic nations". There is nothing in the articles of the statute of the Council of Europe which mentions "democracy". In 1989 the Council of Europe, from 23 nations, suddenly became a body of 40 nations and most of those nations which joined post-1989 had, at best, a limited democratic past, if they had one at all. That meant that the Council of Europe—both at Council of Ministers' level and at parliamentary assembly level—had to institute a monitoring procedure of considerable care and position. The consequence of that movement within the Council of Europe was that before those new nations joined they were much condemned; after they joined they were considerably supported. That is probably right. But it was the support of the consensus of a cosy political club. The first question that I pose to the Minister, therefore, if we are now talking in terms of the debate of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, is this. Are the Government proposing at any stage from now on to burst that cosy consensus and attempt to implement the decisions of the monitoring committee and the Council of Ministers? The instruments for implementation seem to be somewhat limited. I have a second question for the Minister. We are now to have a full-time court, something which I thoroughly support. That court will reach, in a way that the part-time court and commission never did in the past, legal judgments with huge political implications. In the past, judgments have been written and very little as between the states has occurred. Will the Government in the future attempt to make certain that the judgments of the court, many of which will have significant legal implications, are overseen? My third question to the Minister is this. There is at the moment a committee of wise persons deciding whither the Council of Europe. Admittedly, it is an interim report which has been submitted, but it has three pillars: in essence, the parliamentary pillar, the judicial pillar and the executive pillar. Will the Government stand by that type of recommendation? It would be interesting to know. It would be even more interesting to know whether the Government are interested in a budget that could he constructed on the basis of results. However, it would be more interesting to know whether the Government will join the social development fund. Standing outside the social development fund, they are seriously criticised in Europe. The 50th anniversary will take place next year. The theme is that the Council of Europe is the democratic conscience of Europe. Can the Government stand by that when they stand outwith the social development fund?7.51 p.m.
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for introducing this debate. He has made a powerful case for strong support of the council by all member governments, including, of course, our own. Like my noble friend, I declare an interest as a fellow member of the British delegation to the council's parliamentary assembly.
The timeliness of my noble friend's Question lies not just in the Council of Europe's imminent 50th anniversary. It lies as much in the fact that the council is in any case at a crossroads, with which the advent of its anniversary has little to do. The end of the Cold War, and the council's subsequent enlargement, has confronted the council with formidable new challenges and opportunities, and so, as my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Kirkhill have pointed out, it is currently engaged in a major reassessment of its structures and working methods to determine how best it can be equipped to handle its new tasks. In this time-limited debate, I shall do no more than offer a few personal thoughts on what kind of a Council of Europe we should be promoting. First, we should recognise its unique nature and place within the post-Cold War architecture of Europe. It is a political body working in a pan-European context. It is the job of its parliamentary assembly, drawing on its own insights and expertise and on those of the council's intergovernmental staff, to consider, develop and defend the interests of the millions of citizens in its member countries in the areas of human rights, social cohesion and, what is sometimes forgotten, cultural diversity. These are the three pillars which should define the range of its roles. It is not just an instrument for providing technical assistance in these three areas. If that was all it did, it would be a specialised agency, not a political forum. Nor is it just the ante-chamber to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred, through which countries seeking European Union membership are expected to pass to have their democratic credentials verified. The council is much more than that. It is the single pan-European body with the democratic legitimacy and the perspective to set the standards to which European governments must be held if the construction and development of post-Cold War Europe is to proceed on democratic, humanitarian and stable lines under the rule of law. The Spanish socialist deputy and former president of the parliamentary assembly has described the council as "by definition troublesome". He said:That is not so comforting for governments, but those with the legitimacy to set standards must monitor their meeting. As the committee of wise persons' assessments are studied, I hope we all pay particular attention to the following. First, there are already indications that the tasks laid upon the council by the second summit cannot be financed at the present level of budgetary resources. If governments accept and appreciate the value of the council in its unique role, they must finance it adequately and give it a proper measure of budgetary and administrative autonomy. Secondly, the council's relationship with the European Union must be properly defined. For example, the council cannot prevent the European Parliament from discussing human rights issues—nor should it. But the council's supremacy in this field should be recognised, and the European Union should draw more on its expertise in this and other fields of council competence. Similarly, the relationship with the OSCE needs clarifying so that this body does not encroach on the council's field of competence. Thirdly, the council itself should stick to the three pillars properly defining its role, the three fields in which it clearly has superior competence: human rights, social cohesion and cultural diversity. Fourthly, the political impetus generated in the assembly in Strasbourg must be better channelled into national capitals, which means that the assembly must strengthen its relations with national parliaments. It cannot be left solely to a dialogue with the Committee of Ministers, and through that body, to the parliaments. Parliamentarians must speak to parliamentarians if there is to be any impact. Finally, the council must never lose sight of the fact that it represents 800 million European citizens living in 40 countries, not 40 governments ruling 800 million citizens. The assembly's parliamentarians, in their political forum, speak for the people to the governments; and governments, my Lords, would do well to listen and then to act."It is there to tell governments when they are behaving badly, not to sing their praises".
7.56 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for introducing this important Unstarred Question on the Council of Europe. Fifty years ago the role of the Council of Europe was to strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I am three months older than the Council of Europe. I believe that my generation owes the Council of Europe a great debt for its espousal and promotion of those three aims and for making them a reality. That has ensured a peaceful and democratic way of life for my generation.
I know what it is like to be a minority in this debate. All the speakers so far have been members and delegates to the Council of Europe. I have not had that good fortune. I hope that when the House is reformed—I welcome that reform—Members of the House who have no constituents but have time to see the Council of Europe and take part in its work can come back and explain to the House what it has done. I hope the Government will take that suggestion on board and bear it in mind in any reform of the House of Lords. I first heard in detail of the work of the Council of Europe from the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who is to speak after me. I have been on three parliamentary delegations. Every time, be it on an autobahn in Germany or on a winding road in Gibraltar, I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, explaining to younger Members of Parliament what the work of the Council of Europe is about. It is incumbent on those who go over to the Council of Europe to explain to us and to those in another place what they have done. We can then take it on board and promote the work of the Council of Europe. I live in one of the Baltic states when the House is not sitting. I know exactly who in this House is respected there. The person who is most respected in Estonia is the Minister who is to reply. They may not bother too much about the questions I ask but the answers the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, gives are scrutinised. I believe that the central and eastern countries of Europe are gaining immeasurably through membership of the Council of Europe. That is one of the great values. It should be recalled that these nations have had no experience of democratic organisation; how to manipulate and get the best out of parliament. That is what the delegations from central and eastern Europe are getting from the Council of Europe. Another thing that the Council of Europe has done is to assist minorities in central and eastern Europe, particularly those Russian-speaking Estonians and Latvians who cannot even speak the language of the majority. I very much hope that it will put more effort into that work. Time is short, but perhaps I may end on this point. When one reaches the age of 50 one has a party. I believe that all the richer western members of the Council of Europe should give a party for delegations from the poorer countries so that we in our parliaments can meet those members, explain our work and have a cross-fertilisation of ideas. I hope that that will be one way of promoting and increasing the awareness of the Council of Europe.8 p.m.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ponsonby both on his initiative in securing this debate and on his analysis of the main matters to which we should be giving attention. I have long argued that there has been, and still is, gross inadequacy in the provision of resources for public relations and education. I believe that between £3,000 and £4,000 is the maximum allowed for the whole budget for education and information in the United Kingdom on the work of that important body. That is ridiculous. It was absurd at the time of the 30th anniversary, and I was there then. It was also absurd at the 40th anniversary when we saw the expansion in the number of new member states who joined at the same time. I hope that the 50th anniversary will see a little more common sense.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhill was on the delegation at the time. I do not know whether he can recall that some badly disposed person spread a story that a Member of Parliament had gone missing. The press were tipped off that he was hiding in Strasbourg. A planeload of tabloid journalists and photographers scoured Strasbourg calling at hotels, knocking on hotel room doors and going into restaurants. The man who was supposed to be missing was making speeches and presenting a report in the Council of Europe, and not one of the tabloid journalists went there. It is a ridiculous situation. The Council of Europe has fulfilled an extremely important function. If it had not existed before 1987 it would have had to be created. I was present at one of the most important moments of modern European history when Gorbachev made his speech calling for the establishment of the common house of Europe. From that speech on things moved. In the little more than a decade since then Europe has been politically transformed. The Council of Europe has virtually doubled in size. Democracy has been extended to areas where it would not have been dreamed of a little more than 10 years ago. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. Not many Members of this House know that were it not for his Legal Affairs Committee, which had to be immersed in the minutiae of consideration and examination of the new constitutions and the rules for the establishment of the new parliaments in all the central European states which are now democratic, heaven knows what would have happened. There would certainly have been a degree of political chaos and a lack of cohesion, which would have been sad. Europe has become democratic. There are problems in the Balkans. But if governments had taken notice of the initiatives by the Council of Europe before the shooting started, perhaps it would not have begun. We took some initiatives and, for example, for the first time we brought representatives of the Israeli Parliament and the PNC together in conference at Strasbourg. I believe that the Likud representatives were dragged there kicking and screaming because we advised them that if they did not come we would question their observer status. Unfortunately, Europe then decided that it was an American preserve and that we should not trespass. The Council of Europe operates without directives or an enormous army of bureaucrats. It operates by agreement and the exercise of moral authority and conventions such as that which followed a report that I presented a long time ago. That was the Berne convention on wildlife and habitat. That proved an extremely useful exercise, even if from time to time we have angered the governments of the back-sliding states. The Council of Europe has an important future because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, it will be many years before the EU embraces the whole of Europe. There has to be another voice sometimes to challenge the EU. I can give a significant illustration. Brussels instructed Austria and Switzerland, before Austria became a member state of the EU, that they had to build new roads through the valleys of their respective countries. The people were suffering a great deal because of the enormous pressure of road traffic. Brussels decided to give them instructions, although it had no right to do so. I was chairman of the relevant committee at the time. If it had not been for the Council of Europe pointing out that the edict of Brussels did not run in those mountain valleys, there would have been even greater problems. The Council of Europe has an essential function and it has had one since it started. It is certainly time that governments recognised that it would be useful for a few more pounds, marks and francs to be made available to ensure that Europe is properly aware of and educated about the essential function of the organisation.8.5 p.m.
My Lords, I too, would like to congratulate and thank my good and noble friend Lord Ponsonby for introducing the debate this evening. He has done so with characteristic modesty. He has not told us about the dedicated and committed contribution he is already making to the activities of the Council, not least as a key member of the Budget Committee, and also as the person who has taken on the responsibility for seeing through the preparations for the celebration of the 50th anniversary in so far as they will be represented here in the United Kingdom.
He was right to emphasise the relevance and importance of the Council by taking the agenda last week. That is the real substance of what goes on. I could not agree with him more in what he said about the debate on Turkey and the Kurds. If one had seen the feverish activity of the Turkish delegation, not only at the assembly itself but in the preceding months in the relevant committees, trying to influence the outcome of the debate, it would have been apparent immediately how significant the debate was to the internal political life of Turkey. In that context we have an unrivalled opportunity to build meaningful links with those politicians within Turkey who want to make their country a reasonable, decent, multicultural society in which human rights are taken seriously. It is no good just lecturing them on it or talking about it theoretically. It is a question of working with them to see how it can be done. The Council of Europe provides a forum in which politicians can get together on an agenda of that sort. It was not just the case of Turkey. We also had debates on Kosovo. In that regard what was refreshing was to hear representatives from the region. They were people who were deeply affected and who felt themselves at risk in terms of what was happening in Kosovo. They had been through experiences which were highly relevant to the current situation there. It was not just ourselves here in Westminster regurgitating our anxieties and experience at a safe distance, but people in the immediate situation talking about what is at stake. Here again I believe that there is a very special opportunity in the Council for serious political debate. I have referred to the work of the committees as regards the debate on Turkey. There is a whole range of committees working in a dedicated fashion, building up expertise among parliamentarians. That expertise could be put to very good use in our deliberations in both Houses here at Westminster. In that context I must pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for the very distinguished contribution that he has made in the Legal Committee over many years. I have the special joy of being in the Council of Europe for a second innings. I was there at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. It is an infinitely more interesting place now than it was in those days of the Cold War at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. It is a place in which the new democracies are brought together with the nations which have longer experience of democracy. There they can learn the art of constructive, open debate. They can make friendships which are very important and feel reassured in all that they are trying to do in their own countries. At a time when in this House and in the other place we are debating the challenges which the expansion of NATO brings in terms of keeping alive the importance, the priority and the imperative of taking seriously our relationships with the wider Europe, the Council of Europe is a place in which that can be done. If we are serious about that, we should take the Council seriously. Perhaps I may reinforce what my noble friend Lord Kirkhill said about the social development fund. We are becoming rather conspicuous by our preciousness in standing aside. That fund may not be operated as well as it should be, but we could help to operate it more effectively by paying the membership fee and becoming members. We could thus ensure that its work with refugees and displaced people is improved. Finally—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this point seriously—we are fortunate in the services provided by the UK mission in Strasbourg. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to convey to the mission that those words are not merely something that we say politely when we are there; it is something that we remember when we return to Westminster. We should like the people there to know that their work is deeply appreciated. As I go round the buildings of the Council of Europe, I see the photographs of the years in which the Council was formed—photographs from 1949 onwards. I see those great statesmen and I remember their vision, imagination and commitment to democracy and human rights. I wish that throughout our political system here in the United Kingdom and more widely we had the same degree of commitment as was shown by those courageous founders. I believe that we now have an opportunity to follow that through.8.11 p.m.
My Lords, all speakers appear to have kept to the time limit well, so I think that we shall manage to complete the debate in time. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on initiating this debate. The Labour Party has not done too badly tonight in terms of the representation on its Benches; the Liberal Democrats have done even better, considering our size, but members of the Tory Party seem to have no interest in this whatsoever. Their chap is on the Front Bench, and I dare say that he will do well.
I served at the Council of Europe for 11 years. I greatly enjoyed it and it did me a great deal of good. I met many people there. I met foreigners. I had, for example, quite a close friendship with Mr. Karl Ahrens, a distinguished lawyer, who was the president of the Socialist Group. We compared notes on our wartime service and found that he had been in Benghazi when I had been bombing it. I apologised for missing him—and he accepted my apology! That is a good example of the sort of communion that one finds at the Council of Europe. I was enormously impressed by the great desire of the countries of eastern Europe, newly released from bondage, to join the Council of Europe. That may have been in part a stepping stone, but those nations were very aware of the importance of the forum. There is also no doubt of the importance to the people of those countries of the question of the qualifications for joining. No one would say that Russia fulfilled all the qualifications for joining, but the Council as a whole took the view—I certainly did—that membership was a great help to the people who sought to promote democracy inside Russia. The committee is still monitoring what they are doing. I turn now to the practical work of the Council. I served on the committee for migration and refugees. When we looked at how refugees were treated at different airports, we found something extraordinary: the Charles de Gaulle area of landing was not treated as part of France by the French in their endeavour not to have to meet their obligations. Other things were uncovered before the situation greatly improved. I also served on the agriculture committee. I believe that we were of great help when the countries of eastern Europe, such as Poland and Hungary, were struggling to move from one system to another. Albania was striving to restore a crating system. There was some political stability because people had land and although large areas were destroyed, something was nevertheless achieved for the people. At one point, I was the rapporteur of the wine committee of the agriculture committee. Seldom can a man have had a better job. We did much to promote the value of red wine, even discovering that half a bottle a day was very good for you, and that a bottle a day was not bad for you! That was a major achievement of the Council of Europe. Perhaps I may finish on a serious note. There is not a shadow of doubt that the Council of Europe is the only real forum at which people can meet and discuss matters without having to take decisions. Although some may say that that is awful, it is not. It is extremely valuable. Her Majesty's Government, this new enlightened Government, will no doubt support the Council of Europe properly. I am sure that they will not throw money at the Council, but I hope that they will at least make it available in reasonable quantities.8.16 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for anticipating my remarks this evening. I have to admit that as a former Minister for Sport, I have had certain divided loyalties but, as always, I have been kept well informed. I was delighted that when we equalised I received a note to the effect that it was a very fine penalty, taken by Shearer, after a most heinous foul against the blessed Michael Owen.
I begin by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has given us by securing what has already been a most interesting and informative debate. From these Benches we have always fully supported the work of the Council of Europe, a view which is clearly shared among your Lordships here. As we have heard, there is much praise from all sides of this House for the aims of the Council; namely, to protect and strengthen pluralist democracy and human rights; to seek solutions to problems facing society, with particular emphasis on minorities, xenophobia, exploitation, racism and intolerance, terrorism, environmental protection, bio-ethics, AIDS and drugs; to develop a political partnership with Europe's new democracies and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, rightly stated, to assist central and eastern European countries with their political, legislative and constitutional reforms. The Council's enhanced and increased role was marked by its first summit, the Vienna Summit, in October 1993, which recognised how important it was for security and stability in Europe that all its countries should accept the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Under that general concern for democratic stability, the summit laid down a series of common principles, including the protection of national minorities, as well as actively supporting the democratic transition process in central and eastern Europe and strengthening the Council's machinery for monitoring its new members' respect for their undertakings. Similarly, the Strasbourg Summit last October was intended to give new impetus to the activities of the Council in an effort to respond to changes in society on the threshold of a new century. It fixed new priorities for co-operative efforts which will now benefit some 800 million Europeans in what is a truly pan-European organisation. The summit adopted a final declaration and, most importantly, an action plan, which focuses on democracy and human rights; social cohesion; security of citizens; democratic values and cultural diversity; and structures and working methods. I should like to ask the Minister about the progress on the implementation of that action plan. What timescale is envisaged for its implementation? What progress has been made to date? What is the role of the proposed commissioner for human rights in promoting respect for human rights in member states? The Strasbourg Summit instructed the Committee of Ministers to study arrangements for the implementation of an office of commissioner for human rights. Can the Minister give the House further details about the proposed new office? What arrangements for the implementation of such an office have been considered to date? Finally, I should like to touch upon the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Can the Minister outline the Government's policy on the Council of Europe's social development fund? Can she confirm that although the fund has become more open and accountable, thanks to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, should the UK join it the high initial investment and subsequent annual contributions will entail a considerable diversion of resources from bilateral and other multilateral programmes in our aid budget which will require detailed analysis? Will there be a commensurate and real increase in our aid budget? As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, stated, the Council will celebrate its 50th birthday on 5th May 1999. By then almost every European country will share in its democratic vision. It is a vision that has an impact on the lives of all its citizens—a vision of a free, more tolerant and just society based on the common values of freedom of expression and information, cultural diversity and the equal dignity of all human beings. At the dawn of the third millennium there will be an opportunity to do three things: to celebrate the Council's contribution to cohesion, stability and security in Europe; to confirm that its mandate still holds good; and to give further impetus to its activities in the next century.8.21 p.m.
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for this opportunity to discuss the Council of Europe and the part that the United Kingdom plays in promoting its work. I commend the noble Lord for his efforts as a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in this regard. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate this evening against what for some is a more enticing, if not more weighty, encounter in France. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his lonely vigil with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for keeping us up to date but not quite as up to date as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who has just been able to inform the House that England has gone into the lead by two goals to one.
I return to the real issue. We have been discussing a weighty and important matter. I have listened very carefully to the points made today. We strongly agree that the United Kingdom should continue to play a central role in promoting the Council's key aims: to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The United Kingdom has always supported the Council of Europe's work. Almost 50 years ago its statute was signed at St. James's Palace in London with the United Kingdom as one of the organisation's founder member states. But with the end of the Cold War we have also played a leading role in spreading the Council's values to the newly democratic states of central and eastern Europe. The Council had 23 members in 1989; now it has 40 and represents some 765 million people across the Continent. Through its enlargement the Council has set standards for the former communist countries to develop as modern, pluralistic, free and open societies. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, this has been achieved through dialogue and discussion. I turn to the question of human rights upon which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, concentrated. Successive British governments have regarded the work of the Council on human rights as its most important activity. The European Convention on Human Rights, its protocols and above all its machinery of enforcement have set the pattern and standard for international protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. The Government support the Court and Commission and take a full and active part in the organs dealing with human rights on which governments are represented: the Committee of Ministers, the Steering Committee and the daughter committees. In a very real sense the Government have shown their support for the convention most notably through the introduction of the Human Rights Bill which we hope is nearing the end of its parliamentary procedures. I point out to the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Government have listened to noble Lords on these issues. The parliamentary progress of the Bill demonstrates that Her Majesty's Government believe in the Council's human rights standards and that they wish those rights to progress through the Commission and the Court in Strasbourg and to be available in domestic courts up and down the United Kingdom. At the same time the Government have conducted a thorough review of the protocols to which we are not yet a party. Following the recent vote in another place, we shall take steps to become a party to Protocol VI on the death penalty and in due course to Protocol VII. These moves have been widely welcomed by the institutions and other member states of the Council of Europe. In addition to supporting the Council's legal mechanisms, the Government have played a leading role in developing new political procedures to ensure compliance by member states with the commitments that they accept on joining the Council. This involves member states meeting together in Strasbourg and reviewing the progress that they have made in particular areas—for example, freedom of the media or independence of the judiciary. In this way shortcomings can be highlighted and, as importantly, constructive solutions put forward, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath. The Government strongly support the work of the Council in providing expertise within member states to assist them in achieving these necessary standards which, as my noble friend Lord Judd reminded us, are so important. The Council of Europe parliamentary assembly also has an important role to play through its own monitoring procedures. The Government support increasing complementarity between their work and the work of the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg. I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his kind words about the work of officials in Strasbourg. Several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lord Grenfell and Lord Hardy of Wath, referred to UK financial support. The Government support the work of the Council of Europe through their financial contribution to the organisation. The United Kingdom remains one of the five grands payeurs to the Council's budget together with France, Germany, Italy and Russia. Between them the grands payeurs contribute over 60 per cent. of the Council's budget with the United Kingdom individually paying some 12.84 per cent. per annum. This is likely to amount to more than £14.3 million in the 1998–99 financial year. I have listened carefully to suggestions for further financial support for the organisation. Frankly, the Government believe that like other organisations the Council must prioritise its activities within existing resources. It must make those resources work as effectively and efficiently as possible.My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United Kingdom has been able to reduce its contribution because of the other nations that have joined the Council?
My Lords, as far as I am aware the contribution of the United Kingdom is holding steady. I am not aware of any reductions, but if what I have said is incorrect I shall write to the noble Lord to put the matter right. I believe that our contributions as a grand payeur hold steady at 12.84 per cent. per annum.
My Lords, I would not disagree with my noble friend on pursuing priorities. It would be highly desirable if the Council of Ministers were to take a firmer line in providing a higher priority for the public awareness, public relationship and education role which is now urgently needed and which would be especially appropriate as the 50th anniversary approaches.
My Lords, it is important that the Council of Europe is advertised properly within member countries. With the 50th anniversary, we shall have an opportunity to do that. That is a point to which I am now coming. My noble friends Lord Ponsonby, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Hardy of Wath reminded us that next year is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Council's statute. It is fitting that this event should be celebrated in the United Kingdom to mark the Council's work and the United Kingdom's contribution to it. Plans are already under way. There will be a reception on 5th May at St. James's Palace, where the statute was signed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has agreed to give a speech that afternoon in London on the role and contribution of the Council of Europe. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said that there must be suitable arrangements for marking the anniversary. He was right. The Government hope that a UK national committee will soon be formed to help co-ordinate the 50th anniversary and take forward various ideas that have been suggested. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for his interesting suggestions. I undertake that we shall look at them.
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me for intervening once more. I had a discussion with the Government Chief Whip today and pointed out to him that the 5th May next year is a Wednesday, and that it might be appropriate for your Lordships' House to have a debate on the Council of Europe on that day. He pencilled that into his diary.
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord's suggestions will be given careful consideration. I cannot give any undertakings now. I am sure that the matter will be looked at through the usual channels, as we would expect.
I have very little time left. Specific matters were raised by noble Lords with which I shall try to deal. If I cannot refer to them all, I shall write to those concerned. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the second Council of Europe Summit. The Government subscribe fully to the final declaration and the action plan adopted at the second summit of the Council of Europe in October last year. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned member states' action plans. They define four main areas: democracy and human rights; social cohesion; security of citizens; and democratic values and diversity. Member states stress also the need for structural reforms to adapt the organisation to its new tasks. The Government fully support such reforms. We shall continue to assist the Council in prioritising its activities in line with the summit action plan. My noble friends Lord Kirkhill and Lord Grenfell mentioned also the Committee of Wise Persons. The Government strongly support that committee in drawing up proposals for the structural reform of the Council of Europe. The European Union presidency representative on the council is Mrs. Audrey Glover, formerly director of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The committee is drawing up proposals for adapting the Council of Europe to its new tasks and helping to streamline its activities. I assure my noble friend Lord Kirkhill that the Government look forward to receiving the committee's proposals. They are expected to be finalised in November. I regret that I am coming to the end of my time. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred to the ratification of the protocols on human rights, biomedicine and cloning. For specific reasons it has not been possible to ratify those protocols. I shall write to my noble friend to explain why. The clock is against me. I cannot explain in sufficient detail now. I shall put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House so that other noble Lords are kept up to speed on that. We can all thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his timely introduction of the debate. We must also thank my noble friend's grizzled, old, and somewhat tired journalistic friend. In my experience grizzled, old and somewhat tired journalistic friends can sometimes be good friends, and on this occasion I rather think that he was. The Council of Europe remains as vital today as it was when established in 1949. I believe that the Government are at one with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede in his concern to promote the Council's work further. We can achieve this by continuing to play a leading role in developing its legal and political machinery for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and by helping the new democracies of Europe to meet the commitments they have accepted on joining the organisation. In its first 50 years the Council has met the challenges of a changing Europe. Together we should take every opportunity to ensure the effectiveness of the Council in meeting the further challenges it will face in the years to come.School Standards And Framework Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 10.
[ Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 11 [ Establishment of Education Action Forum for zone]:
moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) An Education Action Forum shall be the employer of all teaching and non-teaching staff at all schools within the education action zone.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 38 relates to a management issue. It has always been my view, as borne out by successful management, that responsibility should be as close to the unit of operation as possible. Therefore, if there is such a thing as an action forum, it should have some of the levers of the control. One of the levers of control of course is control over staffing.
I am aware from the previous debate that some of the control over staffing will be those members of staff who are appointed on contract for the period of the action zone, presumably for three or five years. If they do not have control over staffing then they do not have control over one of the key factors in improving education. A factor in improving education is often sorting out the quality of the staff and ensuring that only staff of the highest quality are available to teach in an area that is especially challenging. That is the whole idea of action zones. They are to tackle failing education, failing LEAs and often failing schools. It is important that that should be the case.
Amendment No. 39 is tabled because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made a generous response to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky when he brought up this point in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, appeared to be worried about the terminology. He explained that he was sympathetic and said:
"It may be that that is something which will be covered by the regulations and I shall think about that proposition. However, I am not sure that we want to start hares running by suggesting a new approach which would mean that an individual school could be treated separately from the whole action zone".
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty said that in relation to a school:
"Although it will remain accountable in that it must fulfil its contract, it will be separate from the overall structure of the education action zone. Perhaps there is some terminology that is half-way between us, but the concept of leasing out gives the impression of not simply an arm's length relationship of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred but one in which the school is treated completely outside the education action zone where we want to see a mutually supportive system between all the schools in the zone".
My noble friend asked:
"If there is some terminology that is half-way between us, why do the Government believe that it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill?".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1599.]
The impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was that he would reflect on that matter. My noble friend ended by welcoming the Minister's assurance that he would reflect on the matter and possibly go half-way somewhere in the Bill to meet the arguments which my noble friends and I have been putting forward. With that assurance he begged leave to withdraw the amendment. This amendment is therefore in the vein of what appeared to be a very accommodating answer and a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to address the problem.
Referring to a point I made earlier, it is now common knowledge outside the Department for Education and Employment that Mr. Byers wants to see a tackling of individual schools where the challenges have eluded many well-intentioned educationalists in the past. There are some innovative, exciting and interesting ideas around and he has expressed a wish to be free to pursue some of them.
Amendment No. 39—it was Amendment No. 64 at Committee stage—suggests that a way should be found to facilitate such an eventuality. It might be through leasing from the action zone, where the forum believes there is a school with specifically defined problems which could be contracted out to a body which could address those problems effectively, fully accountable to the action forum. It seems to me that we are all talking about means to ends. If that improves education in a school which has hitherto failed, then it is worth trying.
We understand that the Minister in another place is receptive to these ideas; and we want to make it possible for him to pursue them over the coming years. I beg to move.
My Lords, I believe education action zones to be an innovative and exciting feature of this Bill, and I was most interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn.
I have had some experience as chairman of a Leeds project working with an inner city group of schools, a pyramid of schools—high schools and feeder primaries. We have been working together with local businesses to raise standards. The local businesses have included such bodies as Marks & Spencer, British Gas, GE Capital and many others. Our experience has been that partnership with the local community is of enormous importance. I very much hope that that will be part of the feature of the education action zones. It is also entirely right that groups of schools should work together. Our great difficulty in Leeds was that there was no statutory exemption. That is why this initiative is of such importance. We also found a little difficulty in working closely with the local education authority. While I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said about local democracy, at times local democracy and local initiative need to learn to work together. In my experience that has not always been the case, both in relation to education and in relation to other issues. I wish to raise this point with regard to Church schools. I very much hope Church schools will be involved in education action zones. I do not presently have information about whether any of them have been included in the zones already designated, but I take it that there will almost certainly be such schools. If they are aided schools then there is a problem in relation to the employment of staff. Church schools are in some cases committed to the inner city; this is because of the Church's belief that we need to be in such areas and working on behalf of those who live in them. The ambience and ethos of a Church school, however, is to some extent maintained by the power of the governing body as employers to employ staff. Were this amendment to be passed, as I understand it the right of employment would fall to the Education Action Forum. That would create a very considerable difficulty for Church-aided schools. At Committee stage we passed an amendment to Clause 60 which strengthened the power of governing bodies to appoint to voluntary-aided schools those people whose religious opinions were in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination, together with a number of other specifications. If the employment power were to be removed from the governing body and placed with the Education Action Forum it would raise considerable difficulties for Church schools and Church governing bodies. It would undermine their power to contribute creatively to education action zones. I would therefore wish to resist this particular amendment at this stage.8.45 p.m.
My Lords, I apologise that I am responding to this amendment, and not my noble friend Lord Whitty; we have two pinch-hitters instead of the original protagonists on Amendment No. 39. I shall do my best, however, and I shall respond to Amendment No. 39 in a rather different tone than to Amendment No. 38.
Amendment No. 38 is an amendment which we firmly resist, as we did at Committee stage. We are surprised that the noble Baroness has brought it back again. It means that the governing body of any school entering an education action zone automatically loses powers over employment. In introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness said that the intention is to remove employment powers from the local authority and to pass them on to the forum; but that is not what the school framework is, and we discussed that at Committee stage. The governing bodies and not the local authorities have the power over staffing functions. As the right reverend Prelate rightly pointed out, this means that the governors of voluntary-aided schools, and the Church voluntary-aided schools to which he referred, would automatically lose all of their say over staffing matters. I should be surprised if the representatives of governing bodies in all types of schools would welcome this amendment. The governors might believe that the task is so difficult, that governors are in such short supply, that it is in the interests of the children in the school for the forum to take over the governing body's role; in other words, to take over the staffing functions. If that is the case, then there is provision for it to happen. Provision in Clause 12(2)(b) allows the governors to cede their employment powers to the forum. But that is an option, not a requirement; and we believe it is right that it should be an option. Perhaps I may come back to the helpful point made by the right reverend Prelate. We were asked whether there are any Church schools in the education action zones. We have not finished doing the counting yet but, when we have done that, on Friday of this week we shall put a full list in the Library of the House. It will be available and I shall make sure that the right reverend Prelate, in his capacity as a chairman, receives a copy. Our response to Amendment No. 38 is therefore very definite. It is important that it should be an option and not a requirement to cede staffing powers; otherwise it would not be the LEAs who would lose their powers but the governing bodies, and that cannot he desirable. On Amendment No. 39 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right. My noble friend was sympathetic to the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when he introduced this amendment in Committee. Incidentally, we understand that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has to get back to writing volume three of his magnificent biography of Keynes. He has, as far as we are concerned, full leave of absence from the House for that most important purpose. When the provision was introduced, my noble friend said that he would consider it carefully and see what commonality existed between the intent of the amendment and the Bill as it now stands. We have done that and we hope that the result will be helpful, although it has not resulted in a government amendment. The Government support the idea that, for a failing school, a range of strategies should be available to turn that school round. They should be available in the first instance to governing bodies, but if the governing body does not take action of its own accord they should also be available to others, including, in some circumstances, education action forums. I wish to clarify the position, first, outside education action zones and then to deal with what can happen within them. We have asked a number of consultants to draw up specifications for ways of turning around failing schools. We expect to see models which range from simple packages to improve the curriculum, management systems or staff training right through to models which allow a third party to be involved more directly in the running of the school; perhaps "an approved educational body", in the words of the amendment. The key in the models we are exploring is that accountability to parents, pupils and the Government remains with the governing body or the local authority if delegation is withdrawn. As to how that would work in an education action zone, the options that I have described would still be available. In addition, as I said in response to Amendment No. 38, the governing body could cede its powers to the forum which could then pursue its own strategy to turn around the school. This could include buying in third party help. Where powers have been ceded to the forum it would be accountable to its community and to the Government. In terms of the amendment, while I realise its intention I am not sure that its effects would be clear. Most schools in most education action zones will not in any case be managed by the forum but by the governing bodies, so the forum would have no power to lease them out to third party managers. Where governing bodies' powers as regards the management of schools are ceded to the forum, schools would naturally expect the forum to take on the responsibility of management along with the powers. After all, it is on the forum and not the approved third party that they are represented. Finally, where a third party can offer services which would be helpful to zoned schools, failing or otherwise, the forum can already purchase those services from education action zones' funds but without cutting any school off from the partnership structure which the zone was set up to encourage. We have made it clear that we will not tolerate failure without improvement. I hope that it is also clear that we take the issue of failing schools very seriously, whether they are within or outside an education action zone. The amendment before us relates only to schools within an education action zone. In view of the wide-ranging list of strategies that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move her amendment in due course.My Lords, that was an interesting answer. I gather that almost everything in my amendment can be achieved. I understand that a school can be leased to a third party which could be a private organisation made accountable to the action forum. That would apply if schools within the education action zone have ceded their powers to the forum. Alternatively, if the schools have decided to keep their powers, acting collectively, they could lease out to a private third party.
This is an important issue and I was cheered by that answer. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would point me to the powers in the Bill which allow that to happen. I have not seen them. Where is the power in the Bill which will achieve my amendment? Where are the powers to lease out a school which is failing with a properly defined contract accountable to the education action forum and funded under contract to the forum?My Lords, the provisions are not on the face of the Bill. They will be provided for in the regulations, in particular under Clause 12(3) which contains the various provisions for regulatory powers. They are not and cannot be spelt out in detail on the face of the Bill.
My Lords, I will look at subsection (3) again. The noble Lord is saying that the regulations contain a power to contract out to a third party which could be wholly private, even commercial. A defined set of criteria will be set out by the education action forum, or collectively by the governing bodies, to turn the school around. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that because I have looked at the provisions carefully and I do not interpret that power.
My Lords, at the risk of offending against the rules on Report, the amendment uses the word "leased". We do not and would not use that word because we do not believe it to be appropriate. However, it is possible for the management of a school under the regulations provided for in Clause 12 to be delegated in the way which the amendment intends. New legislation is not required.
My Lords, I am re-reading subsection (3), which is linked to subsection (2). I should be grateful if the Minister could write to me telling me specifically how the provision will work. If that is the case it is good news, but it is not the understanding of some of the individuals and companies who have seen the Minister and requested involvement in single schools in order to turn them around. It would be helpful to have that spelt out.
Subsection (3)(a) states:Subsection (2) is about discharging the function on behalf of the governing body. It does not use the word "leased", but it does not go as far as contracting out. There is nothing about the conditions under which it contracts out. There is nothing to say whether profits can be made. My understanding is that unequivocally the statement has been made by Ministers in this House and in another place that profits cannot be made in this way. Subsection (3)(b) states:"as to the circumstances in which the governing body of a participating school may make arrangements under subsection (2)".
Subsection (3)(c) states:"for the procedure to be followed by such a governing body in connection with the making of any such arrangements".
I find it difficult to find the powers in the Bill and it would be helpful to have that properly spelt out."for the procedure to be followed by an Education Action Forum when discharging any function by virtue of that subsection".
My Lords, I can do slightly better than writing to the noble Baroness. Again, I apologise for any breach of Report procedures. As the noble Baroness has recognised, Clause 12(2)(b) means that the forum may assume responsibility for the discharge of functions. Schedule 1, paragraph 1, means that the forum can do anything incidental to the carrying out of its functions. I was speaking of those powers. I will gladly write to the noble Baroness, too.
My Lords, not only would I like the noble Lord to write to me, but I would like to know what he means by "anything". Can schools be hived off into the private sector never to return again? Is the noble Lord saying that there is a power for them to do anything without any procedures whatever for parents and governors to be formally consulted and formally to take a view about whether that is what they want for their school and their children?
I turn to Amendment No. 38. Again, I have received another incredibly technical letter from the department explaining who employs teachers. I understand that the local authority employs the teachers. I realise that that does not apply to voluntary-aided schools. The noble Lord said that any school could cede its powers. It would be its decision to do so if the governors ceded them to the education action forum. However, they cannot cede the employment of the teachers. They may be able to see the day-to-day management of teachers or through procedures set out in the Bill disapply pay and conditions, but not the employment of the teachers. I understand from the letter that at the end of the day the local authority remain the employers. I was trying to break that link so that as regards an important issue relating to the management of the quality of teachers they should have full authority and not have to negotiate through a local education authority. The noble Lord has promised to write to me with further clarification and to couple that with an explanation of what "any" action means. Perhaps he will tell me what are the limits of the power. I remember when I sat where the noble Lord now sits. If I had advocated that a Secretary of State under secondary legislation, not even primary legislation, would be given the power to do anything whatever, the noble Lord would have been first to say that the limits of those powers should be defined.9 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Baroness must look at Schedule 1 because it states:
which is concerned with the power to borrow money,"An Education Action Forum may, subject to sub-paragraph (2)",
If that is not adequate for the noble Baroness, I shall write to her about it."do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of its functions".
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 13 [ Disapplication of pay and conditions order in relation to teachers at participating schools]:
moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("For") and insert ("After").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have dealt with this issue before. However, it caused disconsolation because the Government are not even prepared to consider the possibility of allowing the 1991 Act to stay in play to allow existing schools to disapply those conditions, irrespective of how many use that provision now. That is one rather barren argument that was used by the Government. Nevertheless, the schools which use that disapplication procedure do so to effect and believe it is very important. I should mention in that context the Oratory School. Its wings will be clipped by the measures contained in this Bill.
I make no secret of the fact—and the Minister will not be surprised—that I believe that grant-maintained schools should remain part of the diverse provision available to parents and the community. However, my amendments are not dependent on that. I believe that the disapplication facility which is to be made available to education action zones should be made available more widely, with perhaps a system in place for approving the application of a school which wishes to disapply the provisions in relation to pay and conditions of service. I beg to move.
My Lords, I well recall that this is an issue which caused some difficult debate in Committee. I hope that by my reply I can help us through that debate.
We argue that the pay and conditions opt-out was not used widely when it was available to individual schools. In fact, as the noble Baroness was almost good enough to remind us, it applied to only two schools under the grant-maintained system. We argue that education action zones are areas for experimentation, but the noble Baroness argues implicitly that because GM schools are already doing that it is not an experiment. A key part of our philosophy on education action zones is that they are areas which allow experimentation beyond the norm allowed in the rest of the sector. That means that although the system we have created for the school sector works in general, there will always be some areas which need additional support and flexibility to meet the same demanding standards. Therefore, we are determined to make sure that the teachers pay and conditions document is appropriate for schools elsewhere. We have added considerable flexibility. We have added the possibility of advanced skill teachers, which are an extremely exciting prospect. After this year all schools will be able to take advantage of advanced skill teachers. They do not need to opt-out. There are two exceptions; namely, those two schools which opted out of the document under the previous administration. We do not wish to cause undue disturbance to the way those schools run by putting them back inside the document. However, in zones, however good the current system, we want schools to have the opportunity to look ahead and experiment further because of the particular challenges they face. That is why the opt-out is appropriate in zones and almost always, with those two exceptions, inappropriate outside them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.My Lords, I am deeply disappointed by that answer, as I was in Committee. There seems to me to be the most incredible irony. Education action zones are being established to deal with failing LEAs and failing schools. They are designed to put right some of the failures of the past. They will enjoy the freedom of being able to disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions. I accept that my amendment would apply to only two schools so far, but those schools have more than proven their ability to manage their own affairs. However, they will be denied that freedom. That seems to me to be absurd. It costs the Government absolutely nothing to allow them that freedom. They have merely to agree to place a few words on the face of the Bill.
The Government have repeated an argument which they used before and I dismissed that when I introduced the amendment. They said that the power is not widely used. Why should those two schools lose that facility? What is the argument against my proposition? The Government's argument is absurd and has no intellectual depth whatever.My Lords, they will not lose that facility. I made that clear in my response.
My Lords, as I understand it, that part of the 1991 Act is to be repealed. Is the noble Lord saying that there is to be a bridging provision?
My Lords, I am not permitted to go on responding. I am sorry.
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will write to me to tell me what will be the effect of repealing this provision. I should like to know whether it will be possible for any school to avail itself of the disapplication provisions. Under the new provision, which schools will be able to avail themselves of those provisions? I should be grateful if the noble Lord will write to me on that issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 15 [ Cases where LEA may exercise powers of intervention]:
moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13, line 33, at end insert ("(whether or not the notice is combined with a notice under section 62(3)(c)).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a consequential amendment to take account of the amendments made in Committee to Clause 62. We brought forward these amendments to Clause 62 to allow an LEA wishing to invoke Clause 62(1) (which gives such authorities reserve powers to prevent a breakdown in discipline) as well as one or both of Clauses 16 and 17 to do so without having to invoke two distinct warning notice procedures: a Clause 15 warning notice in respect of Clauses 16 and 17 and a Clause 62(2) warning notice in respect of Clause 62(1).
Those amendments which were made in Committee will now allow LEAs to make use of these different powers in a flexible way, without having to serve different types of notice, which could be confusing as well as bureaucratic. The amendment now needs to be reflected in Clause 15 and that is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I urge the House to accept it. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, can he tell the House what warning notices will now be given under the new arrangements?
My Lords, there will be a single warning notice if one wished to invoke either of those clauses for the action provided under Clause 62 and under Clauses 16 and 17. It is a single warning and one would not have to issue two distinct warnings if there was going to be an intervention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [ Power of Secretary of State to appoint additional governors]:
moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Before making any such appointment in relation to a voluntary aided school, the Secretary of State shall consult—(a) in the case of a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority; or (b) in any other case, the person who appoints the foundation governors.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment responds to the concerns raised in Committee by the right reverend Prelate. We have given further consideration to the points that he made and I am pleased that we have been able to meet his concerns.
The amendment is concerned with the case of a voluntary-aided school which requires special measures and to which the Secretary of State wishes to appoint additional governors. Before doing so, he must consult the relevant diocesan authority for a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic school. For any other voluntary-aided school he must consult those entitled to appoint the foundation governors. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee I received—dare I say it?—a somewhat dusty answer. I am delighted that this fresh look at the issue has produced such a positive amendment. However. I have to point out to the House that the government amendment is almost word for word the amendment that I tabled at an earlier stage. I was delighted then to withdraw my amendment in favour of a government amendment. I should also point out that I have no amendments left to move at this stage as our concerns have been so thoroughly met. As I said, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [ New categories of maintained schools]:
moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 18, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) grant-maintained schools;
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now dealing with an aspect of the Bill upon which the Minister and I must agree to differ. Nevertheless, it is important for us to put the case for grant-maintained schools.
I said a moment ago that I believe it is important that, among all the other variety of schools, GM schools should remain part of the educational scene. They have proven their worth and have been very successful. No one has advanced an argument against their record. They have enjoyed delegation both operationally and financially and, to my knowledge, they have risen to the challenge very well. Indeed, so much so that the Government have tried to re-invent something akin to GM schools in their stead. However, they have to achieve the same degree of autonomy. Having read the fair funding paper, I believe that there is a great deal left to be done.
Amendment No. 90 is consequential, but Amendment No. 45 relates to democracy. The parents of the children who attend these schools voted for them to become GM schools. It was a choice made by them. They had to overcome a number of hurdles in order to become GM schools. As I have said before, many schools suffered great trauma on the route to becoming grant maintained. In fact, only this week I met with a head teacher who I think may perhaps like to talk to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He could describe exactly what he and his governors went through in the process of becoming grant maintained. I seem to remember the noble Lord challenging me to say whether the police were involved in a certain incident. It was indeed a very unpleasant situation.
Nevertheless, those people fought and won through the system in order to become grant maintained. But now, at the stroke of a pen, they will lose that status and have to choose whether to become foundation schools, community schools or voluntary-aided schools. It seems to me that nothing will be lost by leaving them as GM schools and, should they so wish, allowing the parents to do what they did to become grant maintained; namely, to take a ballot of parents and make a choice as to whether or not they wish the school to become a foundation school, a community school or a VA school.
I do not think that there is much more to be said other than to point out that this is a fundamental issue of democracy. I hope that the Minister will at least accept that a number of schools have very strong views on the matter. It is interesting that it has often been said that grant-maintained schools are happy with the position. That is not the case. However, they are realists. They are resigned to the massive majority in the other place. They know that the Government will go ahead with this measure. The grant-maintained schools have worked strenuously to achieve as many favourable changes as possible under the new proposals. They have been partially successful in that. However, we should still make the case to retain them and for them to retain their degree of autonomy under the new arrangements. That would not in any way inhibit the Government from making progress in raising standards of education in our schools. I believe they are genuinely interested in making that progress. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised many of the same points which we covered in Committee. She will find no disagreement from this side of the House on the many positive experiences of grant-maintained schools. I readily accept that many of them have been successful. However, she completely ignores the obvious flaws of the grant-maintained system.
Three years ago we published Diversity and Excellence. This set the principles underpinning our new framework for schools; namely, diversity, school self-management, fairness and partnership. We proposed a new foundation category which would preserve the best features of grant-maintained schools. We had absolutely no desire then or now to disrupt those aspects of the grant-maintained initiative which have worked well. Our proposals in that policy document formed a key part of the White Paper and are now reflected in the Bill. The foundation and voluntary aided categories will allow grant-maintained schools to retain many of their key characteristics. For example, governing bodies will remain the employer of the school's staff. The governing bodies and trustees of grant-maintained schools will continue to own and manage the school's premises. This is something which we know grant-maintained schools value and it will, of course, be retained. Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools will remain their school's admission authority. They will have responsibility for determining the school's admission arrangements and for allocating places to the school. On statutory proposals, governing bodies will retain their powers to publish proposals to make significant changes of character to the school. But in recognising the positive aspects of the grant-maintained initiative, we must also address its flaws. Dividing schools from LEAs is not the way to build a modern education sector. Giving one sector preferential treatment over another led to discord. We shall raise standards through encouraging partnership and co-operation, not competition and division. It is undeniable that some schools went grant-maintained because of a poor relationship with their LEA. Others went grant-maintained in order to avoid being closed. We want to see such disagreements left in the past. This Bill establishes a new role for LEAs and places schools firmly in control of their own success. The relationship between LEAs and schools must be a constructive and productive one if the challenging targets on raising standards we have set are to be met. However, there may be occasions where LEAs and schools disagree about the best way to secure school improvement, and that may not apply just to former grant-maintained schools. It may apply to county schools or voluntary schools. Some relationships will need rebuilding. That is why we have a code of practice. The current draft reflects a consensus between all the key players—including representatives from the grant-maintained sector—about the general principles which must underpin successful working relationships, including intervention in inverse proportion to success. That is obviously sensible. It also represents general agreement on how LEAs should use their powers to ensure that schools receive the right level of support and are protected from unnecessary interference. Where disagreements occur we would expect that reference to the code would normally be sufficient to resolve the situation. The noble Baroness will also be aware that we shall monitor LEA performance through a number of other mechanisms, such as EDPs and Ofsted inspections, to ensure that they are conducting themselves in an appropriate and effective manner. The new framework will also bring grant-maintained schools back into a local partnership with other schools. Dividing grant-maintained and LEA schools created damaging tensions. The Bill devolves power over admissions and planning of school places to a local level. These new arrangements will bring schools closer together. All schools, whatever their background, will have a role in building a consensus about how best to raise standards in their community. I hope that on the basis of what I have said the noble Baroness will agree that once the new framework is in place we shall see an end to an obsession with structures which has so damaged the debate on education in the past decade. The stability that the new framework brings will allow schools to concentrate on achieving higher standards. The noble Baroness wants to allow grant-maintained schools to continue in isolation from the new partnership. Her amendments seek to continue the debate about structures at the expense of standards. They leave the future of grant-maintained schools in the hands of constant parental ballots. That uncertainty is not in the best interests of grant-maintained schools, the children who are pupils in them or the education system as a whole. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.My Lords, I am almost breathless with alarm at what the noble Baroness has just said; namely, that we are obsessed with structures. This Bill is almost all about structures and framework. A very small part of it is about standards. We are simply saying: leave the structures as they are. Foundation schools, community schools and voluntary aided schools will be set up, which were already part of the system anyway. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has read the Bill, but it is all about structures. Those are schools that will be structurally changed within the system. Therefore, to make that accusation of me is very strange in the circumstances.
I must ask the noble Baroness some questions. If, according to the rules, she is not allowed to answer, I should be grateful for answers by letter. When the grant-maintained schools become foundation schools or VA schools, they will be their own admissions authorities. But who agrees the admissions policies for those schools? Who in the future has the power to modify those admissions policies? Do foundation schools have a right of veto over any change whatsoever that may be suggested by a local education authority or which may come out of an education development plan? That is very important. My understanding is that a proposal can be made by the local authority to close a foundation school, to enlarge it or to merge it. If that is objected to, as it almost certainly will be, the matter then goes to the organisational committee, which will decide the proposals if the votes cast are unanimous; if they are not, the adjudicator will make the decision. That was the information I received in a Written Answer from the noble Baroness. However, there is a point that the noble Baroness has not addressed. I know that the LEA cannot change the admissions policies. I have the admissions document in front of me. There are one or two glitches in it. For example, the FAS is still spoken of as though it will remain in being. The FAS will disappear from the scene. Having telephoned an official at the department, it is my understanding that for "FAS" we should read "LEA". One then starts to become worried about some of the ramifications of the content of the amendments. I remain concerned about the degree of autonomy of grant-maintained schools. The noble Baroness has made much of how these schools became grant-maintained and what were their motives. One matter is not arguable. It is that they have all made a very good fist of running their own schools, of rising to the challenge of full autonomy and running their budgets effectively. They have been so effective that the Government have adopted that approach as a policy. The general perception and all the rhetoric of the Government during and since the election have been that these schools are treated more favourably; and according to the Government, that has created a two-tier system: what, then, will they lose as a result of becoming foundation schools? It would be helpful if. in a letter, the noble Baroness could spell that out. What will they lose by having their special favoured status—if that is what she believes they have had—taken away? What will be lost by amortising the favourable status across all schools? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 19, at beginning insert ("(subject to subsection (4A))").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments modifies Clause 20 which, as drafted, provides that when the new framework is established LEAs will maintain the former grant-maintained schools that are located in their area. That means that in the few cases where, before a school became grant-maintained, it was maintained by one LEA but situated geographically in another LEA's area, under this legislation the second LEA will inherit the school rather than the former maintaining LEA.
That will make sense where a school now has little or no connection with its former maintaining LEA, though we have recently become aware of at least one case where the school still has significant links with the former LEA but little or no connection with the LEA in whose area it is located. I trust noble Lords will recognise the fact that the school is Nonsuch High School for Girls and the former maintaining authority was the London Borough of Sutton. That does not mean that by pursuing the amendment the Government are pandering to the revanchiste ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is an amendment which makes sense in these unusual circumstances. We are not simply currying favour with the Lib Dems, though we hope to do so.
We consider that the general principle should still be that a GM school should be maintained in the area in which it is geographically located. However, there should be a mechanism for it to be maintained by its former LEA where that is justified. These amendments will enable the Secretary of State, in those few cases, to make an order providing that the former maintaining LEA should maintain the school rather than the area in which it is situated.
The power will be restricted to the following circumstances. First, that the school, before it became GM, was maintained by one authority and situated in another and that it is still situated outside its former maintaining LEA area; under Amendment No. 235 the former maintaining LEA or the LEA in whose area it is now situated must appeal to the Secretary of State by 30th November 1998. That deadline is needed to ensure that there is enough time to give the appropriate LEA the standard spending assessment credit for its school from April 1999.
To decide such cases the Secretary of State will consider the relative strength of the two connections. It will make sense for a school to be maintained by the LEA on whose scheme its funding is currently based, but there may be other considerations; for example, the school's age range or admissions' policy may fit one LEA's general pattern rather than another. The amendments will enable the Secretary of State, in those few cases, to take account of all considerations and reach a sensible judgment. I beg to move.
My Lords, I must rise to speak to this amendment. I cannot imagine any noble Lords accusing the Government of in any way pandering to my ambitions—by that stage my colleagues were laughing so much that I was not sure what sort of ambitions the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was describing.
I am grateful to the Minister and his department for attending to this problem. It was acknowledged that this problem, to which attention was recently drawn, was mine and uniquely mine. We have a school which was built before the war to serve what is now the London Borough of Sutton. In those days we were all in Surrey and it was not conceived as a problem. Since the London boroughs were formed in 1964, the school has continued to be a Sutton school, albeit it is now GM. But it is located a few yards—literally—on the Surrey side of the boundary. As currently drafted, the Bill would have had the effect of transferring that school from Sutton to Surrey. I was certain that it was neither the intention of the Government nor the Bill arbitrarily to move a school from one LEA to another almost by accident. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for recognising the problem as soon as I drew it to his attention. The Minister knows that I would have been much happier to amend the Bill to make it clear that that was not the intention for any school. I was told that other schools were in a similar position. I gather from the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that may be so, but that his department is not yet aware of them. I am grateful for this amendment, which I accept. I can assure the Minister and his department that they will receive one application well before 30th November and I hope that they will look upon it favourably. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave some idea of the criteria which the Minister will use in considering whether or not to make such an order. In this case, I have no reason to believe that it will be opposed in any way. My understanding is that the head of the school—I am sure she speaks for her governors—would wish for things to remain as they are. I understand that, certainly at officer level in Surrey, there is a similar view. But it would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about what criteria he will use in deciding whether or not to make an order. I would hope that if an application is not opposed it can be readily agreed. In other circumstances elsewhere in the country where there is a disputed application, what criteria will be used to judge the basis of whether or not to make such an order?9.30 p.m.
My Lords, I am amused on different grounds. My understanding is that it was a Liberal plot and the Government were going along with and co-operating with it.
I make a serious point. If this can be done by agreement, that is what should happen. However, my understanding is that there is a little controversy on this issue and I think it is important that it should be resolved. What consultation has taken place between the department and the school and the department and the two LEAs? There should have been some consultation, albeit that there is a period of reflection between now and then. I, too, would be interested in the criteria that will be considered. For example, if there is an objection from any of the three parties—one LEA or another and/or the school—how will the Government come to a decision on this matter?My Lords, the criteria would relate principally to the continuing connections between the local authority catchment area and the school. They would relate to the appropriateness of the funding and to whether the school's admission policy would fit in with the general admission policy of the two local authorities concerned. There is not an absolute single criterion. Those criteria would all be followed, as of course would the assessment of the opinions of the two local authorities and of the school itself. All of those considerations have already been reflected to the department in relation to the Nonsuch High School. Indeed, officials have met both LEAs and the governing body of the school. All those considerations will be taken into account. Hypothetically, other schools might be in this position, but this is the only one which is actively being pursued. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 19, line 19, leave out ("is") and insert ("immediately before that day was").
Page 19, line 20, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a grant-maintained school within subsection (3)(b)—(a) was, immediately before becoming such a school, maintained by a local education authority ("the former maintaining authority") other than the one within whose area it was then situated, and (b) remains outside the area of the former maintaining authority immediately before the appointed day, nevertheless, if an order made by the Secretary of State before that day so provides, as from that day the school shall be maintained (as a school falling within one of the categories set out in subsection (1)) by the former maintaining authority rather than the authority in whose area it is situated on that day.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 19, line 26, after first ("day"") insert ("(except in Part I of Schedule 32)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the first of a batch of largely technical amendments. Most of them are not new. They fall into three groups. Amendments Nos. 211, 233 and 69 are the only new ones and are relatively straightforward. Amendment No. 211 is required because of an amendment to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill made in another place. Amendment No. 233 is a minor drafting change. Amendment No. 69 clarifies the term "maintained nursery school" and I shall come back to it in a moment. All the rest of the amendments except one relate, with a few minor drafting changes—Amendments Nos. 49 and 204—to those amendments which were tabled on the second day of the Committee stage. However, following a strenuous intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I withdrew them, partly because I had not provided to him or to the Front Benches any prior information at that stage. Since then, as with other technical amendments, I have written to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock, and to the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Pilkington and Lord Lucas, explaining the effect of those amendments. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
Amendment No. 210 relates to the interface with the further education sector. That amendment was tabled on the seventh day and withdrawn in the face of fairly detailed questioning from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I shall now say a little more about each of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 49, 204 and 233 all relate to the definition of the appointed day. "The appointed day" in Clause 20 should be read separately from the same expression in Part I and Schedule 32, which deals with transitional provisions.
Amendments Nos. 62, 83, 206 and 236 deal with land and property on trust for the purposes of the school and what that means. Amendment No. 62 is needed for clarification. Where land or property is held on trust for school purposes, that should include land or property actually used for the purposes of the school and held on trust for wider purposes. That includes the purposes of the school. In a number of places the Bill refers to land or property held on trust for the purposes of the school. Where the land is held on trust for a single school, the references are fine as they are, but sometimes the school land is held by wider trusts capable of being used for a number of purposes. That is why we need this particular amendment.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 provide for some clarification of property transfers. Amendment No. 64 deals with property transfers when a school joins or leaves a foundation body without changing the school categories provided for under Clause 21. When categories are changed that is covered by regulations in Schedule 8. We need the amendments to clarify the former case. Amendment No. 63 provides that rights and liabilities associated with property will transfer with the property itself.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 deal with foundation bodies and supplement the existing provisions in Clause 21 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations governing foundation bodies which act for a group of schools. Amendments Nos. 67, 70, 207 and 211 to 214 all deal with charitable status. These all arise from discussions we have held with the Charity Commission. The new clause provided in Amendment No. 70 (which is the main one in this group) specifies that it is the governing body of a voluntary or foundation special school which is an exempt charity rather than the school itself. It does not in any way affect the school trustees or the relationship between them and governing bodies, and neither does it impose liabilities on governors which would not have applied had the Bill specified the school as the charity. Amendment No. 67 deletes provisions about charitable status of schools and foundations in the light of that new clause.
Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 55 and 61 deal with the allocation of schools to new categories. Amendment No. 51 allows regulations to require GM schools to provide information to persons other than parents—such as dioceses and school trustees. Amendment No. 52 follows from that. Currently, Schedule 2 allows regulations to be made only on the timing of the final decision on GM schools' governing bodies but not on arrangements for the meeting to take those decisions. Amendment No. 55 deals with that.
Amendment No. 69 refers to a "maintained nursery school". That needs to be defined to make clear that it does not apply to LEA-maintained special schools which provide for pupils aged two to five. They will be treated as special schools rather than in the category of a maintained nursery school.
I now come to the batch of amendments as regards Amendment No. 210 which was withdrawn on the seventh day, dealing with the interface with the Further and Higher Education Act. That Act contains a number of references that will have to be amended. The previous government established the FE sector and included within it sixth-form colleges, which, before they entered the sector, were classified as schools. The 1992 Act includes a range of provisions that deal with, for example, how those schools should be established as FE colleges and how the asset should be transferred.
A number of those provisions are time expired, but a surprising number are still technically live and require to be updated. Although following the 1992 Act it is no longer possible to propose that a school should become a local authority maintained sixth-form college, the Act includes a provision that any school which is principally concerned with the provision of full-time education suitable for the requirements of persons over compulsory school age may be incorporated into the FE sector. Accordingly, a considerable number of sections of that Act remain live, although their principal use was related to the establishment of the FE sector in 1993. It is therefore a necessary consequence of those provisions being still active upon the statute book that the draftsmen must update them. The consequential amendments to the 1992 Act seek to do nothing more than that.
Further education matters more generally, or other issues raised by the noble Baroness, are not affected by the amendments. Nevertheless, many sections of that Act are affected by the amendments and I can explain them at length. if required, either now or in writing. I believe that I have provided most of that information already to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Therefore, I hope that at this stage the House will be prepared with those explanations to accept the amendments, given that most of that information has already been provided to the Front Benches opposite in detailed form.
My Lords, Amendment proposed: Page 19, line 26, after ("day"") insert ("(except in Part I of Schedule 32)"). I repeat, "Schedule 32", not "three—two"; nothing to do with the latest score!
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his letter and for the explanation that he has given. I have only two questions. The noble Lord said that it would be improbable or unlikely that a school would become an FE college but that it could on rare occasions. What would be the procedure for that? It would be very unusual, so what would he the procedure for a school which is known to educate young people up to and through the age of 16 then becoming an FE college? My other question is: what veto or what absolute protection would be enjoyed by a foundation school in such circumstances?
My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that the only circumstance in which that would happen under the 1992 Act would be where a sixth-form college transferred into the FE sector or became part of an existing FE institution. Given that most of that reorganisation occurred in the wake of the 1993 Act, it would be extremely unlikely that we would move into that situation under the terms of this legislation.
Apart from that, there is no specific additional protection. It is not easy to conceive of that situation with regard to a school which provides education from the beginning of secondary schooling through to the post-16 age group. If the noble Baroness requires further information, I shall be happy to write to her.My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should be grateful to have more information. The noble Lord's letter clearly stated that, in rare circumstances, a school could become an FE college and/or a sixth-form college which would be for post-16 education. All that I am asking is, in the event, however rare, of a school being considered appropriate to be closed as a school and to become a further education college, what would be the procedure, and what protection would there be for a foundation school against such a proposal. If the noble Lord could write to me about that, I should be very grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [ Allocation of existing schools to new categories]:
9.45 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 50.
Page 114, line 22, after ("paragraph") insert ("1 or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 56 to 60 and 89. We had an interesting debate on the subject of community schools becoming foundation schools. One knows that there was some resistance to this procedure on the part of local authorities. I am among those who believe in the freedom of schools to choose. I am sorry that it is not possible for schools, almost at Royal Assent, or at least when the framework provisions come into force, to have the opportunity to make choices. One of the concerns of the Government was that they could not allow so many schools to make that choice so quickly. If the Government believe that that many schools of the number that are potentially able to make that choice will make that choice quickly there must be some view that perhaps it is a good thing for them to do. I believe that it would happen rather slowly, just as schools which are thinking of becoming grant-maintained consider the matter very carefully. They think hard about the degree of autonomy and about leaving the cradle of the local education authority. The idea that all schools will do it immediately is perhaps a worry too far. I still press the Government not to be over-cautious and to allow community schools the freedom to make the choice to become foundation schools as soon as possible.
If the Minister who is to respond to this amendment repeats the same answer as last time, I should like to hear an outline estimate as to the date when the framework is likely to come into being. I understand that the period is a year. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister can provide an intelligent guesstimate as to when foundation schools will have the opportunity to exercise that choice.
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has been called away on other business, it falls to me to draw attention to Amendment No. 89 which is part of this group. The amendment is an attempt to provide a period of stability for special schools because of the fears of many people that foundation status will not be desirable and we should not be positively encouraging the change from community to foundation special school status.
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We also believe that all schools, LEA-maintained and grant-maintained, should have a choice about which category they should be in, but there are compelling practical reasons why this choice should be phased.
The noble Baroness asked about the timetable. The new framework with the new categories will come into being on 1st September 1999. All schools will be able to publish proposals on 1st September 2000. Schedule 2 requires grant-maintained schools to take a decision on whether to accept their allocation or to opt for a different category. Their governing bodies must take that decision; it is not an option for the governing body simply to do nothing. These amendments would impose the same requirement on LEA-maintained schools. They would also be required to take an active decision on whether to accept their category or opt for another. We believe that to require all 23,000 maintained schools to go through this process at the beginning of the next academic year will create a lot of turbulence in the education system. We have therefore decided to phase the choice. After the moratorium, however, all schools will have the option of publishing proposals to change category. It will last for one year following the introduction of the new categories on 1st September 1999. The advantage of that phasing of choice is that only those schools that wish to change category will be required to take any action. There will be no time constraints on the time by which schools have to publish proposals. The proposals will be determined locally through the school organisation committees. We regard each new category as equally valid. We will reflect that principle in guidance to the school organisation committees. They will have to demonstrate that they have determined each proposal on its individual merits. They will be required, through guidance, to take particular account of the extent of support for any change of category proposals from governors and parents. The amendments seemed to us to be the most practical way forward. They allow GM schools which will experience the most change under the new framework to choose their category at the outset. LEA-maintained schools, if they wish, will be able to choose a new category after a short period of time. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will accept that that timetable will create less disruption. I urge her to withdraw her amendment.My Lords, the noble Baroness did not respond to Amendment No. 89.
My Lords, I apologise. Amendment No. 89 was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Bill provides that the length of the moratorium before a school—mainstream or special—could apply to change category will be prescribed in regulations. We have indicated that we expect the moratorium to last for one year. Our White Paper and technical consultation paper suggested that all special schools should become community special schools, but responses to that suggestion were clear that it would be wrong to deny parents at GM special schools, who had voted for greater autonomy for their school, the right offered to parents at mainstream schools to participate in choosing the school's future category. That was a powerful point. The decision to give special schools a choice of category was made in that light.
We believe that special schools should be treated under the new framework in the same way as mainstream schools. They should have the same choices about change of category. We therefore see no reason why the length of the moratorium should be different for special and mainstream schools. We shall consult on the regulations governing proposals to make changes to special and mainstream schools. If, in response to that consultation, strong arguments are presented that suggest that the length of the moratorium should be different for special schools, Clause 135(7) provides the power for us to set a different moratorium. In the light of that commitment, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.My Lords, I shall respond to my amendments. I am a little disappointed, but we have an absolute assurance that the procedure will happen one year after September 1999. My understanding is that September 2000 will be the date upon which they can submit a proposal; in other words, presumably they can become a foundation school the following term or the following year (2001). I do not know how long the process will take to make the choice and to become a foundation school, presumably the application could be ready to be submitted on 1st September 2000. It would be helpful to know how quickly that will be processed.
The Minister will not be surprised to know how disquieted we all are by the organisation committees. We are giving them the power to make important decisions. If there is any dissention at organisation committee level, the matter goes to the adjudicator who has the power to take a view different from that of the school itself. At the end of the day, the decision is taken by the organisation committee and/or the adjudicator. I have expressed my disquiet on other occasions, and we shall be talking about it in a moment. On the basis that we see a light at the end of this tunnel, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
Page 114, line 34, leave out from ("decisions") to end of line 35 and insert ("to prescribed persons;
(ca) as to the provision of prescribed information to prescribed persons;
(cb) authorising governing bodies to charge a fee (not exceeding the cost of supply) for prescribed documents supplied by them in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (ca);").
Page 114, line 36, leave out ("such") and insert ("registered").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[ Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 115, line 10, leave out from ("the") to end of line 11 and insert ("procedure to be followed in connection with the taking by governing bodies of their final decisions (including, in particular, provision as to the time by which governing bodies are to take such decisions).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendments Nos. 56 to 60 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 116, line 15, leave out (", as from the appointed day,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [ Kinds of foundation and voluntary schools and types of foundations]:
moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 67:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert ("; and
(c) references to land or other property held on trust, or by trustees, for the purposes of a school include references to land or other property which—(i) is held on trust for purposes which (whether the trust deed expressly so provides or not) include the purposes of the school, and (ii) is used for the purposes of the school.").
Page 20, line 37, after ("property") insert (", rights and liabilities").
Page 20, line 38, at end insert ("but do not change category in accordance with Schedule 8").
Page 21, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—
("(f) in connection with a school leaving the group—
Page 21, line 13, at end insert—
("(i) for conferring functions on school organisation committees and adjudicators including any functions which might otherwise be conferred on the Secretary of State.").
Page 21, line 20, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [ Maintenance and other funding of schools]:
moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 21, line 45, at end insert ("or (4A)").
Page 22, line 44, at end insert ("and is not a special school").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
Charitable Status Of Maintained Schools, Etc
(" .—(1) The following shall be charities which are exempt charities for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993—
but no governing body of a community or community special school shall be a charity.
(2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—
shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(3) Any foundation established otherwise than under this Act which has no property other than the premises of any school or schools falling within subsection (1)(a) shall be a charity which (subject to section 3(5B) of the Charities Act 1993) is not required to be registered for the purposes of that Act (but is not an exempt charity for the purposes of that Act).
(4) In this section—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [ Funding of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools]:
moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 120, line 32, at end insert—
("but such requirements may be imposed after the making of any such payment only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is reasonable for them to be so imposed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one which we promised noble Lords in Committee. We brought it forward primarily to meet the concerns expressed by the Churches about the Secretary of State's power to set a retrospective condition for voluntary-aided school grant. The amendment modifies the Secretary of State's powers so that he may set a condition only after grant has been paid, where he is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is reasonable to do so.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey told this House in Committee, we expect this power to be used rarely. One example would be where, as a result of what is referred to here as "a clerical oversight"— I think that an administrative oversight is meant rather than an oversight by the clergy—the grant condition is omitted from the formal grant letter. We should want to be able to correct that omission. The governors and trustees would have been aware of the intention to set a condition.
Another example could be where a condition is not set initially—where the trusts are not examined because they seem to secure recycling within the state system—but it subsequently comes to light that the trusts have either been misconstrued or changed and do not secure that recycling satisfactorily. We wish to be able to set a retrospective condition in these circumstances in order to protect public fund investment, and we believe that it would be reasonable to do so.
In those limited circumstances, I hope that the House will accept the need for the amendment. I hope that it also meets the concerns of the Churches about the new voluntary-aided school grant condition. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for moving the amendment. I expressed concerns at Committee stage and, as the noble Lord explained, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear that these powers to impose a retrospective condition would be used only in circumstances of administrative error. I am grateful for the clarification with regard to the word "clerical" that has been provided. The amendment satisfies the Church, as it provides us with the kind of safeguard for which we are looking. I am grateful for its introduction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [ School organisation committees]:
moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 23, line 5, at end insert (". which shall specify that such a committee's powers are restricted to advising the local education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 72 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. I believe that Amendment No. 80 has been moved to another grouping.
We turn now to the issue of the school organisation committee and, whatever suggestion there may have been regarding other parts of this Bill that there is some sort of agreement or pact or understanding between these Benches and the Government Benches, it falls down dramatically at this point.
I am more than sad: I am disappointed that we reach this issue at this hour of the night and when the attentions of the nation, and indeed your Lordships' House, are firmly fixed elsewhere. We understand that extra time is being played. I do not feel that I can compete with that. I am not sure that I can concentrate properly with all the toing and froing. Indeed, we have already had a message from the Government Chief Whip that no Divisions are to be called. That rather inhibits the course of action that I might choose to take.
I am consoled a little because for more than two hours we debated school organisation committees when we were in Committee. The longer the debate went on (before a fuller House than is the case tonight) it became clear that the more Members heard about the nature, composition and function of school organisation the more concern grew in all corners of the House.
It was suggested that it was part of the devolving of decision-making; that it was part of partnership and consensus. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, all those issues are very dear to Liberal Democrats. We strongly believe in partnership and in seeking consensus. We certainly feel strongly about devolving decision-making. However, to suggest that a school organisation committee is any of those things is a travesty of those descriptions. As the debate continued, it became clearer that school organisation committees will be bureaucratic and cumbersome and that they are unnecessary and will not work. In my view, they will be far more expensive than the Government suggest.
In Committee we described the process through which a local education authority goes in drawing up its plans. Before they are agreed by an LEA they are always subject to widespread consultation and discussion. That is entirely right and proper. If consensus and agreement can be reached, that is all to the better, and that would be the aim.
If the Government believe that some LEAs do not strive sufficiently in that direction, fair enough, let them devise some measures to encourage LEAs to perform better. That is the approach I would wish to see. Once an LEA has gone through the lengthy consultation process, discussion in the education committee and almost certainly in a full council meeting and has reached agreement, I do not see why it is necessary to have another structure imposed upon it which is directly accountable to no one and cumbersome in that it comprises a number of different groups, each of which must reach a unanimous decision; in other words, any one group represented on the school organisation committee has a veto. We would all wish that circumstances never arise in which that veto could be used, but those of us with experience of such matters know that that is optimism in the extreme. It will be used and if one group on an organisation committee knows that it has a veto, it is almost an encouragement for the group to be difficult, awkward, stubborn and forced into using the veto.
The first of the amendments suggests that if we are to have school organisation committees their roles should be advisory only. Many of the bodies which will be represented on the committee—probably all the bodies—would in any event be involved in the consultation process with the LEA. Certainly they ought to be. Perhaps there is a case for formalising it into something called a school organisation committee and requiring an LEA to consult with it and for that committee then to advise the LEA as it is the elected body, democratically accountable and takes the decision. I could be persuaded of that.
I suspect that today it is my role to persuade your Lordships that that is the right way to go because it is the purpose and intention of Amendment No. 72. However, it is the nature of our procedure that that comes before what I would prefer to see, which is Amendment No. 74 and the deletion of Clause 23.
I strongly believe that a school organisation committee is not necessary. For the reasons I have outlined—that it will be burdensome, cumbersome, expensive, bureaucratic, on too many occasions unlikely to reach consensus and undemocratic—I believe that we should not have them at all.
I began by saying I regret that we are debating this issue at this time of night when attention is focused very much elsewhere. But it is an important issue. In fact, it is one of the most important issues within this Bill on which we differ from the Government. I suspect that this evening the Minister will not say anything that we did not hear in Committee. However I should say that the more we heard in Committee, not only did my colleagues and I become more convinced that we were right but so too did the rest of the House. I suspect that had we moved to a Division at that time, we should probably have won it.
That is history. It did not happen. It probably will not happen this evening in view of the circumstances and the edict which has been given to us by the Government Chief Whip. However, it is an issue to which we shall undoubtedly need to return. I beg to move.
My Lords, I can understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This proposal by the Government is probably the most undemocratic suggestion that there has ever been. There is real disquiet about this proposition among our local government colleagues. The members of these committees will be unaccountable and will be placemen. They will be responsible for making decisions which affect the lives of children, parents and local communities. The absolute power of the adjudicator is unbelievable because there is no right of appeal. However we shall deal later with that.
I want the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to know that we support this amendment extremely strongly and if he were minded to call a Division, we should support him.My Lords, my attention is not elsewhere and I shall not talk about adjudicators, as the noble Baroness did. Indeed, so much is my attention not elsewhere that, as Alan Bennett once said, wild horses on their bended knees would not drag me to watch a football match under any circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the best of intentions and goodwill, misrepresents the existing situation and the Government's proposals. It is necessary to try to put that right. First, as regards the present position, he gives the impression that the democratically elected local education authorities have full responsibility for the matters which are the subject of our proposed school organisation committees. Noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, should know that many proposals for change to school organisation are currently considered not locally but by the Secretary of State. Legislation provides that all proposals published by the governors of voluntary schools, by grant-maintained schools and the promoters of new, voluntary or grant-maintained schools must come to the Secretary of State for a decision. Local authorities may decide their own proposals where they attract attention or are not called in by the Secretary of State. But where there are objections or where they are called in, a decision is made by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the present situation, which the noble Lord's amendments would retain, is profoundly centralist and quite different from that which he describes. The Government believe that decisions on changes to school organisation should be taken at local level. When we consulted following the White Paper Excellence in Schools, there was widespread support for that principle. That is the basis for the proposals set out in Clause 23 because they aim to build also on the partnership which exists already at local level, reflecting in particular the significant contribution of the Churches over many years in the provision of schools. What is being put forward in the Bill is still at a local level but extends the range of responsibility from the LEA to the other partners in the education process. The noble Lord speaks as though those other partners then have a veto. They do not have a veto unless an amendment which is to be considered later were to be carried. If they really need to, they have the power to say that the issue will be decided by an adjudicator and not on a local basis. That is not a veto; the matter has to be resolved. They have a veto only in the very limited sense that the matter cannot be resolved without further reference. Again, there are later amendments which would provide for an appeal from an adjudicator to the Secretary of State. That is also a centralising tendency with which we shall deal later. I cannot accept either the noble Lord's description of what happens now or his description of what we propose. What would be the effect of Amendment No. 72; namely, for such a committee to be only advisory? The noble Lord drew attention to the consultation and discussion between partners that is already undertaken in the development of proposals for change to school organisation. The Government entirely support that and trust that it will continue. Our proposals seek to build on that partnership at local level, but the partnership is supported by the formal arrangements of Clause 23, in which proposals made by partners other than the LEA automatically come to the Secretary of State. In giving effect to the principle of decisions at local level and building on the local partnership, we concluded that it was right to involve those other partners directly in the decision-making process. We also concluded that it was right to do so in such a way as to give their views the degree of force that they are given under this part of the Bill. So a school organisation committee, in which the key partners at local level are brought together to reach decisions at a local level, is the solution at which we have arrived. Our proposed new arrangements will not reduce the powers of LEAs in respect of proposals for change to school organisation. LEAs will be responsible for securing that there are sufficient school places in their area; and for that reason will draft the school organisation plan. LEAs will retain their powers to publish proposals for all types of change to community schools and to decide on any of their own proposals that do not attract objections. In that respect there is no change from the current arrangements. Where they do introduce change is in the decision making on those proposals that local education authorities have never had the power to determine: proposals of their own that attract objections, proposals made by voluntary schools and proposals made by foundation schools. Those proposals are currently removed from the local arena to disappear for a while in the corridors of Whitehall. But in our proposed arrangements, these decisions will be made jointly by all the partners with each having a direct voice in the decisions on those proposals. The noble Lord seemed implicitly to ask why decision-making could be devolved only to the local authority. In the provision of school places, the local education authority is only one partner. It makes decisions for only some of the schools in its area. Partnership works now because it is supported by the involvement of the Secretary of State. The school organisation committee, through its membership and its voting arrangements, maintains the balance in decision making between partners. I simply do not accept that such a disagreement between any one of the statutory partners in the school organisation committee is an invitation for them to disagree. Psychologically, the reverse is the case. Because they know that it will be much easier if they can reach an agreement, they will be much more likely to make the necessary compromises in order to avoid going to the adjudicator. The noble Lord has misconceived both the existing situation and what is proposed in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.My Lords, I must say that to be called a "centralist" by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is almost a compliment. However, I wholeheartedly reject that statement. Indeed, it is actually a reverse of the use of language. Nevertheless, we are not going to agree on the issue. I talked deliberately—and I do not recant it—on the use of a veto. We require unanimity from a school organisation committee. If one member of that committee does not agree, the committee will be unable to reach a decision. In effect, that seems to me to be a veto.
In moving this amendment I studiously avoided talking about adjudicators as they are the subject of the next batch of amendments. As I said in Committee, it is difficult to talk about one without the other. However, the Minister has just done exactly that. I shall follow him in that regard. The Minister expresses great hope for this measure. I should like to join him in that, but I suspect that my comments are nearer to reality than to hope. When unanimity is reached—we all strive for that; as I said previously, I am a consensus politician—and there is agreement and everyone is content, that is fine. That is not what is at issue. One does not need a great structure to deal with matters on which everyone is agreed. One might need a procedure to encourage them to agree. Where we need a structure is when people do not agree. In the case we are discussing a committee needs to be unanimous or it cannot reach a decision. But what happens then? The matter is then referred to an adjudicator. I do not see how that can be considered to be devolving decision making to a local level. The matter is handed to an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State. That adjudicator will not necessarily have any local connection. There is no right of appeal to anyone, anywhere. How that can be said to be devolving decision making and to be democratic defeats me. It is a perversion of language. It is easier to argue—as the Minister has just done—about school organisation committees in isolation. When agreement is not reached—and that will happen, although we all hope it will be on only a few occasions—one has to look at the other part of the package; namely, the adjudicators. Statutory school organisation committees, which are bureaucratic, expensive, cumbersome and require unanimity, and which have to refer decisions to an appointed and unaccountable adjudicator who does not necessarily have any local connections, are, to say the least, unnecessary. They are undemocratic and we strongly oppose them. I recognise the perhaps not too serious edict from the Government Chief Whip, but more particularly the hour of the night and the fact that attention tonight is perhaps focused somewhere other than this Chamber. I shall have to withdraw this amendment. I do so with enormous regret. We shall undoubtedly return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 23, line at end insert ("; and
( ) a head teacher of a foundation or of a grant-maintained school, or of both, providing that there is at least one school of such a type or types within the local education authority area").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a somewhat defeatist amendment because we assume that the Government with their weighty vote in another place will have their way, whatever we say in this House. Therefore, we shall have school organisation committees and adjudicators. That is an undemocratic position, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made clear.
If there are to be organisation committees I do not know how the Government can argue against having representatives of foundation schools on those committees, if there are foundation schools in the area. They are a separate category of school and I believe that they should be recognised, particularly as different arrangements apply in terms of their relationship with the local education authority and the degree of autonomy that they enjoy.
I have included grant-maintained schools in the amendment in the fervent but rather forlorn hope that they will remain as part of the diverse provision for parents and children. But if that is not to be the case, I hope that the Government will not argue against the right of foundation schools to be represented on school organisation committees. If the Government continue to argue against that—as they did in Committee—one must be extremely suspicious about what is being proposed in terms of the organisation committees, the role of the adjudicators and the status of foundation schools within their local communities. I beg to move.
My Lords, I find it an extraordinary proposition that the noble Baroness thinks there is something undemocratic about the large majority in another place. We have a large majority in another place because that is how the people voted. It is not undemocratic to have a majority; and having achieved that majority, it is not undemocratic to use it. So there need be no apology for the number of Labour Members of Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants to discuss proportional representation, I have no doubt he will find some opportunity when it is in order for him to do so. It is certainly not in order in this debate tonight.
All schools will have the power to publish proposals of at least one sort within the new framework, including proposals to change category. There will not be any grant-maintained schools because, when the noble Baroness raised the issue of their continuance, she decided in her wisdom not to press the matter to a vote. We are clear that, where there are foundation and non-diocesan voluntary schools in a local authority area, they should be represented within the school organisation committee for the area. The paper that we have placed in the Library proposes that they be represented broadly in proportion to the number of pupils for whom they are responsible. However, that is a level of detail much better suited to regulation than to the face of Bill. We are also clear that schools should be represented on the school organisation committee by governors. At individual school level it is the governors who take the decisions on school organisation matters. We shall not specify that it should be a particular class of school governor that sits on the school organisation committee. If the head teacher, a teacher, or parent governors are prepared to serve, we shall not prevent that. However, we do propose to restrict school representation on the committee to governors. It is right that schools should be represented. We believe it right that they should be represented by governors. That goes directly against the requirements of Amendment No. 73. I invite the noble Baroness not to press it to a vote.My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, perhaps I may ask him a question. Again, I am not sure whether the rules of the House preclude him from answering, in which case I shall have to resort to yet another letter. If I removed the term "grant-maintained"—although I should prefer not to—and replaced the words "head teacher" with "governors" so that the category of school is quite specifically represented if there are foundation schools in an area, given that that was used as an argument against me it would be helpful to know whether that change would make a difference to the Government's response. I should like to return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill.
I was doing no more than accepting reality. I was not querying what happened at the election; I accept the reality that there is a majority. However. something rather unpleasant has been happening during the course of this year. We have seen on many occasions the wilful pre-emption of the will of Parliament. The noble Lord just said, "There will not be any GM schools". The Bill has not yet gone through Parliament. It will be for Parliament to say whether there will be any GM schools at the end of these debates. The reality is that, with such a large majority, whatever this House says Members in another place will have their view. At this stage, however, we have to bow to the will of Parliament, and it will be sovereign at the end of the day. On the understanding that the noble Lord will give me a response as to whether he would be more accommodating to the suggestion that foundation schools should be represented if I replaced the words "head teacher" with "governors", I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Clause 24 [ Adjudicators]:
moved Amendment No. 76:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tope was drawn into talking about adjudicators and said much of what needs to be said. However, I found the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, interesting. I draw Members' attention particularly to the proposed school closure proposals "disappearing into the corridors of Whitehall", which was how he described it.
We had a discussion on this at some stage and those of us who have been involved in school closures know that it is not quite like that. People become extremely upset about school closures and usually go to their Member of Parliament, who sees the Minister, and all sorts of delegations are set up. The issue does not disappear into the corridors of Whitehall.
In relation to the adjudicator, many of us are concerned with precisely what the Minister felt happened under the old system; that is, that it would disappear into the adjudicator and there would be no way in which local people could go on putting the case about the closure of their schools. This will not be a normal quango; it will be a one-man quango, and that one man will make the final decision.
We had considerable debates on this matter at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill and it became obvious that there would be just as much controversy in a school organisation committee in relation to a school closure as there is anywhere else. At the moment local people are consulted and all those involved in a school closure make a lot of noise when they do not want a school to close. Indeed, I have been part of such a demonstration with parents and others.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was also misrepresenting what happens on the ground when he replied to my noble friend. At the moment, people have an opportunity to put their case and the democratic accountability goes right from the bottom to the top in Parliament. Now we have a great democratic hole in the middle; that is, the school organisation committee and the adjudicator. It is clear that that is how both Opposition Benches see the situation, though the Government fail to agree.
I hope that the Minister is right; that is, that it will not end in tears when more of these decisions are made by an adjudicator. Quite frankly, Clause 24 and Schedule 5 provide for the setting up of the appointment of adjudicators to be what I might describe as the Secretary of State's representatives on earth in various corners of the country. We do not believe that that is democratic. We do not want to see it happen and if it were not for all the things that are happening both here and outside tonight, we would be pushing this matter to a Division. However, we all know that that will not happen tonight, but we will return to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
My Lords, I believe it is legitimate and we will not be remonstrated with by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for talking about adjudicators. The noble Lord fell into the same trap into which we all fell: that is, that it is not possible to talk about organisation committees without talking about adjudicators, because we know that the operation of the organisation committee leads neatly on to the function of the adjudicator.
One does not have to go far to look at some of the powers of the adjudicator. I have been looking at the interim document on admissions policies. Paragraph 25 concludes by saying that the adjudicator will provide for disputes about the continuation of existing partial selection to be decided by the adjudicator. Paragraph 28 talks about schools with a specialism which apparently have an important part to play in the framework and will seek to ensure that children have an opportunity to develop their specific talents to the full. Nevertheless, the adjudicator will rule on disputes about existing or proposed priority by aptitude. It goes on and on as to where there are opportunities for the adjudicator to become the determining body. This is a power too far. It is a placement appointed by the Secretary of State and the idea that it will be a local person is wrong. It will not be local. If there are 20 in the country, one must put at least two local education areas together, possibly more. I can take my own two counties—mine and a neighbouring county—Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk or Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. It is easy to see that many areas of those counties will be remote from this unelected person who will have the power to make a decision against which there will be no appeal. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has made a powerful case. It is one that I support very strongly. It is backed almost entirely by all Benches in this House and even by some noble Lords opposite to whom we have spoken outside the confines of this Chamber. The local government associations and indeed the local authorities themselves are decidedly concerned about this. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made much of things being lost in the corridors of Whitehall. But at the end of the day responsibility should lie with the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the department. I have been one of them and took my job very seriously in terms of receiving deputations, receiving parent bodies and listening to the cases put by the relevant Members of Parliament. I prefer that because they are elected people. They are elected and they can be unelected. An adjudicator cannot be. He is there by the patronage of the Secretary of State. The case is absolutely overwhelming and it will have my enthusiastic support.10.30 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that it is impossible to separate consideration of the school organisation committee from the adjudicator. If I rebuked her for moving on, I apologise, because, as she rightly said, I did myself. I also apologise to both noble Baronesses for the imprecision of my language when I referred to the corridors of Whitehall. Of course I meant the rooms around the atrium and sanctuary buildings of Great Smith Street, where nothing so vulgar as a corridor is allowed to appear.
There are serious points behind this provision. The school organisation committees provide the framework for local discussion and agreement. But we have always recognised the need for a mechanism to cover occasions, which we anticipate will be relatively rare, when local agreement cannot be reached. We hope it will not be necessary, but we must provide for it. We propose that the role should be fulfilled by an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to this as patronage. But I have to stress that we will advertise the posts, we will recruit openly and we will follow guidance set down by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in making the appointment. We have placed in the Library a statement on the adjudicator which describes in a little more detail our view on the functions, operation and appointment of adjudicators. That statement will provide a basis for consultation. Other matters of largely administrative detail, including the procedure to be followed by adjudicators, will be set down in regulations, and we shall consult broadly on the content of those regulations. The adjudicator will look again at proposals, comments and objections and the reasons for disagreement at local level. In other words, he will not simply be operating in some bureaucratic vacuum. The adjudicator will consider all cases in the light of principles set out in public guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, the school organisation plan. The adjudicator will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case, based on the facts, and against those principles. But in all cases decisions will be judgments between restricted options. I can go into more detail if noble Lords wish me to about the appointment, payment and terms of reference of adjudicators but I think that the House would probably wish to be spared from that. The payment will be roughly the level currently paid to the chairs of special education needs tribunal panels. Adjudicators must be separate from any concern that decisions have been prompted by political considerations and therefore must be demonstrably independent of the Secretary of State, of local authorities and of other bodies. Perhaps most importantly, adjudicators must also be able to keep an objective perspective in order to be able to weigh competing arguments and be accepted for their ability to do so. They will be excluded from cases in which they have had prior involvement or might otherwise be regarded as parti pris. There is a great deal of paranoia in the reaction of noble Lords to the concept of the adjudicator. It arises from a suspicion which I recognise—although I do not agree with it—about the role of the school organisation committees. I believe that those views are unfounded. The alternative to the long stop which we have provided in the role of the adjudicator would be back to the centralising tendency of the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness was a Minister in a department herself. If she believes that decisions are taken purely independently by those elected to do so rather than by officials, then I wonder at the role she was playing in her capacity as a Minister. She acted on advice. She was obliged not just by tradition but by statute to act on advice. She would have been in terrible trouble if she had not done so. Advice is no more democratic in that sense than the role of the adjudicator which we have described and are proposing in this Bill.My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree with me that acting on advice is different as a concept from acting in accordance with advice? I understood the first part of what the noble Lord said as stating that a Minister would have to act in accordance with advice. If he is saying that, will he, on reflection, not accept that that is a serious mistake? Does he not accept that Ministers in this particular jurisdiction and in many others listen to what is said to them by, among other people, Members of Parliament? Is the noble Lord suggesting that it would be wrong for a Minister to act in accordance with what a Member of Parliament has suggested, notwithstanding that the official advice might be otherwise? Will it be open to an adjudicator to receive representations from a Member of Parliament when a case has gone to the adjudicator in the event of a disagreement from a school organisation committee?
My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point, I would be the last person to cross swords with him in view of his distinguished career in government. The point I was making was a much more simple one; namely, that a Minister in making a decision whether on advice or in accordance with it is not acting as an elected politician but as someone who has the responsibility of taking into account the facts of the case. In answer to his second question, of course it will be open to an adjudicator to receive representations from a Member of Parliament or from anyone else.
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, may I say that no Minister below Secretary of State actually took those decisions. There was a great deal of activity. One listened to delegations from parents and delegations from Members of Parliament. One culled all the information and one was advised by officials. After taking all that advice and coming to a view about the recommendation, it was put to the Secretary of State, who took the decision on the basis of all that information, including ministerial advice. At the end of the day the decision was taken by an elected Member. A great deal of activity is cut out in this process. If someone has an army of people around him, it will become even more expensive. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, it is a quango post and unelected. It is a placemen post and not accountable to anybody.
My Lords, if I am being asked a question before I sit down for a second time, my answer is that I am in no position to question the noble Baroness's description of the way in which government operated when she was part of it.
My Lords, after all those interventions, which I am not sure were entirely apposite, perhaps I may reply to my amendment. I found some of the Minister's remarks somewhat surprising. If carried to logical conclusions, he was saying that in many cases we might as well have a dictatorship and that at any level of government elected members should not be relied on to make decisions. I found that disturbing, but it highlights why we are so concerned about what is happening here. I am concerned that those who are democratically elected should be making the decisions. Politics does come into this—quite often—and I regret that in some cases that happens when perhaps it should not. Many decisions are not particularly political, but come down to common sense and to the question of what is the best value or what is best for everybody in any area. In terms of school closures, it tends to be money that makes things political.
I have not been convinced by the Minister. In fact, his comments about the way he thinks decisions are made and the right of those who have been elected to make those decisions worry me no end. I am sure that we shall return to this again, but at this exciting stage—I am not sure whether we have the latest news of the match—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
Right Of Appeal Against Decision Of Adjudicator
(" . The governing body of any school or the parents of pupils at any school affected by decisions of the adjudicator with respect to matters referred to him concerning or in connection with—
shall, in all cases, have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have the opportunity to discuss this amendment only because the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, withdrew the previous amendment. If the House had taken a view on the previous amendment, this amendment may have fallen.
If the role of the adjudicator is to survive after the Bill has passed through both Houses and Parliament has given its assent, it is fundamental that there should be a right of appeal to the adjudicator. It is conceivable that a local authority, having done all its work, may make a recommendation about a school; that that recommendation may go to the organisation committee, on which there is one dissenting voice; then that decision moves on to the adjudicator. As I understand the paper on the adjudicator, the adjudicator is free to accept the majority view; he is free to accept the minority view or he is free to reject both those views and to propose an alternative decision which will be the final word. That is the most undemocratic proposal to have come from this Government. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am afraid that this is one of those cases where nothing will bring us together. We have a profound disagreement about the role of the Secretary of State and about local decision-making. I shall not go into the nature of decision-making in departments. I have already got into enough trouble by venturing amateur opinions on that subject, so I shall steer clear of it.
The issue before us is straightforward. Where we have gone to great lengths to secure that as far as possible decisions shall be taken at local level by those who are responsible—I refer not just the LEAs but to the schools, the diocesan and Church authorities and to all others who are necessarily involved in the issues considered by a school organisation committee—and where we have provided only for those, we hope, rare cases where there is no agreement (despite all attempts at mediation) for the provision of an adjudicator, the last thing that we want is for the matter to be returned to the Secretary of State for a final decision on appeal, as is provided for in the amendment. The whole thrust of the Bill has been against central control of school organisation and other educational matters. We are profoundly opposed to this amendment.My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I am disappointed by his reply. The thrust of the Bill is that, where the Government do not want to take difficult decisions, they pass them on to third parties—in this case, to the adjudicator and, in the case of grammar schools, to the people, in a rigged ballot system. I believe that that is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. The organisation committee with responsibility for determining a decision following a proposal from the LEA is made up of the Further Education Funding Council which may have nothing whatever to do with, say, the primary school. Church authorities may have nothing to do with the proposal because there is no Church interest whatever. Governors of schools may have nothing to do with the proposal, in particular as the noble Baroness and noble Lords have rejected the idea of having all categories of schools represented on this body; and the LEA is involved only as a small part of the whole. That is the so-called local democratic body. It is unelected and is placed there by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord makes much of harmony and co-operation at local level. Where there is no dissension at local level these decisions do not even go to the Secretary of State. But where one is talking of a merger, a closure, the removal of a sixth form, the ending of selection—whatever it may be—almost always there is dissension. What is particularly distasteful about the proposals is that if the dissension is on the part of the governors of the school affected by the proposal, or if the dissension is on the part of the LEA that is outnumbered on the organisation committee, and it goes to the adjudicator that dissension counts for absolutely nothing because it is not part of the decision-making process. I do not believe that that is democratic. If they are to proceed with this undemocratic process the least the Government can put in place is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of an adjudicator, in particular if an adjudicator arrives at an alternative solution that is no part of the proposals of the LEA or the organisation committee but which has been dreamt up because it is one way of solving the problem. I do not believe that the Government can defend such an indefensible position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [ School organisation plans]:
moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 24, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The matters prescribed for the purposes of subsection (3) shall include the provision which the authority propose to make during the period in question for children with special educational needs.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) requiring that the draft plan shall not be approved by the school organisation committee, or referred to the adjudicator, if the representatives of the relevant diocese or dioceses of the Church of England for the area of the local education authority, or the equivalent representative of the Bishop of the Roman Catholic church concerned, are opposed to the proposal;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80. To some extent the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made matters clear in relation to this amendment. The amendment is concerned with denominational schools and touches on the complex issue of the organisation committee and adjudicator. Noble Lords will realise from earlier discussions at Report stage, that all sides agree on the important contribution that religious denominations, particularly the Anglicans and Roman Catholics in terms of size, have made to education over the past 100 or 200 years. But we also agree on the importance that many of our citizens attach to being able to attend a denominational school. Possibly that view is held more passionately by Roman Catholics than Anglicans, but it is certainly a view held by many people.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect denominational schools from possible closure. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made clear—I congratulate him in that regard given the many myths surrounding this subject—to say that school organisation committees have the right of veto is untrue. But one element of a school organisation committee can dissent and pass the matter on to the adjudicator who makes the decision. That is the key element.
The Church is to a degree confused about this. I quote a letter from Canon Hall, General Secretary of the Anglican Board of Education. He said—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was false—that,
"Such decision will be taken by school organisation committees, on which the Churches will have a veto".
It does not have a veto; it has the right to pass it on.
If the committee passes it on, as is obvious, the adjudicator has the final decision. It is acknowledged on all sides of the House that he could close a Church school. I said in Committee that this has caused trouble in Scotland. An LEA has argued that a school should be closed and Cardinal Winning has questioned the decision. If the Bill became law, there would be no right of appeal.
The amendment would give the Churches a genuine veto. In other words, what Canon Hall said about the Churches having a veto would be realised. Many of the dioceses are worried. The Diocese of Leicester has said:
"It would not be satisfactory for these arrangements to be left to regulations which can be changed by the Government at any time. Such arrangements should be laid out in the Bill".
I shall not enter into a discussion of the adjudicator's powers. He will obviously have to have the wisdom of Gamaliel and the virtue of an archangel. There will be no right of appeal. I am very much on the periphery of the Church. I have heard rumours—no doubt the right reverend Prelate will be able to tell me this—that the Churches have had discussions with the department and it has given the Churches guarantees on this point: denominational schools will not be closed without a guarantee of places being made available within easy access of the school.
If that guarantee has been given, it should be stated clearly before Parliament. I do not want to hear weasel words or talk about closed doors. Have the Churches been given a guarantee that if the adjudicator closes a Church school there will be denominational provision? If the Government have given that assurance they should place it on the face of the Bill or make a ministerial statement to Parliament.
The right reverend Prelate should be saying this rather than me. I have never been near being a bishop in the Church of England nor ever will be. Since 1870 the churches have co-operated with the Government. They have in effect had the right of veto because of the ownership of their land and buildings. They paid a great deal before the 1944 Act. That was without detriment to the co-operation. If the Government accepted my amendment and gave the Church the right of veto, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, acknowledged it would give—one of its leading officials thinks it has it, otherwise why would he write to The Times in that vein—they would not need to worry—if history is any guide—about co-operation. The right would not be used in an obstructive manner.
Unless the amendment is accepted, the adjudicator will be the judge of the closure of Church schools. My amendment would fulfil what seems to be the intention of the Government and the Churches. At least we would then know where we stood. I want to hear clearly from the Government Front Bench what assurance has been given to the Churches, so that the House might know the position. I beg to move.
My Lords, I was a little too sanguine when I said earlier today that we had no concerns left. There is at least one concern which has been raised by Amendment No. 80 moved so passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford. It has been said to me that the Churches are supporting the Government because of the concessions we have received. I need to make it clear that in every case where the Churches have a concern we have raised it. We have not been slow in making our concerns known. Where we have no concern, we have been content to leave the Bill unamended. We made public our very many concerns before the Bill was published, as a result of which the Bill was considerably reshaped. Since the publication of the Bill we have raised well over 50 issues: some through the Department for Education and Employment, some through amendments in Committee. In each case, after careful negotiation, our concerns on these issues have been met. Where there is a concern, we are therefore quite prepared to continue raising it.
I now refer to the concern raised through this amendment, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for moving it. He has sketched out the scenario perfectly clearly. If a school organisation committee should disagree over the closure, shall we say, of a Church school, the Church part of that committee has the power to refuse to accept that decision; but, as the noble Lord has made quite clear, the matter then goes to the adjudicator. I cannot comment on the letter written by Canon Hall to which he referred, since I have not seen a copy of it; but we are quite clear as to what the position is. When I spoke at the Committee stage in support of a similar amendment I said that my purpose in doing so was to attempt to draw out the factors to which an adjudicator would need to pay regard in reaching a decision. It seems to me that that is precisely the point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, this evening. What are the factors to which an adjudicator has to pay regard? We did talk earlier about the undertaking that the total proportion of denominational places in school provision should not be reduced. Might I ask whether that would be a consideration which an adjudicator would have to take into account? Would it be the case that guidance would require an adjudicator to take into account the need not to reduce the total provision of denominational places? If that were to be placed as a requirement on an adjudicator, then I think our difficulties in relation to closure would be very considerably reduced. I look forward to the Minister's response.My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. In the event of a whole LEA ballot for the demise of selective education in grammar schools taking place and being successful, and reorganisation plans are drawn up, does the LEA determine those reorganisation plans? In a county like Kent or an area like Trafford it would have to be a very substantial plan. That is the first question: who would determine? Would the LEA determine it and then go to the Secretary of State, or would it go to the organisation committee and then on through the adjudicator process?
Secondly, if one or more of the schools in the area is a school with a religious ethos and it has to go as part of the reorganisation because it is not viable as a non-selective comprehensive school, and therefore it either has to be merged or taken out altogether, what protection is there for retaining denominational choice in that area, if there is not another school of the same denomination within travelling distance, which is unlikely to be the case? What protection is there for that? What right does a denominational school have for making certain that the denominational preference is retained, if not enhanced, in the process of reorganisation following a successful ballot to end selective education in a whole LEA ballot area?11 p.m.
My Lords, in introducing this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has acknowledged that it does in fact provide for a veto. It does not just provide for a veto; it provides for a veto at a very early stage in the process. It is still not clear to me whether the noble Lord understands the relationship between the preparation of a school organisation plan and the publication of specific proposals.
In discussing previous amendments, we have talked about the publication of specific proposals for the alteration of a school's status, the future of schools, or whatever, which require and have always required statutory procedures to be gone through. But the preparation of the school organisation plan for presentation to the school organisation committee is the responsibility of the local education authority. The amendment states:Therefore, the amendment is clear in stating that the Churches would have the power to prevent the completion by the local education authority of a school organisation plan, whether or not there are any proposals for statutory changes and, if there are to be such proposals, before the statutory procedures are embarked upon. In that sense, it is not only a veto but an early veto. The school organisation plan will help by setting a context against which decisions will be made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about the medium-term plan produced in the authority of which she was a member. The school organisation plan might look very similar to that and it might be useful both in identifying where proposals might be required and in reaching decisions on the proposals when they come forward. But it does not replace individual proposals. Nor would we expect it to make reference to individual schools. If a conclusion is reached within a school organisation plan that, for example, there is a need to add places in a particular area, proposals will still be required where the addition of places is significant. Those proposals will come to the school organisation committee. It is not at all clear to me that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has understood that distinction."requiring that the draft plan shall not be approved by the school organisation committee, or referred to the adjudicator, if the representatives [of the Churches] are opposed to the proposal".
My Lords, perhaps with the permission of the House I shall be allowed to give an explanation. I am prepared to accept the criticisms of the noble Lord as regards the wording of my amendment. If necessary, I will come back at Third Reading with a revised version. The noble Lord is always helpful over my amendments. However, I am concerned about a school closure. If a school closure is put before a school organisation committee and the diocesan representatives disagree, I am opposing the matter being left entirely to the adjudicator. That is my position and I am prepared to reword the amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his assistance.
My Lords, I thought that that was the case. I am glad that we are clear about where we stand.
If we take what the noble Lord means rather that what the amendment says, we do not accept that it is right for one of the partners to be given an absolute veto over the decisions of the committee in the way that the amendment proposes. There must be a way of reaching a resolution in respect of which there is consensus. That is the whole purpose of the school organisation committee exercise. The Church groups will have the same opportunity as all other groups to register their views and should have no greater powers of veto than other groups if we are to maintain and continue the existing balance of powers and responsibilities. I will now qualify that statement. The House will be aware that in the context of class sizes we have recently made a commitment that our intention to reduce infant class sizes will not lead to a reduction in the relative numbers of denominational places within an authority. In the same way, the guidance we shall issue to adjudicators to assist them in the difficult task of reaching decisions will make it clear that where the relevant Church group on the committee has voted against closure of a denominational school an adjudicator, in taking the final decision, shall not reduce the proportion of denominational places within the authority. That goes slightly further than the "take into account" phrase which the right reverent Prelate used, and I hope he will agree that it is in accordance with a letter which my noble friend sent to him yesterday. I hope he will agree that it meets the points which he raised in particular. Therefore, that does not mean that we can accept this amendment. It would disrupt the balance of partnership between local providers, a partnership that we are trying to maintain. But with the commitment that I have given to including in guidance to adjudicators that the proportion of denominational places within the authority should not be reduced, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will feel able not only to withdraw the amendment but not to put forward a better amendment next time because the points required by the Churches have been met. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about grammar schools. Let us discuss those when we reach our discussions on that. We must not assume that a closure would necessarily flow from a ballot on grammar schools. I really believe that it is better to discuss the issue fully in context rather than dealing with it now.My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assistance in drafting my amendments. The problem will arise if no consensus is reached on the school organisation committee. Secondly, denominational schools are extremely different from other schools in that situation since there are many people in the country who feel passionately about attending their denominational schools. It may be that Roman Catholics feel more passionately about that than Anglicans, but certainly many Roman Catholic families feel extremely strongly about that.
I am rather mistrustful of the promise which the noble Lord gave to the right reverend Prelate but I shall look very closely at what he said. The Minister said that denominational places would be provided in a local authority area. I think of a county like Kent, which is enormous. Perhaps the Minister will add, which would please me somewhat more, that denominational places will be provided within travelling distance. If a denominational school were closed in, for example, Maidstone or Canterbury, it may be necessary to travel 40 or 50 miles, because sometimes those schools do not exist nearby. Therefore, I ask the Minister to meet the spirit as well as the letter of the law. It is late at night and I shall consider this matter. I do not promise not to come back on Third Reading. I may do. However, I shall read what the Minister said and I ask him to send me a copy of the letter that was sent to the right reverend Prelate. I am a free negotiator. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [ Proposals for establishment or alteration of community, foundation or voluntary school]:
moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 25, line 31, after ("community") insert (",voluntary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 195. The genesis for these amendments is the representations that we have received from the Steiner Waldorf community and, in particular, the debate that was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in Committee on the amendments which he put forward at that time.
The other point I make is that another aim of these amendments is to assist the Government by providing them with new powers. I shall briefly present the amendments and present some arguments for them.
Amendment No. 81 inserts the word "voluntary" in Clause 27(1). The effect of that would be to give the LEA power to bring forward proposals for a new voluntary school where the people who would normally promote such a new voluntary school do not necessarily have the expertise nor the resources to scramble through the bureaucracy of education legislation.
Amendment No. 82 amends Clause 27 to give authority to the promoters of a new school to ask the Secretary of State to sanction an alternative curriculum to the national curriculum. Amendment No. 195, which is an amendment to the Education Act 1996, provides that an alternative curriculum to the national curriculum may be promulgated by regulation and applied to certain designated schools.
In researching the background to these amendments, it became very clear to me that the Government have the power to promulgate a single national curriculum and that they also have the power to disapply it or to apply it with some modifications. However, the Government do not have the power to promulgate an alternative curriculum to the national curriculum.
While the key purpose of these amendments is to provide a mechanism for schools such as the Steiner Waldorf schools to become part of the state system and receive some public money while retaining their distinctive school ethos and curriculum, there is also another aspect that I should like to highlight; namely, the saving of public expenditure. I shall give the House two examples. The first is an existing Steiner school with, say, 400 pupils. If it gets into financial difficulties, it would have to close, leaving 400 extra pupils to be educated totally at taxpayers' expense. However, if it could become a voluntary school which received some money from the state and some from the Steiner community, the schooling of the children would be undisturbed and public money would be saved.
My other example is the development of new voluntary Steiner schools. I believe that there is a significant demand for such schools throughout the country. The provision of some public funds would actually reduce the number of children attending state schools totally funded by taxpayers. I hope that these amendments will overcome the technical flaws identified by the Government in Committee and that they will build on their acceptance of diversity in education.
In conclusion, I should also point out that we have heard about the development of EAZs and the fact that the national curriculum might be disapplied. I hope, therefore, that the Government recognise that, by accepting my amendments, they would have a mechanism to ensure that an alternative curriculum within those zones could in fact be promulgated by them rather than having a situation where no curriculum was promulgated, thus leaving things in limbo. I beg to move.
My Lords, I should like to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The Government appear to have buried all their past prejudices and to have moved into the area of pluralism; indeed, that is certainly the case with education action zones, although they have a blind spot about GM schools, which is such a pity.
I believe the point that the noble Lord is trying to make is a general one for pluralism but the specific hook upon which it is hung is the Steiner Waldorf schools. Here we have a group of schools attaining comparable results at GCSE and at A-level. It seems to me that we should worry less about the route to that if at the end of the day the attainment is at least comparable and in some cases better than many of our own schools. We ought to be open minded about them coming into the mainstream sector. Further, they do have something offer. I believe that they have a curriculum which is conducive to some young people who are for one reason or another not suited to and are misfits within mainstream education. Again, we should be looking at innovative ways of tackling that kind of issue. Therefore, I should like to support a blow for pluralism.My Lords, I also rise in an effort to try to persuade the Government to look more closely at the work of the Steiner Waldorf schools. I spoke in Committee on the matter, and I have experience of schools in the constituency that I used to represent. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just mentioned the considerable success achieved by these schools, particularly as regards children who have difficulties fitting into other schools. The Minister talked earlier tonight—this has been echoed by other noble Lords—about partnership and innovation. It is clear that these schools are successful. It is not as if they are asking for a curriculum that is not approved. They are saying the curriculum must be approved, but that it may be a different kind of curriculum. Judging from the response we obtained from the Government on a previous occasion, I imagine they will not be willing to go that far. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments, they will establish a dialogue with the Steiner Waldorf Foundation to participate in that foundation's innovative and exciting developments in education? I believe that has occurred for a number of years. I hope the Government will consider establishing a dialogue with the foundation.
11.15 p.m.
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Monkswell and echo what has been said on the Liberal Benches. I believe these amendments take further the discussion we had at Committee stage. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address the question of schools within the school system that deliver the equivalent of the targets of key stages of the national curriculum but within a different timescale and in a different form.
It seems to me that there is an important issue here in terms of pluralism within the system. I draw to my noble friend's attention, as I did in Committee, the study on the aims, methods and curricula of Steiner Waldorf education edited by Martyn Rawson, and in particular to the final chapter of that work which compares in detail the mathematics curriculum, the science curriculum and the language curriculum of the various key stages as delivered within the Steiner Waldorf school system and as delivered within the national curriculum. I believe that proves conclusively that the equivalent of the national curriculum is being delivered. It is time that we moved on from a prescriptive form of national curriculum. As we have already heard, the department may consider it appropriate to do that in certain areas. Surely here is an internationally recognised school system of high standing, backed by its own specific approach in terms of educational skills, teacher training and delivery and strong parental support. Here we have a strong, pluralistic movement within the school system. Surely that should be recognised. I echo what has been said about the need to have a dialogue between the education department and this foundation to ensure that the benefits of this form of education are recognised within the state system and that they become part of best practice which is available throughout a genuinely pluralistic education system. I hope that the Minister can make some positive comments on this matter. I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment.My Lords, I am afraid that I shall disappoint my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was right in predicting that would be the case. That is probably because she understands what these amendments seek to achieve. I shall discuss that in a moment. In saying that, I do not in any way want to suggest that Steiner schools do not have a contribution to make, but they are independent schools outside the state system. I shall certainly take back to the department the suggestion that there might be some dialogue with them. Perhaps that is something we can pursue.
I am afraid these amendments represent an attempt to change radically the arrangements that this Bill seeks to put into place. They would affect both the framework of schools and the curriculum taught within them. The voluntary sector originated from independent and, for the most part but not exclusively, religious promoters establishing schools. LEAs have never been able to establish voluntary schools. This Bill continues that tradition. Each of the categories of the new school framework will have distinctive characteristics. Characteristic to the voluntary category will be that new schools can be established only by independent promoters, not by LEAs as these amendments propose. There are good practical reasons for that. The voluntary category will, as now, consist of schools whose premises are owned by foundations. Having a foundation will be a condition of entry to the category, and there will be two types of foundation: existing private law foundations, whose trustees own part or all of a school's premises, and new statutory group foundations, which Clause 21 of the Bill enables schools to set up. It would not be right for LEAs to use their resources to endow a private law foundation. As for group foundations, those will be voluntary associations of existing schools. LEAs will have the power to establish community and foundation schools. They will give them enough flexibility to secure the supply of school places in their area. There is no need to enable them to establish voluntary schools. Moreover, it does not make sense for them to do so. Turning to the amendments which refer to alternative curriculums, the national curriculum sets the framework for teaching in maintained schools. It defines children's entitlement to a rich and varied education, and is therefore central in determining their educational experience. It shapes parents', teachers' and employers' expectations of the skills and knowledge that children will acquire during their school years; and it sets the framework for the Government's drive to raise standards in schools. The Government's position is therefore to regard the national curriculum as a central plank in our campaign to raise educational standards, to uphold its place at the statutory core of the school curriculum and to adjust it where necessary to help schools play their part in the campaign. The Government's actions are aimed at making the national curriculum more inclusive and at tailoring it to changing needs in education. The national curriculum remains our benchmark. My noble friend's amendments, however, by seeking to give equal status to other curriculums yet to be specified—he explained that he is applying these amendments to Steiner schools, but they could be picked up by other independent schools—would undermine the place of the national curriculum, with the guarantees of breadth, balance and rigour that it provides. Regretfully, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has shown that there is wide-ranging support on all sides of the House for the idea of pluralism within our education system.
I perfectly understand that my Amendment No. 81 is probably not very sensible, given my noble friend's explanation. However, I would point out that Amendment No. 195 gives an extra power to the Government to recognise an alternative curriculum. They do not have such a power at present. The Government can only disapply the national curriculum, apply it, or make modifications to it. They have no power to promulgate a different curriculum from the national curriculum. I wonder whether the Government might recognise that fact and think that there may be an occasion in the next few years when they might see it as beneficial to have the power to promulgate a different curriculum. We do not know what changes will happen within the education system over the next few years. We have the introduction of education action zones, and there are other factors. It would be a pity if we had to wait some years for a relevant education Act before the Government could take powers to promulgate an alternative curriculum. I recognise the willingness of the Government to communicate and have dialogue with the Steiner movement in particular. However, I hope that they recognise that having the power to promulgate an alternative curriculum could be useful for them in the future. It may be that they will never have to use it; but it would be available in the event that it was useful to do so.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 29 [ Notice by governing body to discontinue foundation or voluntary school]:
moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 29, line 40, leave out subsection (14).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [ Statutory proposals: procedure and implementation]:
moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 129, line 8, after ("prescribe") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 84 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 to 88, 125, 126, 198, 202, 208, 215 to 219 and 222 through to 232. These are technical drafting amendments and are specific changes suggested not by Ministers or the department but by the parliamentary draftsman. Clearly, in putting together a Bill of this size there will inevitably be drafting amendments which make the Bill easier for the reader, introducing cross-references or clarifications. This group of amendments all fall squarely into that description.
I can assure noble Lords that these amendments contain no matters of policy at all. They are the result of a professional suggestion to improve a professional job of work. Despite any hesitations that noble Lords may have, they do not themselves raise policy issues. I beg to move.
My Lords, I rise simply to make this point. The Bill was printed last November/December and we are now heading for the end of the Session yet we are still receiving large tranches of amendments. Is this positively the last group of technical amendments?
I know that these amendments have been blamed on counsel. However, my understanding is that counsel drafts all amendments and we have had large groupings on every single day that we have met on this in Committee, with technical amendments that have been afterthoughts, corrections and a rewriting of the Bill. It seems to me that we have had a surfeit of amendments and I wondered whether this was the last we could expect.My Lords, I believe that during the rest of Report stage further technical amendments will be needed. However, these are of a different character to the ones that have been introduced elsewhere, in that the majority of them are amendments which reflect new cross-references as the Bill passes through its various stages. Indeed, right at the end of the Bill I am sure that parliamentary counsel will require us to have further cross-references and clarifications, but these are not of the same class of technical amendment that we dealt with earlier today and at earlier stages of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [ Rationalisation of school places]:
moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 88:
Page 142, line 19, after ("prescribe") insert ("the").
Page 143, line 32, after ("prescribe") insert ("the").
Page 143, line 40, leave out ("the case") and insert ("any case where the proposals are for the alteration").
Page 145, line 29, leave out ("the case") and insert ("any case where the proposals are for the alteration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.