House Of Lords
Tuesday, 18th July 2000.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby
Lord Scott Of Foscote
The Right Honourable Sir Richard Rashleigh Folliott Scott, Knight, Vice-Chancellor, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baron Scott of Foscote, of Foscote in the County of Buckinghamshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Browne-Wilkinson and the Lord Woolf.
Uk Population Growth Pressures
2.42 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
By approximately how many people the population of the United Kingdom has increased since 1st January 1960; and how many square miles of countryside have been used for (a) housing and (b) industrial development since that date.
My Lords, between 1960 and 1998, the latest years for which estimates are available, the population of the United Kingdom increased by approximately 6.9 million people, or 13 per cent. Over a similar period the number of households in the UK increased by 47 per cent. Figures on land changing to residential and industrial uses are available for England only from 1985 to 1994. On average over that period, about 3,000 hectares per annum changed from rural to residential use and 550 hectares per annum to industrial use.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information, within its limitation. Why cannot he give, even approximately, the area of land developed for housing and industrial uses in the past 40 years? Those figures are available. Why cannot he give them? Is not the very large increase in population in the past 40 years—the Minister said 6.9 million but I believe it is more—due not so much to the high birth rate but, to a great extent, immigration? Are not the Government fully entitled to the maximum support in controlling asylum seekers who are not genuine?
My Lords, I do not really believe that the relatively small figures for asylum seekers have much effect on the figures. It is true that net immigration to this country has been on the positive side since the early eighties. However, the figures for growth of households reflect internal, domestic and demographic trends rather than international ones. The pressure of international immigration has been almost entirely on London rather than the rural areas to which I thought the noble Lord referred.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the current Social Trends, the increase in population by net inward migration since 1991 is 93,000 per annum; less than enough to fill Wembley stadium in the days of its glory? Does he agree that the increase in population is primarily a result of people living longer, among whom I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on being a distinguished example?
My Lords, I join the noble Earl in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and many others who help contribute to the population increase by surviving, and congratulate others who have contributed in other ways. The noble Earl is correct. The contribution of net immigration has been relatively small. I believe that the figure about which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, inquires is the differential between the growth of households and the growth of population. It is certainly true that with smaller households the pressure on housing and therefore, to some extent land, has changed due to internal demographic factors.
My Lords, perhaps I may declare a minor interest before asking this question. Does the Minister agree that what used to be described as "the march of bricks and mortar over the fair plains of England" is more responsible for the destruction of the environment than agriculture has ever been?
My Lords, there has been an increase in urbanisation but it is not as great as is sometimes alleged. Both residential and agricultural developments contribute to environmental problems in different ways. We need to ensure that environmental standards and the impact of all developments are taken into account in our planning decisions.
My Lords, can the Minister tell us the proportion or quantity of brownfield sites and redevelopment? The Question refers to the countryside. Presumably his Answer relates to brand new greenfield sites. Is that correct?
My Lords, not necessarily. On balance, the take of rural land will have been on greenfield sites. There has been a net increase in the green belt over the past few years. The take of rural land for development has been a relatively small part of the increase in new housing. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.
My Lords, is there now in place a complete register of brownfield sites available for development in urban areas made by local authorities? If so, what proportion of development takes place on those sites?
My Lords, local authorities are being asked to draw up a comprehensive register. The present level of development is approximately 50 per cent on strictly brownfield sites, although there may be other urban developments. It is the intention of the Government that that figure should be raised to 60 per cent by 2008.
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the CPRE map of silence in the countryside, or rather the lack of it, which shows where one can be without hearing loud noise, mostly from motor cars? Does he agree that in south-east England the growth of road traffic has probably had one of the worst effects on the environment?
My Lords, it is certainly true that stress from development in the South East has been greater than in other areas of the country and traffic levels have been higher. Nevertheless, there are still quiet and beautiful places in the South East well away from traffic and other noise.
My Lords, I too should declare an interest in this subject before asking the noble Lord whether he feels that the present VAT regime on greenfield development sites, contrasted with the treatment of urban sites and existing buildings, will encourage greenfield development as opposed to brownfield development or indeed redevelopment of existing urban areas. Do the Government feel that the time has come to readjust that position?
My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend the Chancellor is keeping that matter under review, along with other aspects of VAT.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the factors that has made necessary the increase in housing is not the fortunate one already mentioned but the unfortunate one of the break-up of households? Sadly, that is having an equally potent effect. Can the Minister say whether the Government have in mind any steps which might arrest that unfortunate modern tendency?
My Lords, it is certainly the case that the number of single person households, for various reasons, has increased. Those reasons include the break-up of marriages and the split of relationships into two. But that is not the total explanation. The Government have indicated a number of measures in their social and employment policies which support families staying together. There is a secular trend—if I can use that word in the statistical sense in this regard—which suggests both here and in other countries that there will be an increase in single person households irrespective of the degree of break-up of stable relationships.
European Air Traffic Services
2.52 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the scope of the European Union High Level Group on a Single European Sky, which is to present its final report in the first half of 2001.
My Lords, the scope of the High Level Group of civil and military officials from EU states is to study the main causes for the growing delays in skies over Europe and how they might be overcome. Its interim findings point towards the need for air traffic services to be more responsive to the needs of customers, less constrained by governments and to work within the framework of strong, independent planning and regulation to make the best use of the air space. The high level group is expected to present its proposals by the end of 2000.
My Lords—
No!
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Air traffic delays are a growing problem which can only be resolved on a European basis. But two questions arise. First, we in this country are clearly now forcing the pace on a commercial basis. How does that tie in with the intergovernmental and regulatory agenda of the high level group? Secondly, rationalising the number of air traffic control centres in Europe down to single figures will sound like job losses to a number of people. If that is so, does my noble friend agree that social dialogue is very important in looking at that matter both at national and European level?
My Lords, the Commission wants a single sky initiative following serious aviation delays last year. The high level group is concentrating its efforts on improved performance through co-ordination of the existing, somewhat fragmented systems across Europe. The inefficiency is caused by the large number of control centres, largely dictated by land frontiers. It seems inevitable that we must move towards consolidating air traffic services in Europe through a process of gradual rationalisation. That will take many years to complete but there are signs that it is under way. It will provide opportunities to bring commercial expertise and resources while safeguarding safety and the public interest. The rapid growth in air travel and related developments are likely to produce in Europe opportunities for a powerful British-based NATS company. The prospect is clearly unsettling for staff and it is desirable for management to involve staff as frequently as possible in the process of change. The high level group has been in dialogue with European controllers and its proposals reflect their concerns. The controllers are very much part of the solution and our skies will be better managed with their co-operation.
My Lords, I apologise to the House and the noble Lord for my earlier intervention.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the single European sky will cover NATO aircraft in British airspace and in British bases? If so, do the Government believe that our US allies will be entirely happy if their aircraft are thus subject to the brilliant strategists in Brussels?My Lords, NATS and the Ministry of Defence have always enjoyed a good working relationship at managerial and operational levels. They provide a joint and integrated service to the aviation industry. That will continue post-PPP. The Ministry of Defence relationship works well as both organisations are at present in the public sector. However, when the PPP is in place it is important that NATS and the MoD have a proper contractual relationship. They are currently negotiating a contract, which should be concluded in the next few weeks, and I am sure it will take account of the issues the noble Lord raises.
My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the number and quality of expressions of interest that have been shown from potential strategic partners in the NATS PPP?
My Lords, we are pleased with the quality and level of response and the expressions of interest from potential strategic partners for the NATS PPP. We will have to evaluate those further and decide which might be taken forward in the process. We do not want to release the names of those involved, for reasons of confidentiality, though some have already declared. We should finish the evaluation exercise and hope to be in a position to pre-qualify bidders in a matter of weeks. We intend to complete the PPP—after bidders put in their preliminary offers in September—by the end of March 2001. Those noble Lords who were up until 2.30 this morning will know that the progress of the Transport Bill through your Lordships' House should support us in that aim.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the principal causes of delay in European skies is the fact that some countries—notably France—still prohibit civil aircraft over vast swathes of their airspace? What representations are the Government making to those countries to ask them to minimise the areas involved?
My Lords, as I said, this will be a gradual process. We are in discussions with our French counterparts on this issue, as on many others in the field of transport. The exercise in which we are engaged is an attempt to try to rationalise both commercial and military use of the skies. There have certainly been delays in Europe in countries such as France. The delays in the European countries are running at twice the level of those in the UK. We obviously had a set-back with the problems we experienced in June, but in general over the past few years our air traffic services have had only half the delays experienced by mainland Europe.
My Lords, can the Minister clarify some of the stories in the press recently about a major breakdown in the contracting process for new equipment for NATS? Can he tell us what effect that will have on the need to modernise our part of the European airspace traffic control system?
My Lords, one of the reasons we want to take forward the PPP solution for air traffic services is to involve expertise from other quarters, particularly from the private sector. We have had experiences which are regrettable in the development of the Swanwick centre, which is some six years delayed and very much over budget. We had delays in the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. Again, that involved difficulties with budgets and with project management. And the most recent example of the problem we had with the development of a computer system in Scotland underscores the need to try to bring in a new way of making things happen more quickly in the air traffic services area. The NAT'S management is now very much behind the initiative. We look forward to a solution to the problem that was identified in Scotland in good time for it to meet the requirements of the system for which it is being designed.
Helicopter Zd576: Mull Of Kintyre Accident
3 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any doubts about the cause of the accident involving helicopter ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
My Lords, the investigation into this tragic accident was very thorough. It involved the independent Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the aircraft components manufacturers, as well as MoD specialists. All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry did establish that the Chinook was travelling too fast and too low and, crucially, outside both visual and instrument flight rules. However, I assure the noble Lord, that Her Majesty's Government are ready to consider any new evidence; but, without such new evidence, it is very difficult to justify reopening the inquiry.
My Lords, I was going to thank the Minister for her Answer, but my Question has not been answered. The facts that the noble Baroness just gave to the House are well known. The question is whether there is any doubt. Is the Minister aware—indeed, will she accept—that the regulations of the Royal Air Force that were in force at the time of the accident required that, in order to find dead pilots guilty of gross negligence—I quote from the regulations—there must be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" about the cause of the accident? That is why I tabled this Question. I should be grateful to receive an Answer.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, knows, I am aware of the regulations; indeed, we have discussed them in your Lordships' House before. Moreover, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me telling the House that both he and I have also discussed the matter privately. I must point out to the noble Lord that, under the regulations, it is the reviewing officers who must be in no doubt. Ministers, properly, are not a part of that process. Those who investigated the accident at the most senior level examined literally hundreds of pages of evidence. They had the expertise to make the judgment and were in no doubt about their conclusion.
If the noble Lord presses me personally, he knows—I have already said it, so I will say it again—that I find his Question philosophically impossible to answer. However, I can tell him that I believe that I have been honestly briefed. Sadly, I also believe that the conclusions of the board of inquiry were right.My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, before being released into service, this aircraft was fully checked out and properly tested?
My Lords, I can confirm that the aircraft was serviceable. The noble Lord may be thinking of an incident that occurred some years before in relation to the FADEC system, which has been the cause of some concern not only in your Lordships' House but also elsewhere. I must say that the FADEC software, which was the subject of litigation, was software in a test aircraft that was a preproduction version. It was comprehensively re-designed prior to the introduction of the Mark 2 Chinook into service in 1994. I hope that that covers the noble Lord's point.
My Lords, does it give the Minister any cause for concern that the Secretary of State at the time, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, now thinks that there ought to be another look at this accident and at the findings of the inquiry?
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that I have had enormous concerns over this matter. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone with a conscience, knowing what is at stake for the families of the two pilots involved, would have anything other than concern. But Sir Malcolm expressed his concern some two-and-half years ago when he said that he and Ministers in his administration might not have been fully briefed about certain aspects of the crash. The MoD's Permanent Secretary wrote to him at that time and invited him to come back into the department, if he wished, to refresh his memory. I understand that Sir Malcolm did not repeat those concerns when he met the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary last month.
My Lords, I do not doubt that those who have consistently sought to have the findings of negligence set aside in this most tragic of accidents do so for the most honourable of reasons. But, is it not the case that the board faced a choice between two presumptions? Either the crew were able to follow one of the safe options as they approached the cloud-covered Mull, but failed to do so and were negligent; or the crew could not maintain safe flight because they faced an unidentifiable emergency so serious that they could not discharge their primary responsibility for the safety of their passengers and the helicopter but which left no trace of having happened? Can the noble Baroness confirm that there is no new evidence that could affect the key conclusion of the board that the crew did have control of the aircraft up to the point of impact?
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for putting the position so clearly and, if I may say so, from a position of unique authority on these issues. I can tell the House that I have not seen any new evidence that would prompt us to revisit the conclusions of the board of inquiry. However, that is not to say that no such new evidence exists. I fully accept that. That is why I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the unambiguous terms that he is pressing me to do.
However, I can tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I am able to repeat an offer that was made only last week by MoD officials to the father of one of the pilots involved. If there are serious doubts still remaining, the evidence should be collected together as one body of evidence—if it is new evidence that those who are concerned believe they have—and presented to the MoD. As the Prime Minister has said, the MoD will analyse such evidence thoroughly with, I hope, a degree of compassion, given what I know is the real concern of the families involved, and will provide as full a response as possible.Bowman Radio Project
3.7 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the Bowman project to provide in service an effective replacement for the Army's Clansman range of radios that is both secure and resistant to electronic warfare.
My Lords, the Bowman radio will incorporate electronic protection measures and will provide the Armed Forces with a secure communications system. It is one of our highest priority equipment projects. Archer Communications Systems Ltd, the prime contractor for Bowman, recently submitted its bid which we are considering, along with information that has been received following alternative fall-back studies that we commissioned. We are currently considering the way ahead on this very important project. We hope to make an announcement soon.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does the noble Baroness recall her delight in reminding the House of the previous government's efforts over seven years in this respect? However, does she agree that, in three years, she has achieved nothing herself, apart from a budget reduction in the Bowman project that must equate to reduced equipment, or reduced equipment capabilities? She has ordered the personal role radio, but does she agree that that is only a short-range radio with none of the Bowman complexities? When will the noble Baroness make a decision on this matter?
My Lords, if I may use the colloquial term, I must say to the noble Earl that that is "really going it a bit". I have to remind noble Lords that this project was under way for nine years under the previous administration and that, so far, I have not yet been the Minister for Defence Procurement for one year. However, I should point out to the noble Earl that it is really a matter for the previous administration to describe why they failed to meet the in-service date of 1995.
I have told the noble Earl that I expect to make an announcement on the project soon. By that, I mean very soon indeed. I hope that that might be by way of a Statement. I also hope that, on this occasion—unlike the last time when we offered the party opposite a Statement on the Type 45—the party opposite would like to hear that Statement.My Lords, I thought that my noble friend made it clear that it was accepted that the former Conservative government had a slippage, which this Government inherited, of 75 months. Does the noble Baroness accept that there has been a further slippage of 24 months in the three years that this Government have been in power, for which I can find no explanation? Does the noble Baroness further accept that Archer Communications Systems Ltd produced a submission for £4 billion, which was double the amount of money available? The project has been brought back into budget; what has suffered as a result?
My Lords, I certainly accept that when this Government came into office the declared slippage was some 75 months, which was found to have been something of an underestimate. Since that time, there has had to be an adjustment to that. If the noble Lord cares to read the National Audit Office report, he may find some interesting judgments there about how Smart Procurement, which this Government have introduced, might have prevented the delays because the project would have been better assessed at the outset and some of the risks involved with it would have been better identified. The noble Lord will find that at paragraph 327 on page 47 of the National Audit Office report.
I hope to be able to make an announcement on this project soon. I hope that then we shall be able to discuss the detail of what has happened in the recent past. I shall be open about that. I hope that the party opposite will also be open about its period in office. However, what is important is that we shall discuss the way forward.My Lords, how does the noble Baroness intend to ensure that, with the fantastic technological developments in this field, when Bowman eventually comes into service it is not already out of date?
My Lords, of course that is one of the crucial issues and one of the reasons why the Smart Procurement initiatives have been designed to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to build into the system—after all, this is not the only system where such technological advances are of such enormous importance—to enable us to adjust and have in the specification sufficient room to make those adjustments and to give ourselves sufficient headroom for possible future developments in this rapidly moving area of technology.
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—
My Lords—
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness the Leader of the House think that if questions and answers were shorter, Question Time would be much more fun and many more questions could he asked by people who want to ask them but cannot do so?
My Lords, the simple answer to that is "Yes".
My Lords, does the Minister—
Lord Marlesford!
Business
3.13 p.m.
My Lords, after consideration of Commons amendments to the Learning and Skills Bill, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Before we begin proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill this afternoon, I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that a revised Marshalled List has been issued. In the original Marshalled List some amendments were numbered wrongly. It is crucial to ensure that we are all working from the revised list. The revised Marshalled List is headed helpfully, "Revised Marshalled List".My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, accused the Opposition of having turned down a Statement on the Type 45 Frigates. It is, however, always open to the Government to insist on having a Statement read.
My Lords, that is absolutely correct, but it has become the convention that if the Opposition do not require the Statement, it is not normally taken.
Business Of The House: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No too stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages tomorrow.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Learning And Skills Bill Hl
3.14 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blackstone.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
[The page and line refer to Bill 96 as first printed for the Commons.]
Commons Amendments
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")
2 Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)
3 Clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")
4 Clause 5, page 3, line 41, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")
5 Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) institutions within the further or higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992) which provide or propose to provide secondary education (other than post-16 education);")
6 Page 4, line 3, after ("undertaking") insert ("or proposing to undertake")
7 Page 4, line 20, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")
8 Clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out ("providing post-16 education or training") and insert ("to whom financial resources are provided")
9 Page 4, line 32, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")
10 Page 4, line 47, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")
11 Page 5, line 1, leave out ("post-16")
12 Clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out ("and "maintained school" have") and insert ("has")
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 en bloc.
In speaking to these amendments, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 16 to 21, 30 to 41, 45 to 50, 195, 196 and 202 to 204 and to the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 20A. This large group of amendments consists largely of minor technical amendments in respect of the learning and skills council for England and the national council for education and training for Wales. Given the weight of business before us today, I do not propose to go into the detail of the minor amendments in order that I can deal with the small number of rather more important points. Throughout the passage of the Bill through this House there was concern about the meaning of "disproportionate expenditure". There was no disagreement about the policy that should inform its meaning. We entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said at Third Reading of the Bill on 23rd March that the cost of the provision should not be,This concern was expressed in respect of both sixth-form provision and for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. We entirely accept this point. Incidentally, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 2 which should state,"the total guide to the operation of the councils".—[Official Report, 23/3/00; cols. 416.]
Amendment No. 2 simply removes the amendment added at Third Reading in this House in order to address its technical defects and replace it with a similar provision. Amendment No. 1 expresses in plain words that expenditure by the LSC must not be considered disproportionate simply where it is more expensive than comparable provision. We believe that this deals fairly, squarely and in a non-partisan manner with the concerns that were expressed. Amendments Nos. 3, 30 and 31 make the equivalent additions in Clause 3 for the LSC's adult duty and Clauses 31 and 32 for the CETW's main duties. We have been aware, not least through Liberal Democrat amendments, for which we thank them, that some people have been confused not to find reference in the Bill to the LSC's wider remit, as set out in the Learning to Succeed White Paper for workforce development. Such, perhaps, is the nature of primary legislation: we had tested and were content that the Bill as it stood provided for the full range of the LSC's functions. However, we have been keen to respond to the concerns expressed. Amendment No. 20 provides that, at the national level, the LSC's strategy must set out how the LSC intends to develop the skills of people in the workforce. This reflects in the legislation what we have already set out explicitly in the LSC prospectus—that the LSC will have an important contribution to make to workforce development issues within its overall remit. I shall return to this amendment in due course, once the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has had a chance to set out what lies behind her amendment to it. In the meantime, I simply say that I shall be able to offer her considerable assurances about how the LSC will work with higher education institutions in taking forward its workforce development proposals. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment on the basis of those assurances. Amendment No. 201 is the result of a commitment I made during debate at Third Reading in this House to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He said then that he was concerned with the,"Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)".
Noble Lords may remember that I set out at that time the value that the Government place on enrichment and personal development activities, especially for young people, and the personal, family and community benefits they bring with them. I suggested that we might make the point more explicit by specifying that the young people's learning committee must advise the LSC on such issues. Amendment No. 201 will secure that. Its composition draws on the wording favoured by the noble Lord, whom I thank for his interest and commitment. I am not sure whether he is in his place. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are the results of further deliberations by the National Assembly for Wales following debates on the Bill both here and in another place. The National Assembly has concluded that statutory planning requirements should be a part of the post-16 reforms for Wales. Amendment No. 48 therefore introduces a new clause which imposes a duty on the CETW to submit to the National Assembly a plan for each of its financial years. A similar duty is placed on the LSC under Clause 15. The CETW's plan must be approved by the National Assembly, which will have the power to require alterations. The new clause contained in Amendment No. 49 places a duty on the CETW to prepare a strategy which is equivalent to the duty on the LSC under Clause 16. The National Assembly may require the council to make alterations to the strategy. In this way the amendment provides for a valuable forward planning measure for the council as well as for the National Assembly to bring its overarching priorities to bear on the council's remit. As I said in opening, in the light of the need to make progress—including towards groups about which I suspect noble Lords may have a good deal to say later—I do not propose to deal with the further technical amendments. I should mention also that I have already supplied a lengthy note of explanation of all the government amendments to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. I hope it goes without saying, however, that if noble Lords would find helpful an explanation of any particular amendment in this group with which I have not already dealt, I shall be happy to give one. I beg to move. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12.—(Baroness Blackstone.)"desirability of having on the face of the Bill a better balance between the duty of the learning and skills council to provide vocational education—education for work—and providing a broader category of education—education for life".—[Official Report, 23/3/00; col. 414.]
My Lords, as the proposer of the original amendment, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government for accepting the principle of my amendment on Clause 2. I am delighted—as are others—that the Government have seen fit to give support to school sixth forms, which is what the amendment is all about. As the noble Baroness knows, they cost more compared to colleges but they give more in pastoral help. I am extremely grateful that, for the first time during my time in this House, the Government have accepted an amendment of mine.
My Lords, perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 3. No one would want anyone to spend disproportionately, but can the Minister look forward to the day when Clause 3 will include an entitlement for all adults which is the same as the welcome entitlement for young people in Clause 2? If we had a goal to work towards in adult entitlement, we could look forward to life-long learning for all. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
My Lords, perhaps I may speak very briefly to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 and to the other, what I call, Welsh amendments. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are two of the 16 new clauses relating to Wales that have been introduced into the Bill since it left this place. There are at least three others which partially relate to Wales, along with numerous changes in schedules and amendments which we shall come to later.
This is a very late stage for the House to have a first sight of some of these changes to the Bill, which, after all, began in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' may take a somewhat dim view of this method of proceeding. Be that as it may, I thank the Government, civil servants and draftsmen who have clearly been working hard to remedy the worrying defects in the Bill so far as concerned Wales which were pointed out in Committee. The new clauses go far towards making up the paucity of Welsh clauses in the original Bill. We now have a more complete and workable measure for the National Assembly to implement in Wales. The gratitude I express now extends to all the changes for which we asked. I trust that any abstention on my part of any further acknowledgement will not be taken as a discourtesy but as a kindness to the House because we all want to press on. I still believe that the regional structure proposed for Wales is not prescriptive enough. This lack of firm direction in primary legislation will give rise only to further dilatory discussion in the Assembly. It is very clear from our experience of the Bill in relation to Wales that there is a proven need for a protocol which specifies very clearly the various steps by which the legislative needs of Wales are translated through the Assembly to central government and this Westminster Parliament. The Government are well aware of that. A draft protocol was tabled in January this year, but here we are in July and the protocol has still not been finalised. I have at long last been able to obtain a copy of the draft, which may be a suitable subject for a short debate in your Lordships' House at a later stage. The protocol should cover the relationship between the Assembly and this Parliament—and provide for a two-way flow of information—as well as the relationship between the Labour administration of the Assembly in Cardiff and the Government here in Whitehall.My Lords, I was not going to speak until the next group of amendments was called, but I think it is appropriate that I should speak now to Amendment No. 20A.
I thank the Minister for her remarks about workforce development. She is right that during the Bill's progress through the House we pressed amendments for workforce development to be included within the remit of the Bill and on the face of the Bill. I am delighted to see that the amendments have now been included. Amendment No. 20 to Clause 16 puts in place precisely what we seek. Behind the scenes, Mr Chris Humphries, who has been the chairman of the National Skills Task Force, has been talking at some length to the Minister and has had some influence in these matters. The final report of the task force was published recently and expresses concern about the overall development of skills in this country. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the higher education sector is included in the plans for workforce development. This Bill focuses very largely on post-16 training and education which does not lead to degree level qualifications. But increasingly the distinction between further education, vocational qualifications and degree-type qualifications is becoming untenable. If we look to the future, we may see degrees increasingly put together on what I call a "mix-and-match" basis, particularly for mature students. Distance learning through the Open University and through the Internet will become an increasingly important part of further and higher education. But we also know from our experience with the Open University that teaching within a small tutorial group is very important. Therefore, we will see degrees taken sometimes through Open University-type distance learning, sometimes through attending the local further education college and sometimes through attending the local higher education institution, with different parts of the degree being put together on a credit unit basis. I suspect that this is the way we shall see many degrees coming together in the future, particularly for mature students. But even without looking to the future, the higher education sector plays a vital role in training within the knowledge-based economy. We need to look to the model in the United States, where the universities are very much integrated into the local community. They work with their local community colleges and often form growth points within their local economies, both in terms of spinning off innovative new firms and in terms of training the high-quality workers for the high value added jobs. We feel that higher education must be integrated into the functions of the local learning and skills councils. We have put forward the amendment for that purpose.3.30 p.m.
My Lords, I shall respond to the points made by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend Lady David and then come back to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for what he said. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He said that it was rather late for the amendments to come before the House. However, when the Bill was going through the House we said that we would make amendments in another place to improve the Bill. I am glad that he recognised that the amendments are improvements. I hope that he is wrong in his pessimism about how the National Assembly will operate in relation to his view that regional structures are not prescriptive enough. As to the noble Lord's point about protocols, it is up to him to raise the question of a possible debate in the House at a later date. Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lady David. At this stage I am not able to make any commitment about there being an entitlement to adult learning. However, I shall certainly take away her suggestion, which may in the longer term be desirable. I should like to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about her Amendment No. 20A. Both Clause 16 and our government amendment to it are expressed in deliberately broad terms. The LSC will work with a wide range of partners and we would certainly expect that to be reflected in its strategy. That there is no reference to higher education institutions in the clause should not be a surprise, given that there is no reference to any of what will be the LSC's key partners. But that does not mean that the HE sector will have no role in relation to the LSC's overall remit or its workforce development activities in particular; very far from it. We entirely recognise that higher education has an important role to play in the education and training of our workforce, not least because it offers an important progression route for those moving on from further education and work-based learning. In particular, we shall expect the LSC to continue the good work of TECs in encouraging the progression from modern apprenticeships to foundation degrees and vocational honours degrees in subjects such as engineering. It is only by addressing the skills deficit at the intermediate skills level that we can boost the supply of technicians and associated professionals, including at the higher levels, in order to increase our national competitiveness in the development of a knowledge economy. All this means that there must and there will be a strong and productive relationship between the LSC' and the HE sector. That is why I am glad to say that the appointments to the LSC at both national and local level which we have announced include individuals with a strong interest in, and experience of, higher education. The national chair, Bryan Sanderson, is vice-chair of the court of governors of the LSE. His chief executive, John Harwood, is a member of the court of Oxford Brookes University. Of the 36 local chairs so far announced, six have been or remain involved with the HE sector in one capacity or another. On top of this, and as we have already set out, the national LSC will invite to its meetings the HEFCE chief executive. That will further ensure that a powerful HE voice is present at the heart of the LSC's decision making. The national LSC will also draw together authoritative advice on skills supply and demand by convening, with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and other agencies, an advisory group of leading experts in the field of skills research and information. Local learning partnerships will also be important as they provide a forum in which providers, including higher education institutions, can work together to fill gaps and improve quality. Universities and colleges are already involved in some 67 per cent of partnerships. Finally, there will also be important collaborative work involving both sectors at the level of delivery. When illustrating this point in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State mentioned the York Progression Partnership initiative which provides enhanced support to targeted HE and FE students in their first term and trains a team of "role model" students to act as mentors to FE students. He also referred to the Birmingham project which aims to open up access for Muslim women to higher education opportunities within their local communities, including through local FE colleges. We want more work of this kind, not less. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will in due course withdraw her amendment and will join me and others in supporting the Commons amendments. I beg to move. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
13 Clause 10, page 6, line 6, after ("promote") insert ("—
(a)")
14 Page 6, line 7, at end insert—
("(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements).")
15 Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section (Qualifying arrangements) may be made;
( ) may be designated by the Secretary of State under section (Qualifying arrangements: further provision)(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15. In moving these amendments, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 and 128 to 135. This group of amendments can be considered in two parts. First, Amendments Nos. 129 and 131 provide for a new model for the provision of individual learning accounts. In this set, I include Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, 42 to 44 and 132 and 133, which are consequential on this new model.
Amendment No. 129 provides for administrative arrangements by which individuals can simply register as account holders with a central provider—rather like a membership scheme. This new approach follows extensive market research which pointed up the benefits and attractions of more flexible arrangements. Clause 96, which provides for the original model based on dedicated savings accounts, is being retained against possible future development as a learning account option. Amendment No. 131 inserts a new clause which enables the Secretary of State to contract with the central provider and to arrange for the LSC to manage the contract on his behalf, though that is not something we envisage happening before April 2002. The other amendments I have already listed in connection with this new model make consequential changes to the LSC and CETW's powers in respect of learning accounts and to the clause which governs the payment of learning account grants. The remaining amendments in this group are concerned with territorial matters in relation to learning accounts and follow two principles: that responsibility for policy and implementation should be dealt with on a devolved basis; and that the national framework should be implemented as rapidly as possible in a co-ordinated manner across the UK. Amendments Nos. 130 and 135, together with the second half of Amendment No. 131, give Northern Ireland regulation-making powers for the devolved elements of the learning account legislative package. With the resumption of devolution, the Assembly would normally prepare its own legislation for these elements, just as Scottish Ministers have done. However, in the interests of ensuring that implementation in Northern Ireland does not lag behind that in the rest of the UK, we propose that the Bill makes direct provision for that. The relevant committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved the approach. Amendment No. 128 devolves to Scottish Ministers the regulation-making powers under Clause 96 which, as it deals with financial services and therefore reserved matters, covers Scotland. We and the Scottish Ministers believe that they should make their own regulations under this clause, just as they are responsible for the other learning accountlegislation for Scotland. Making provision directly in the Bill ensures that implementation in Scotland can progress to the timetable for the rest of the UK. The Scottish Parliament has approved this approach. Amendment No. 134 removes the "Welsh" subsection of Clause 97. Amendment No. 183, which we will discuss in due course, makes provision for the whole of Part V of the Bill in respect of Wales. There are other amendments of a technical and consequential nature with which I have not dealt. If noble Lords want explanations of them, I shall be happy to oblige. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
16 Clause 12, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) The Council may provide any person designated by the Secretary of State with such information as the Council thinks fit about any matter in relation to which it has a function.")
17 Clause 13, page 6, line 37, after ("3") and insert (", 5(1)(a) to (d) and (g)")
18 Page 7, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert ("facilities for education or training which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality for a person with a learning difficulty who is over compulsory school age but who has not attained the age of 19 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council must secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
( ) If the Council is satisfied that it cannot secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education or training for a person with a learning difficulty who has attained the age of 19 but not the age of 25 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council must secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
( ) If the Council is satisfied that it cannot secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education or training for a person with a learning difficulty who has attained the age of 25 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council may secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.")
19 Clause 15, page 8, line 8, leave out from ("year") to end of line 9
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.—(Baroness Blackstone.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
20 Clause 16, page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment; but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Baroness Blackstone.) [Amendment No. 20A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20, not moved.] On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
21 Clause 18, page 8, line 35, leave out ("hold shares in a company, or otherwise become a member") and insert ("subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(Baroness Blackstone.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
22 Clause 20, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) A local council—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 and 197 to 200.
There are only four government amendments about which I should like to speak in this group. The other amendments are all minor, technical points, although, of course, I shall be happy to provide explanations if required. Amendment No. 22 extends the provisions of Clause 20 to enable a local LSC to perform duties and exercise functions outside its own area. This builds on a helpful debate and constructive suggestions from the Opposition Benches in another place about the funding of designated institutions, but the general point is relevant to a great many other providers. During that discussion, the Government agreed to consider how we might ensure that a provider operating in more than one location need not be burdened by having to liaise with several different local LSCs. This amendment provides for exactly such situations, by enabling a single local LSC to work with such a provider on behalf of any number of other local LSCs. The flexibility which this provision secures would also allow other sensible co-operation between local LSCs where, for instance, a particular local LSC might fund a provider in its locality which was a regional centre of excellence—perhaps an agricultural or other specialist college—attracting students from outside the local LSC's area. Noble Lords on the Benches opposite, as well as their colleagues in another place, have questioned our commitment to flexibility and decision-making at a local level. We believe that this amendment provides another example of how, on the contrary, the Government are committed to sensible bottom-up arrangements with co-operation between local LSCs where this is sensible. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 owe a great deal to debates we had during earlier stages in this House. Amendment No. 23 requires local LSCs to include in their plans a statement of the needs of local employers with regard to the skills available in the local workforce; that is, both existing and potential employees. Amendment No. 24 further requires that a local LSC plan should set out how the council proposes to exercise its functions to meet those needs. These amendments therefore complement at the local level what Amendment No. 20 achieves at the national level, as has already been set out they put on the face of the Bill, and beyond any doubt, that local LSCs must and will engage in important workforce development activity in their area. We have discussed this matter with the CBI, which has warmly welcomed our approach. I hope that noble Lords, too, will welcome this as a positive move forward, building on what the LSC prospectus has made clear—that local LSCs will have a vital role to play in:"analysing local labour market and skill needs;
deploying locally-managed development budgets to meet learning, skills and workforce development needs; [and]
With Amendment No. 26 we remain in the territory of local LSC plans and the wider remit of local LSCs beyond post-16 learning. It is also another amendment inspired in some part by debates both here and in another place, together with suggestions raised by the TEC National Council. It provides that a local LSC's plan must include a statement of the likely effect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. In this way, the amendment is proof positive of our commitment to economic development and regeneration and the important local LSC role in relation to such matters. As is already set out in Clause 22, local LSCs will consult and develop close links with regional development agencies and local authorities—but build on the best work of many TECs by liaising closely with the Employment Service, UfI Ltd, local learning partnerships, local economic development partnerships and the Small Business Service. Amendment No. 26 simply underlines that economic development and regeneration will be an important element within the LSC's broad remit. I shall want to return to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, when I have heard what she has to say in moving it. However, let me say straight away that we share her view that the relationship between the RDAs and the local and national LSCs must be extremely close, but that I believe that our proposals already ensure the close cooperation she seeks. In the mean time, I commend the Commons amendments to the House. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. — (Lord Bach.)drawing up local workforce development strategies which will complement the direction of wider economic strategies".
3.45 p.m.
As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 22
22A Line 8, at end insert—
("(c) must liase with the Regional Development Agency and agree a common operational framework and guidelines with other local councils operating within the area covered by the Agency.").
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22A. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made clear, Clause 20 deals with the functions of the local learning and skills councils, while Amendment No. 22 deals with cases where the national learning and skills council wants the local council to perform certain functions "out of area".
Clause 21 makes it clear that in drawing up the guidance for each local learning and skills council, the national LSC shall consult with the local regional development agencies. Likewise, Clause 22, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, makes it clear that in drawing up their own plans the local LSCs must have regard to the strategy of the local RDAs. Amendment No. 26 makes it clear that in drawing up such a plan, they must keep their eye on the economic development and regeneration of their particular local area. Nevertheless, each local learning and skills council covers only sometimes as little as one-tenth of the area covered by the regional development agency. Usually five or six learning and skills councils will be contained in each RDA, and sometimes more than that. I shall put once more the issue that the Liberal Democrats have stressed many times: given their functions in relation to workforce development and local regeneration, the links between the regional development agencies and the local learning and skills councils must be very close. It is vital that those local learning and skills councils work together—this is a part of the function of Amendment No. 22—but also work together with the local regional development agency. On many occasions we have highlighted the absurdity of the London situation where no co-ordinating committee exists. However, we are delighted to see on the record a commitment from the Minister which implies that some element of co-ordination will be established in that case. However, the problem does not apply only to London, it applies in many other regional areas such as the North East and the North West. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that such liaison does take place and that the requirement is written on to the face of the Bill. Moved, That Amendment No. 22A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22, be agreed to.—(Baroness Sharp of Guildford.)My Lords, perhaps I may attempt to deal with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We agree with her that RDAs' responsibilities for skills and economic development at the regional level should be woven into the work of the local LSCs. We must draw the link between the regional and the local. That is why the Bill already requires extensive co-operation and consultation in at least four ways: first, RDAs must be consulted by the national council on its draft guidance to local LSCs, as required in Clause 21(4). Secondly, the strategy of the relevant RDA must be taken into account by the local LSC when it is drawing up its annual plan, as required by Clause 22(4)(b). Thirdly, RDAs must be consulted by the local LSCs on their draft annual plans, as required by Clause 22(5)(a). Fourthly, the RDA must even be consulted by the national council on whether the local LSC's plan should be approved, as required by Clause 22(6).
By any reckoning, these extensive requirements mark out how important the regional dimension is to our proposals and underline how influential will be the role of the regional development agencies and their regional skills strategies in the new arrangements. We do not believe that it is necessary to add yet a further layer of requirements in the Bill to ensure agreement on a common operational framework. Many noble Lords have urged us to avoid bureaucracy and we remain very mindful of that sensible advice. But if the noble Baroness's concern is that there should be effective co-ordination of all the neighbouring LSCs operating within a region, I hope I can reassure her further on that point. When these issues were discussed extensively in Standing Committee in another place, there was a broad recognition of the importance of effective consultation across borders. The Government made a commitment that the Secretary of State in his initial guidance to the national council would stress the need for the LSC to consult widely and to take full account of the activities of other partners at both the local and regional level in the planning and delivery of its functions. Consulting widely will, of course, mean that neighbouring local LSCs will maintain an ongoing and productive dialogue with each other at all times. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment today. The Secretary of State's guidance will stress the importance of neighbouring local LSCs within a region working together within a framework which supports the relevant regional development agency's strategy. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will agree that the Bill already guarantees the regional dimension that she seeks, and has done since the Bill's early stages in this House. I hope, too, that the further reassurances that I have attempted to give will enable her to feel that she need not press her amendment.My Lords, I wanted to make a comment on Commons Amendments Nos. 22 to 26. Something that the noble Baroness said about a London co-ordinating body makes me feel that it is right to do so now, and I hope that I am in order in doing so. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who raised the matter in this House with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would probably speak to this amendment, but he did not.
There was quite a discussion on this matter at Report stage in another place. Mr. Brooke, the MP for Cities of London and Westminster, raised the subject. It is important that there should be a co-ordinating body for the five LSCs in the capital. I need not go into the reasons for that. They relate to transport, business, labour management, and so on. The Minister, Malcolm Wicks, gave a reassurance on the matter. Although there is nothing on the face of the Bill, it would be helpful if in this House the Minister could give a similar reassurance that there will be an opportunity for a London co-ordinating body.My Lords, as always, I find the noble Baroness irresistible. As the matter of London has been raised, perhaps I may return to it. I read with great interest the report of the debate in another place when the matter was raised by the right honourable Member for Cities of London and Westminster, including the response from the Minister, Mr Wicks.
I raised the subject in February, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Since then, we have elected a Mayor and a Greater London Assembly, and we have appointed a London Development Agency which is now up and working and has assumed its powers. At each stage, the Government have moved a little further in their reassurances. I noted that the right honourable Member in another place hoped that the Minister might write to him giving further details and placing more emphasis on the matter. I do not know whether such a letter has been written. It would be of great help and interest to us all if the Minister is able to say a little more today about what is envisaged specifically for London, given that the other players, including the chairman and the chief executive, are in place. That said, I welcome the commitment from the Government, as far as it goes.My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David and to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Since we last discussed these matters, the noble Lord has been elected to the new Assembly and continues to take an active interest in matters relating to the Bill.
The answer to my noble friend is: yes, I give the same reassurance as the Minister gave on Report in another place. The Government Office for London is beginning discussions about the establishment of the co-ordinating body as recommended by the London Development Partnership. When the local chairman and executive directors are in place, we can take forward the arrangements. That is as far as I can go today. I hope that my reply gives satisfaction to noble Lords who have spoken.My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is good that we have arrived at a satisfactory arrangement in relation to London. I hope that similar arrangements, perhaps slightly less formal, will obtain in other regional development agency areas. The question of coordination is, as the Minister stressed, extremely important. In the light of his reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 22A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
23 Clause 22, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
("(aa) a statement of the needs of employers in the local council's area regarding education and training of their employees and potential employees;")
24 Page 9, line 39, leave out ("those needs") and insert ("the needs mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (aa)")
25 Page 10. line 5, leave out from ("year") to ("guidance") in line 7 and insert ("taking account of")
26 Page 10, line 7, at end insert—
("(e) a statement of the likely effect of the local council's activities on the economic development and regeneration of its area.")
27 Page 10, line 9, after ("training") insert ("(and connected organised leisure-time occupation)")
28 Page 10, line 15, after ("training") insert ("(and connected organised leisure-time occupation)")
29 Clause 23, page 11, line 10, after ("training") insert ("(and connected organised leisure-time occupation)")
30 Clause 31, page 14, line 2, at end insert—
("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")
31 Clause 32, page 14, line 33, at end insert—
("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")
32 Clause 34, page 15, line 19, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")
33 Page 15, line 24, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) institutions within the further or higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992) which provide or propose to provide secondary education (other than post-16 education);")
34 Page 15, line 26, after ("undertaking") insert ("or proposing to undertake")
35 Page 15, line 44, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")
36 Clause 35, page 16, line 8, leave out ("providing post-16 education or training") and insert ("to whom financial resources are provided")
37 Page 16, line 11, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")
38 Page 16, line 26, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")
39 Page 16, line 27, leave out ("post-16")
40 Clause 36, page 17, line 3, leave out ("6)") and insert (" 35)")
41 Page 17, line 4, leave out ("and "maintained school" have") and insert ("has")
42 Clause 38, page 17, line 16, after ("promote") insert ("—(a)")
43 Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements).")
44 Page 17, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section (Qualifying arrangements) may be made;
( ) may be designated by the National Assembly under section (Qualifying arrangements: further provision)(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;")
45 Clause 40, page 17, line 40, at end insert—
("(3A) The Council may provide any person designated by the National Assembly with such information as the Council thinks fit about any matter in relation to which it has a function.")
46 Clause 41, page 18, line 7, leave out (" 34(1)(g)") and insert (" 34(1)(a) to (d) and (g)")
47 Page 18, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert ("facilities for education or training which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality for a person with a learning difficulty who is over compulsory school age but who has not attained the age of 19 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council must secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
( ) If the Council is satisfied that it cannot secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education or training for a person with a learning difficulty who has attained the age of 19 but not the age of 25 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council must secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
( ) If the Council is satisfied that it cannot secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education or training for a person with a learning difficulty who has attained the age of 25 unless it also secures the provision of boarding accommodation for him, the Council may secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.")
48 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
Plans
(" .—(1) The Council must make a plan for each of its financial years.
(2) The Council must send its plan for its first financial year to the National Assembly as soon as is reasonably practicable after the year starts.
(3) The Council must send its plan for any subsequent financial year of the Council to the National Assembly before the year starts.
(4) A plan for a financial year must include—
(5) The National Assembly must approve the plan or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.
(6) The Council must publish the plan as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with the National Assembly's requirements; and publication must be made at such time and in such manner as the National Assembly specifies.
(7) The Council may make and publish such other plans as it thinks fit; but any such plan must not conflict with a plan for a financial year.")
49 Insert the following new clause—
Strategy
(" .—(1) The Council must formulate a strategy in relation to its functions and keep it under review.
(2) The Council must incorporate in the strategy proposals as to—
(3) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment; but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).
(4) The Council—
(5) The National Assembly must approve the strategy sent to it or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.
(6) In exercising its functions the Council must have regard to the strategy as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with its requirements.")
50 Clause 44, page 19, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
("(c) to subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities of a company unless the National Assembly consents.")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 50.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 50.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
51 Clause 53, page 23, line 19, leave out subsections (6) and (7)
52 Clause 54, page 23, line 34, leave out ("any report under this section") and insert ("a report of an inspection conducted under this section otherwise than as a result of a request under subsection (3)")
53 Page 24, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Inspectorate may arrange for a report of an inspection carried out as a result of a request under subsection (3) to be published.")
54 Page 24, line 3, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
55 Clause 56, page 25, line 1, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
56 Clause 58, page 25, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("in") and insert ("secondary education provided")
57 Page 25, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) "Secondary education" and "further education" have the same meaning as they have in the Education Act 1996.")
58 Clause 59, page 26, line 15, after ("teachers") insert ("or lecturers")
59 Clause 60, page 26, line 19, leave out ("which fall") and insert ("providing education or training falling")
60 Page 26, line 33, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
61 Page 26, line 38, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
62 Clause 61, page 27, line 2, leave out ("and any inspector taking part in the inspection")
63 Page 27, line 6, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
64 Page 27, line 10, leave out ("inspector") and insert ("Chief Inspector")
65 Page 27, line 21, leave out ("or any inspector")
66 Page 27, line 23, leave out ("any person exercising") and insert ("the Chief Inspector in the exercise of")
67 Page 27, line 27, leave out subsection (7)
68 Clause 62, page 27, line 32, leave out ("66") and insert (" 66(2)")
69 Page 27, line 33, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
70 Clause 63, page 28, line 6, leave out from ("may") to end of line 7 and insert (", without being asked to, conduct such an inspection")
71 Page 28, line 8, leave out from ("If") to ("in") in line 9 and insert ("financial resources have been applied by the Learning and Skills Council or a local education authority")
72 Page 28, line 11,1eave out from ("which") to end of line and insert ("those resources have been applied")
73 Page 28, line 26, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
74 Clause 64, page 29, line 10, leave out subsections (5) and (6)
75 Clause 69, page 31, line 21, leave out subsections (4) and (5)
76 After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
("Chapter Iv
General
Defamation
.—(1) For the purposes of the law of defamation a report published under a provision of, or made as a result of, this Part is privileged unless its publication is shown to have been made with malice.
(2) Nothing in subsection (I) limits any privilege subsisting apart from that subsection.")
77 Clause 71, page 32, line 2, leave out ("body known as the")
78 Page 32, leave out lines 5 to 9
79 Clause 72, page 32, line 29, leave out from ("1998") to end of line 31
80 Clause 73, page 33, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising functions under this Part, the Chief Inspector for Wales must have regard to—
81 Clause 74, page 33, line 21, leave out ("secure that") and insert ("inspect")
82 Page 33, line 23, leave out ("is inspected by a member of the Inspectorate")
83 Page 33, line 25, leave out from first ("The") to ("must") in line 26 and insert ("Chief Inspector for Wales")
84 Page 33, line 26, leave out ("to the Chief Inspector for Wales")
85Page 33, line 35, leave out ("On receipt of a report under subsection (3),")
86 Page 33, line 36, leave out ("it") and insert ("the report under subsection (3)")
87 Clause 75, page 34, line 8, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("inspect, and report on,")
88 Page 34, line 9, leave out from ("kind") to end of line
89 Page 34, line 10, leave out ("arrange for") and insert ("inspect")
90 Page 34, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("if")
91 Page 34, line 19, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("( ) Subsections (5) to (8) of section 74 apply to a report under subsection (2) as they apply to a report under that section.
( ) The Chief Inspector for Wales may arrange for a report of an inspection carried out as a result of a request under subsection (3) to be published.")
92 Clause 76, page 34, line 21, leave out from ("Part") to ("has") in line 23 and insert ("the Chief Inspector for Wales")
93 Page 34, line 26, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
94 Page 34, line 39, leave out ("require") and insert ("such assistance from")
95 Page 34, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 35 and insert ("as the Chief Inspector for Wales")
96 Page 35, line 3, leave out ("a person exercising") and insert ("the Chief Inspector for Wales in the exercise of")
97 Clause 77 page 35, line 8, leave out from ("inspection") to end of line and insert—
("( ) But it does not apply to a report of an inspection conducted—
98 Page 35, line 9, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider of")
99 Clause 78, page 35, line 28, after ("Assembly") insert ("for Wales")
100 Page 35, line 38, after ("Assembly") insert ("for Wales")
101 Page 35, line 41, leave out ("(5) to (8) of section 34") and insert ("(6) to (6C) of section 35")
102 Clause 79, page 36, line 6, leave out ("arrange for an inspection of") and insert ("inspect")
103 Page 36, line 7, after ("Wales") insert ("by the Secretary of State")
104 Page 36, line 9, leave out ("to be conducted by a member of the Inspectorate")
105 Page 36, line 10, leave out subsection (2)
106 Page 36, line 15 leave out from second ("State") to end of line 16
107Page 36, line 20, leave out from second ("Inspectorate") to end of line 21
108 Clause 80, page 36, line 36, leave out from ("being") to end of line 37 and insert ("asked to, conduct such an inspection")
109 Page 36, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) If financial resources have been applied by the Council or a local education authority in respect of education or training which is being inspected under this section, the inspection may extend to considering the manner in which those resources have been applied and whether they have been applied in a way which provides value for money.")
110 Page 36, line 42, leave out ("person providing") and insert ("provider or)
111 Page 36, line 43, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 45 and insert ("such information as the Chief Inspector for Wales may reasonably require in connection with the inspection")
112 Page 37, line 2, leave out from ("provide") to ("in") in line 4 and insert ("such information as the Chief Inspector for Wales may reasonably require")
113 Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) On completing an area inspection, the Chief Inspector for Wales must make a written report.")
114 Page 37, line 7, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4), (5)(a) to (c) and (6)")
115 After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
Action Plans Following Section 80 Inspections
(" .—(1) This section applies if the Chief Inspector for Wales publishes a report of an area inspection conducted under section 80.
(2) The National Assembly may direct the Council to prepare a written statement of the action which it proposes to take in the light of the report and the period within which it proposes to take it.
(3) The National Assembly may direct a local education authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area covered by the report to prepare a written statement of the action which they propose to take in the light of the report and the period within which they propose to take it.
(4) In preparing the statement the Council or the authority must consult such persons as the National Assembly may direct.
(5) The person making the statement must—
116 After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
Annual Plan Of The Chief Inspector For Wales
(" .—(1) The Chief Inspector for Wales must, for the purposes of the consultation required under section 104(4) of the 1998 Act (funding of HM Chief Inspector of Education and Training for Wales), prepare a plan for each financial year.
(2) The plan must be submitted to the National Assembly by such time before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates as the National Assembly may direct.
(3) The plan must contain estimates of—
(4) The plan must also contain proposals for the management of any funds which may be provided by the National Assembly for that financial year.
(5) The Chief Inspector for Wales may, after the plan has been approved under section 104(4A) of the 1998 Act, publish it in such manner and at such time as appear to the Chief Inspector for Wales to be appropriate.
(6) "The 1998 Act" means the Government of Wales Act 1998.")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 116. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 205 to 209, 262, 263 and 276.
I should like to explain a few of the more important amendments in this group. Amendment No. 51 and the majority of the others in the group are minor or drafting amendments with little real effect in substance and I shall take up the time of the House on such amendments only if noble Lords would like any further explanation. I turn first to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, which are linked. Under Clause 54, a private employer may enter into a contract with the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) to evaluate the quality of its training provision—that is, training which is paid for privately by the company itself, without government support. In these circumstances, we do not want the ALI to have a duty to publish the report. Such inspections will be a private matter between the employer and the ALI and it would be quite inappropriate for the ALI to be under a duty to publish the results of the inspection, especially where the employer might be reluctant for the results to be published. But the important issue is that the ALI may do so under arrangements it reaches with employers—for example, to publicise and promote good practice. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 achieve this position. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 also need to be considered together. Although technical, they are important in reflecting our policy of promoting collaboration between schools and FE colleges in the provision of secondary education. Such collaboration can only be of benefit to those young people for whom learning solely in schools may not be the best option. Clause 58(a), as originally drafted, did not allow for the inspection by Ofsted of 16 to 18 year-olds undertaking such collaboratively provided secondary education within an FE college. Clearly, all such education must be inspected and secondary education should be a matter for Ofsted. Amendment No. 56 provides that secondary education offered at an FE sector institution will fall within Ofsted's remit both for those of compulsory school age and those over 16 but under 19. Amendment No. 57 defines the terms "secondary education" and "further education" by reference to the Education Act 1996. Noble Lords will also wish to note that this Act's definition of "secondary education" is extended by Clause 99 of the Bill to include provision made partly at a school and partly at another institution, such as an FE college. Amendment No. 116 introduces a new provision at the request of the National Assembly. It places a duty on the chief inspector for Wales to prepare an annual plan for the forthcoming financial year and submit it to the National Assembly. The plan has to be submitted before the beginning of each financial year to which it relates. The plan must set out the chief inspector's proposals as to how she intends to use the funds made available to her to carry out her inspection and other functions. It should also set out her expected budget and contain proposals as to her spending plans for that year. The chief inspector will have the power to publish the plan as she considers appropriate. Amendment No. 115 introduces a new clause but it is not a new policy direction for the Bill. It ensures that the report of an area inspection is carried through to its logical conclusion by requiring a plan to be prepared detailing the action to be taken and in a specified time period. The action plan should either be prepared by the CETW or an LEA, as necessary, and the person preparing the statement must consult such persons as the Assembly may direct. Finally, Amendment No. 263 is needed in order to provide a short-lived but vital transitional arrangement for the Adult Learning Inspectorate. The key insertion will be within Schedule 9 to the Bill. Under Clause 50 of the Bill, the Adult Learning Inspectorate will consist of nine members. We have already appointed the chairman and the chief inspector will be appointed soon after Royal Assent. But all nine members of ALI may not be appointed until much later in the year, and meanwhile certain key tasks will need to be carried out. For instance, the common inspection framework will need to be agreed with Ofsted before it is put out to consultation for three months. The inspectorate will need to secure premises in September and to start recruiting and training staff. There will be significant planning arrangements which will need executive decisions—for example, agreeing with Ofsted a programme of area and joint inspections. Amendment No. 263 will therefore allow ALI to function with as few as two members—in practice, the chairman and the chief inspector—during the transitional period. A similar approach in respect of the LSC was agreed by this House in the earlier stages of the Bill. Noble Lords will note that once all the other members have been appointed, the provision will expire automatically. With this group of largely technical amendments the Government complete their provisions for the new inspection regime. The preparations for a successful implementation are already under way. The draft common inspection framework produced by the three current inspectorates is a demonstration of how inspection can be conducted under shared principles. With the appointment of Nick Reilly to be the chairman designate of ALI we have an experienced, dynamic leader to help build the new organisation. These provisions will help us in our mission to drive up standards and quality across the post-16 sector and I commend them to the House. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 116.—(Baroness Blackstone.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
117 Clause 87, Page 38, line 36, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer to any listed person of any of the property, rights and liabilities of a person with whom the Secretary of State has made arrangements under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (arrangements regarding employment).")
118 Page 39, line 10, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)")
119 Page 39, line 13, at end insert—
("(8A) A scheme under subsection (2A) is invalid unless it is made with the consent of the person from whom the transfer is to be made.")
120 Page 39, line 14, leave out subsection (9)
121 After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
Transfers: Wales
(" .—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may make a scheme providing for the transfer of any of its property, rights and liabilities to the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
(2) The National Assembly may make a scheme providing for the transfer to the Council of any of the property, rights and liabilities of a person with whom the National Assembly has made arrangements under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (arrangements regarding employment).
(3) A scheme under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the National Assembly thinks are appropriate.
(4) A scheme under this section comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
(5) When a scheme under this section comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the property, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
(6) If a scheme under subsection (1) includes provision for the transfer of liabilities, the day specified by the scheme for it to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section (Commencement) for the commencement of section 86.
(7) The day specified by a scheme under subsection (2) for the scheme to come into force must not fall after the end of the period of 3 years starting with the day appointed under section (Commencement) for the commencement of section 86.
(8) A scheme under subsection (2) is invalid unless it is made with the consent of the person from whom the transfer is to be made.")
122 After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
("Transfers: further provision
Stamp Duty
.—(1) A transfer effected by virtue of section 84 or 86 is not to give rise to liability to stamp duty.
(2) Stamp duty is not to be chargeable on a scheme made under section 85, 87 or (Transfers: Wales).")
123 After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
Contracts Of Employment
(" .—(1) This section applies if rights and liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred by virtue of—
(2) Anything done by or in relation to the transferor in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer takes effect is to be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the transferee.
(3) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee is not to be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.
(4) For the purposes of that Act the employee's period of employment with the transferor is to count as a period of employment with the transferee, and the change of employment is not to break the continuity of the period of employment.
(5) The preceding provisions do not prejudice any right of the employee to terminate the contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions, but no such right arises by reason only of the change in employer effected by the transfer.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
4 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 123. In moving those amendments, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 166 to 168 and Amendment No. 174.
Since we last discussed in this House the provisions in the Bill to support the smooth transition to the new arrangements, we have been working very closely with a wide range of partner organisations to work through further details. I would like to pay tribute to our partners, and in particular to TECs and chambers of commerce and training and enterprise councils, for the positive and constructive way they have worked with us to solve some very complex issues and for their commitment to ensuring a successful transition. These amendments arise from those discussions and form the final piece of necessary legislative jigsaw. Amendments Nos. 117 to 123 are designed to ensure that the assets, rights and liabilities of existing organisations can be transferred, as appropriate, to the LSC, ALI and Ofsted in England or to the Council for Education and Training in Wales. Among other things they will allow us and the National Assembly to protect the rights of individuals and to ensure worthwhile projects can continue under the new arrangements. Amendments Nos. 166 to 168 will allow us to ensure that the rights of current pensioners and deferred pensioners of the TEC national pension scheme and other TEC salary and related occupational pension schemes can be safeguarded. These clauses will enable the rights and obligations under TEC schemes, with the consent of the trustees of those schemes, to be transferred to and administered under a new scheme or schemes made within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Such a scheme would be designed to ensure that the pensioners and deferred pensioners enjoy the same level of financial benefits and are no worse off in any respect than under current arrangements. These new provisions are for the benefit of the individuals concerned and the public purse. It is expected that most of the current TEC final salary pension schemes will cease to be viable because significant numbers of active members will transfer to the PCSPS on taking up employment with the LSC. These provisions will enable the trustees of the current schemes to discharge their duties to the remaining pensioners and deferred pensioners in a cost-effective way. Finally, Amendment No. 174 provides additional safeguards to ensure that TEC assets continue in future to be used to meet national priorities and for the benefit of local communities. Many TECs have evolved into complex organisations and they hold assets whose gross value is in excess of £600 million. These assets have been generated either directly or indirectly through the significant contracts TECs have with the Government. It has become clear that while the current contractual framework provides a number of safeguards, it does not cover all the potential scenarios which are now beginning to emerge. Some TECs are proposing to wind up the company and return all remaining funds to the Government. Others have plans to keep the company going in one form or another. These plans range from some form of economic development company to companies selling specialist services to business. In a small number of cases there are proposals which seem to be moving away from one of the fundamental principles which has underpinned the work of TECs. That principle is that any profits which the company makes should be recycled into activities for the benefit of local communities. Instead, individual shareholders of associated companies, who might also have been former TEC employees, could stand to gain. We believe we must ensure that no TEC resources are used in support of such proposals. We have made it clear to TEC chairs that these new powers in no way change our overall approach. I want to emphasise that point very strongly. It is still our aim to reach agreement, TEC by TEC, on the use of assets in a way that is consistent with national priorities and the needs of local communities. In taking these powers it is not our intention to override TECs' existing commitments which we have agreed in their business plans, nor to exert a perpetual power over future arrangements. Neither do we wish to interfere with those assets brought to merged CCTEs by chambers or legitimately accrued since merger in the membership fund. Such assets should and will be available to chamber members to establish a new chamber. In recent discussions with TECs we have had the opportunity to emphasise those intentions and I know that they understand and accept our assurances that these powers of determination set out in this clause are powers of last resort for use when other avenues have been exhausted. They have also greatly welcomed our commitment to underwrite unforeseen future liabilities to allow boards to wind up companies quickly and effectively. We will continue to work closely with boards over the coming months. But in the final analysis the Government have a responsibility to ensure that assets continue to be used to benefit national priorities and local communities. Amendment No. 117 will allow us to do that. I commend it and the other transitional provisions to the House. I beg to move. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 123.—(Baroness Blackstone.)My Lords, given the Secretary of State's publicly declared concern about the quality of legal advice he receives within the department, can the noble Baroness give the House an absolute reassurance that the powers taken in this Bill for transferring TEC assets are in fact legally sound?
My Lords, yes; I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. We sought legal advice before we introduced these new measures. We consider that they do not contravene the ECHR and that they are legally sound.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
124 Clause 91, page 41, line 25, after ("Assembly") insert ("for Wales")
125 Clause 92, page 42, line 11, after ("Assembly") insert ("for Wales")
126 Clause 94, page 42, line 28, after ("Assembly") insert ("for Wales")
127 Clause 95, page 43, line 4, at end insert—("(2A) In subsection (3) of section 24 for "(g)" substitute "(gg)".")
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 127. I shall also speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 170 to 173, 230 to 261 and 265 to 276.
This very large group of amendments serves to tidy up the Bill and ensure consistency and coherence. I can assure noble Lords that all of the amendments in this group are either purely consequential on the dissolution of the FEFCs and the creation of the LSC, CETW and the ALI, or represent minor technical changes in the light of the substantive provisions of the Bill. None of the amendments carries policy significance. I hope that noble Lords will accept that assurance and, in the interests of making progress, agree to the amendments without a detailed blow-by-blow account, which I am in a position to give if need be. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 127.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
128 Clause 96, page 43, line 39, at end insert—
("(7) The power to make regulations under this section is to be exercised by the Scottish Ministers so far as those regulations are to have effect for the purposes of any provision of, or made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament authorising grants to be paid to, or in respect of, individuals in connection with their education or training; and for this purpose references in this section to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Scottish Ministers.
(8) For the purposes of this section an enactment includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament.")
129 After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
Qualifying Arrangements
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) applies if a provision contained in or made under an enactment requires arrangements to qualify under this section (or to qualify under it at a particular time).
(2) The provision is to be taken to require the arrangements to satisfy conditions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section (or to satisfy them at the time concerned).
(3) These conditions may be included—
(4) Conditions as to the description of body with which arrangements may be made may themselves specify the description or may allow the Secretary of State to specify it in a way he thinks fit.
(5) The regulations may provide that a specification of a description of body with which arrangements may be made may include a requirement for bodies to have the benefit of approvals which have been given by the Secretary of State and not withdrawn.
(6) The regulations may contain provision securing that an individual may not simultaneously—
(7) Arrangements fall within this subsection if they are—
130 After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
Qualifying Arrangements: Northern Ireland
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) applies if a provision contained in or made under an enactment requires arrangements to qualify under this section (or to qualify under it at a particular time).
(2) The provision is to be taken to require the arrangements to satisfy conditions specified by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland in regulations made under this section (or to satisfy them at the time concerned).
(3) Subsections (3) to (7) of section (Qualifying arrangements) apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section; and for this purpose—
131 After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
Qualifying Arrangements: Further Provision
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State (or a person designated by him) may make arrangements with a body in connection with the making by that body of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements).
(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) may include provision for the remuneration of a body and the payment of its expenses.
(3) Arrangements under subsection (1) may include provision for a person designated by the Secretary of State to carry out on his behalf such of his functions under the arrangements as he specifies.
(4) The Secretary of State may pay—
remuneration or amounts to meet the person's expenses.
(5) The Department of Higher and Further Education. Training and Employment in Northern Ireland (or a person designated by it) may make arrangements with a body in connection with the making by that body of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland).
(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to arrangements under subsection (5) as they apply to arrangements under subsection (1); and for this purpose references in subsections (2) to (4) to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Department.")
132 Clause 97, page 43, line 43, leave out from ("regulations") to first ("may") in line 1 on page 44 and insert ("must provide that grants may be paid only to or in respect of individuals—
(2A) The regulations")
133 Page 44, line 6, at end insert—
("(aa) conditions as to the way the arrangements qualifying under section (Qualifying arrangements) are conducted;")
134 Page 44, line 38, leave out subsection (7)
135 After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—
Grants: Northern Ireland
(" .—(1) The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland may make regulations authorising grants to be paid to or in respect of individuals in connection with their education or training.
(2) The regulations must provide that grants may be paid only to or in respect of individuals—
(3) Subsections (3) to (7) of section 97 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section; and for this purpose—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 135. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 135.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.4.15 p.m.
Commons Amendment
136 Leave out Clause 98
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136A to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which I shall urge the House to reject. In speaking to Amendment No. 136, I am happy to set out the Government's position on selective admissions to grammar schools and the reasons why I must urge noble Lords to agree with the government amendment.
We made a commitment in our manifesto that, although we do not support further selection by academic ability, we will empower parents, by means of petitions and ballots, to decide whether selective admissions to grammar schools should continue. The reason for the commitment is that we know many parents have strong views about selection. We thought then, and still think now, that it is only fair and right that parents should be able to decide the future of selective admission arrangements at grammar schools. We delivered this manifesto promise with Sections 105 to 109 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. On 14th March, by a majority of just five, this House voted to remove those provisions from the 1998 Act. In doing so, it removed the right of those most directly concerned to decide the future of local schools and placed that power back in the hands of local authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in another place the day after that vote, as I did in this House, that the Government's position on selection remained the same. We therefore pledged to restore the provisions for petitions and ballots to the School Standards and Framework Act. That was achieved while the Bill was in the other place, and I believe that noble Lords should join me in underlining that position here. We believe that parents are best placed to decide the future of selection at grammar schools. The high turnout of 75 per cent in the Ripon ballot—far above the turn-out in local and national elections—clearly showed that parents want to express their views. On previous occasions the Opposition have argued, and may do so again, that petitions and ballots represent a threat to some of our best schools. Yet, in the 25 years before the 1998 Act, 18 of which were under a Conservative government, the number of grammar schools fell from 809 to 166. To continue to attack this Government's grammar schools policy would simply be to fuel an old debate and, in the case of the Opposition Front Benches, to demonstrate (if I may say so) some inconsistency in relation not only to grammar schools but parents' ballots. After all, it was the Opposition who when in power introduced the principle of parental ballots on the issue of grant-maintained status. Noble Lords have on previous occasions heard a great deal about statistics and how they prove the relative merits of the comprehensive or selective systems. We have recently published statistics which show that the average GCSE point score for 15 year-olds in grammar schools (who make up roughly the top 25 per cent of the ability range in selective areas) is 60.7, compared with 60.9 for the top 25 per cent of 15 year-olds in comprehensive schools. Objective consideration clearly shows one thing: broadly speaking, bright pupils perform as well in comprehensive schools as in selective schools. I hope that noble Lords will help us move on from this outdated debate which pits grammar schools against comprehensive schools and support the Government's schools agenda. This agenda is founded on a clear drive for higher standards and the promotion of greater diversity, including the specialist schools programme. This agenda is vital if we are to prepare young people better for the challenges of a rapidly changing and technologically advanced world. I turn now to Amendment No. 136A. In my remarks so far I have sought to set out the rationale for the balloting process—our belief that parents should have the opportunity to decide this issue—and that is why I ask noble Lords to resist this amendment. We publicised and consulted widely on the details of the balloting process. We believe that the arrangements that we have put in place are fair and sensible. Indeed, we listened to reasonable arguments and sought to reconcile, on the one hand, the principle of allowing parents to raise petitions and, on the other, the need for stability in schools. We entirely recognise the need for this stability. That was why we introduced a five-year moratorium for ballots after one had taken place. It is a means of providing a balance between allowing parents the opportunity to express their views and not distracting attention from the crucial work of raising standards in schools. The five-year moratorium means that if there is a ballot during the first year of a child's time at an 11 to 18 grammar school and the outcome is to keep the existing admissions arrangements at that school, a further ballot can be held only after five years. Should the result of that further ballot be in favour of changing the admissions arrangements, the time-scales for implementation would be such that the child would be able to complete even his sixth-form education at the school before the change was made. A five-year moratorium, therefore, offers an entirely appropriate period of stability in relation to admissions. It ensures considerably greater stability than the Opposition were prepared to offer when in government in respect of ballots on grant-maintained status where the moratorium was for one year only. In contrast, Amendment No. 136A seeks to extend this moratorium from five to 10 years. At a stroke, that would remove the opportunity for many parents ever to have their say about the future of selective admission arrangements to grammar schools. For feeder school ballots, where the electorate is drawn from the parents of primary pupils, a 10-year moratorium means that children would pass completely through the age range from which the parental electorate would be drawn before a further ballot could be held. For area ballots, where all parents of children up to 16, including those who turn 16 during that year, have a vote, a 10-year moratorium is still a very long time. Why should the parent of a child of five at the time of a first ballot not have the chance to vote again on the issue until the child is approaching the end of its compulsory school years? In these circumstances, we cannot reconcile this amendment with the clear aim of the ballot policy to place power in the hands of parents. I must, therefore, urge noble Lords to support government Amendment No. 136 which reinstates the ballot procedure set out in the 1998 Act and to resist Amendment No. 136A. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.—(Baroness Blackstone.)As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 136
rose to move:
As an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, at the end to insert "and do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill"—.
Moratorium For Holding Further Ballot For Retention Of Selective Admission Arrangements In Grammar Schools
(" . At the end of section 105(8) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there shall be inserted "and that period shall be not less than 10 years".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 136A. In the course of presenting her arguments for and against the amendments on the Marshalled List, the noble Baroness accused this side of the House of pitting grammar schools against comprehensive schools. If anybody is guilty of that it is the noble Baroness and her noble friends opposite. The Government's policy does precisely that. One has only to visit Trafford, Barnet and parts of Kent to see just how vociferous and active is the Labour Party in that work.
The noble Baroness also made no mention of what we believe to be the Secretary of State's plans to modify the petitioning and balloting arrangements in order to make it easier to close grammar schools. We understand that that matter is under active discussion within the department. It is not for me today to go over the arguments about the merits of grammar schools; we have debated those at length in this House. I concede defeat on the amendments passed by this House which went to another place. However, one matter that is worth considering—it is the kind of consideration that this House usually deals with sensitively—is that there should be an end to the upheaval, war of attrition and discomfort caused to schools by this kind of activity on an annual basis. We believe that the five-year moratorium, which in practice is only four years, should be set aside and the period of respite for schools should be 10 years.
For those who wish to see the demise of grammar schools, they will not go away; they will remain active even between one period and another. We are not talking about one generation of children who pass through the school during those five years. A child starting grammar school can expect twice during his time there to have his schooling disrupted, his teachers and head teachers distracted, his parents disturbed and politicking going on around him. It is only fair to give at least one generation of children a respite from such upheaval occurring a second time.
My honourable friend Graham Brady, when considering our amendment in another place, said that one of the saddest aspects of the current Parliament is that a government claiming to be more interested in standards than in structures took early action focused directly on the structures of education. They did so in relatively limited areas of the country but where, by and large, the system has been working well. If the Government were truly more interested in improving standards than in tinkering with structures, they should have left the remaining grammar schools alone two years ago when the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was passed. He went on to say that if it is their true agenda today, they should warmly embrace the House of Lords Clause 98, which was wisely added to the Bill by this House. He said that in the present climate the House of Lords seemed to take more care of the interests of the electorate and behaved more like a democratically responsive body of Parliament than the House of Commons. I shall return to that theme during debates on later amendments.
The Government's blind prejudice against academic ability has never been more manifest than in their philosophical objection to academic selection. What, may I ask the Minister, is so evil about selecting children on the basis of ability, particularly bright children from poor homes?
Moved, That Amendment No. 136A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 136, be agreed to.—( Baroness Blatch.)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with incredulity. I do not doubt that she is genuine in her concern for the disruption and distress caused in schools which are undergoing ballots. I speak from personal experience of schools and can say that, coming from the representative of a government who introduced ballots on maintained status and had school after school experiencing considerable division and disruption all because of their ideological drive to force grant-maintained schools on a country which demonstrated in ballot after ballot—and more particularly by refusing to hold ballots—that it did not want such schools, the concern is hard for me to understand. I do not want to use unparliamentary language, but I find some of what has been said remarkable coming prom a party which started the ballots.
We opposed the Government's proposal, which is now in the Act, to ballot on grammar schools. We thought that it was inappropriate and that it would be better left to local decision-making. We do not want to rehearse those arguments today, but if the Government are considering amending the ballot regulations to make them a little fairer and more workable, I suppose that we welcome it. However, I should welcome much more their reappraisal of the whole situation. The Minister spoke eloquently, as always, against selection in education but perhaps I may correct her on one point. She referred to grammar schools versus comprehensive schools. That is wrong; it is grammar and secondary modern schools versus comprehensive schools. If you have grammar schools, by definition you must have secondary modern schools, whatever label or name you choose to give them. That is the proper comparison with comprehensive schools and when one makes it one can see that in the overwhelming majority of cases our comprehensive schools have been most successful. We will not support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, I must again make clear our party's opposition to the Government's ballot proposals as enshrined in the School Standards and Framework Act.My Lords, when it comes to grammar schools, the Government are in a mess. It is a tailor-made, self-imposed mess. Before the election, their only undertaking as regards education policy was to do something about the grammar schools. They were unspecific, but it was clear that many Labour Members believed that they would move to the abolition of grammar schools. Indeed, some Labour Members—notably the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, and others—have been totally consistent in their abhorrence of selection and their belief that comprehensive education is the only formula for the UK. The Government in whom he was a Cabinet Minister in the 1970s not only believed that but implemented it.
This Government do not quite believe that but it is difficult to know what they believe. They are in favour of selection sometimes and against it at other times. If they were totally opposed to selection, and if they believed that it was evil to select children on ability, they should have the courage of their convictions and introduce a Bill to abolish the remaining 164 grammar schools. But that is not what they have done. Old Labour Members would have liked that because they did not believe in selection. Many of them continue in that belief. Therefore, the Government decided to create a series of fancy franchises around the country in order to pass the decision making down to selected members of the community. And they must be disappointed that the fancy franchises they have created have given them a raspberry! The only ballot has been in Ripon. In Trafford, Birmingham and Kent, parents or local activists tried to reach the target but were unable to do so. In Ripon, the only place where an election took place, there was a decisive result in favour of grammar schools. No doubt the noble Baroness will have read the minute which came from the Prime Minister's hands in recent days. She will remember that he wrote that the Government are out of touch with the "gut instinct" of the British people. The gut instinct in Trafford, Birmingham and Kent is to keep the grammar schools, not to abolish them. The Government cannot even get 20 per cent of the electoral college, which is a fancy franchise, to say that they want to abolish the grammar schools. Therefore, in response to the minute the Minister should tell her leader that she recognises that that is the case and that where there has been an election, the gut instinct was clearly for the continuation of the grammar schools. Perhaps I may also remind the Minister that after the result in Ripon the heads of the grammar and comprehensive schools there said, "Never again do we want to be put through that; not in five years and not in 10 years". I support the amendment tabled by my honourable friend, because 10 years is long enough to ensure that it will never happen but those heads did not want to go through it again because they did not want to waste their time. I ask the Minister to reflect on the improvements which could have been made to existing comprehensive schools in Birmingham, Kent and Trafford if the energies of all the parents had been spent on improving the quality of those schools rather than fighting such an and battle. Therefore, I believe that the Government should accept the fact that that ruse has not worked and should abandon it as quickly as possible. They should certainly agree to the amendment of my honourable friend.Noble friend!
My noble friend—noble and honourable, I hope.
No.
I shall use as many adjectives as your Lordships require, but she is a very good egg!
My point is that my noble friend's amendment would remove that particular dispute from controversy, and that is what we should seek. The last thing that our country's education system needs is a fight on old barren ground. The clear wish of people who expressed a view is that the remaining grammar schools should stay. On certain days the Government agree with that; on other days, they do not—and that is an imperfect lead to give to the education system of our country. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will support the amendment. I must not sit down before I touch on the Liberal Democrats in relation to this matter. The Liberal Democrats nationally are against selection. That is clearly set out in their manifesto. With regard to the local option—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, knows more about the local option than anyone because he presides over a local authority—it is the local level that maintains grammar schools, believes that they are marvellous, campaigns for them, funds them, pays them and encourages them to grow and develop. Therefore, I believe that we should discount entirely the integrity of the Liberal Democrat Party in this matter—not only in this matter, but particularly in this matter—because it is one on which they say, "Don't do as I do; do as I say". I hope that your Lordships will consider these to be the battles of yesteryear and agree that we should not continue them.4.30 p.m.
My Lords, when the Minister introduced the amendment, she referred to the history of discussions about grammar schools over the past 25 years. As someone who had a part in that history, perhaps I may say that I notice and accept that on the face of it the Labour Party appears substantially to have changed its position. Perhaps I may remind her that in 1979 the purpose of the first Bill introduced by the incoming Conservative government was to restore to local education authorities the power to retain grammar schools. That short Bill, introduced on approximately the seventh day of the life of that government, was necessary because of the previous Bill that had been passed by the Labour government under the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as their Secretary of State for Education. Their Bill required local education authorities to become comprehensive and to do away with grammar schools.
There is no doubt that at that stage parents were not asked for their views; the government dictated that grammar schools should disappear. Happily, having passed the 1979 Bill, we have retained 164 grammar schools in this country. I believe that they continue to be a valued part of our education system. They are popular with parents and with the people of the country as a whole. In the past few days, we have heard a great deal about the Government's concern over the perception of their policies. The Minister told us today that one of the Government's policies is the drive for and pursuit of higher standards in education. It is hardly surprising if the public have a slightly different perception when the only two Acts to have been passed by the present Government in this regard abolished the assisted places scheme, which provided education opportunities for children in inner cities which otherwise they would not have had, and maintained their open opposition to grammar schools. Although the Government say that it is for parents to decide, the Minister, like the Minister in the other place, made it clear that they are opposed to, and wish to see the end of, grammar schools. The only ballot that has taken place—in Ripon—showed clear support for grammar schools. The attempt to hold a ballot in Trafford did not even get off the ground because an insufficient number of people signed the petition to start a ballot; and the provisions in the 1998 Act only cause worry and fear to grammar schools and disruption when a ballot takes place. I am sorry that the other place decided to reject the amendment that we passed in this House. However, I hope that the compromise moved by my noble friend today, proposing a moratorium of 10 years before any further ballot can take place, will be passed in an effort to show that the House supports those who want to see the continuation of grammar schools.My Lords, I speak as president of the Grammar Schools Association. I did not intend to speak in this debate but, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has provoked me to the Floor.
The noble Baroness will remember that she answered two Written Questions which I tabled relating to A and B grades at A-level gained by independent and grammar schools. She may remember that she answered that 25 per cent of the A and B grades were gained by independent schools and 13 per cent by grammar schools. Therefore, 42 per cent of the top two grades at A-level were gained by 10 per cent of children in independent and grammar schools. Is that an indictment of the state education system? I do not know. However, in face of that, schools on the Continent have opted for flexibility. In Kent, which has grammar schools, other schools have specialised in technology and various other subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is wrong—he is an historical dinosaur—to say that the only alternative to grammar schools is secondary modern schools. He has only to look across the Channel or to Kent to see that a wide variety of schools can provide alternatives that satisfy children who are not necessarily academic. Believe me, I was good at writing essays but I have never earned as much money as a London plumber. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that they should be more pragmatic, more tolerant and look more closely at the facts rather than attach themselves to a dogma which died with Harold Wilson.My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of an organisation called Support Kent Schools. During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Government's position, as represented by the Minister, was that they were not hostile to grammar schools but they wanted the public to have an opportunity to decide the character of schooling in their areas. That stance seemed to me to be replicated today by the noble Baroness. She said that the Government do not support selection but want merely to return the decision to the public.
I, for one, must confess to having felt a certain scepticism during the passage of the earlier Bill because I believed it more likely that Ministers in this Government were the doctrinal heirs of Mr Anthony Crosland, whose objectives during his time in office were frequently cited in our debates, suitably edited. Now we have an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate the sincerity of the position to which they aspired and which they avowed. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions this afternoon, we now know that the necessary threshold has not been achieved anywhere. The threshold was achieved in Ripon but that result has already been remarked upon. Nowhere else—in Trafford or Kent—has even the threshold for a ballot been achieved. Therefore, the pressure to dispose of selection simply does not exist. In adopting the methods put forward by the Government—that is, their own threshold machinery—the people have spoken; or, to express it more accurately, the eloquence of the public has been decisive. It cannot be mistaken. Therefore, surely now is the time for the Government to say, "Very well, we accept that that is the case and we must now strike a balance between again taking the horse to water and avoiding the undoubted instability and damage that comes from instability to schools—not only selective schools but other, non-selective schools which would be affected by any change, to say nothing of the interests of parents and children". I should like the Minister to answer two questions. First, does she accept that a period of uncertainty on this issue inevitably causes damage of the kind that has been mentioned today and which I need not repeat? Secondly, will she give an undertaking that this Government will not bring forward amendments to the thresholds which were so integral a part of the previous Bill and which have failed, I suggest, to produce the result that the Government wanted? I, for one, would be extremely grateful if in her reply an answer is given to those two questions. I believe that my noble friend's amendment of a 10-year moratorium strikes the right balance. It is the minimum that can really be afforded schools, which have gone through that immensely disruptive process in the past year or so. It strikes the minimum balance of stability needed and the Government now have the opportunity to demonstrate that they respect the wishes of the people and are not truly motivated by hostility to selection.My Lords, my incredulity is equal to that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I shall try to express it in equally parliamentary terms. It is a debating point, but it is a valid one. The noble Lord spent a long time telling us that he is against ballots and then advised his friends to vote against an amendment to have fewer of them. There is probably no point in drawing that to the attention of his colleagues because they will do what they are told, but it is to be hoped that the rest of your Lordships will draw your own conclusions about the Liberal Democrats' position.
My Lords, I find it quite amazing to hear two former Secretaries of State for Education who served various Conservative governments, under whom numbers of grammar schools were turned into comprehensive schools, make the speeches that they have just made. They criticise the Government for fighting the battles of yesteryear. It seems that it is they who are now fighting the battles of yesteryear, and perhaps battles that they wish they had fought a little harder when they were members of those governments.
However, the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is accepted. Of course, I should have referred to secondary modern schools too. When members of the Conservative Party are debating this subject, they never refer to the fact that where we have the selective system, as in Kent, with grammar schools we confine 75 per cent of pupils to secondary modern schools. They are labelled as failures at the age of 11, and it is made very difficult for them to escape from that failure. It would be more honest if from time to time members of the Conservative Party made it absolutely clear that that is what is being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as a "good egg". I do not want to dispute that at all. But the claim that the Government are involved in blind prejudice against academic ability is outrageous. The Government are committed to raising the academic ability of all our children, right across our primary schools and right across our secondary schools. In fighting old battles, the Conservatives are becoming obsessed with 160-odd grammar schools. What a pity the Conservatives do not think about the needs of all our pupils in all our schools. I do not want to get involved in another debate about selection, because, as I said in my introductory remarks and as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said, we have already had that debate several times. I shall answer the two questions put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He supports the continuation of not only grammar schools but also secondary modern schools in Kent. The noble and learned Lord asked whether I accepted that there would be a period of uncertainty when ballots take place and whether that would cause damage. I repeat what I said earlier, and what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It was the noble and learned Lord's party which introduced ballots in the first instance. So I wonder whether he believes that there was any damage caused in that respect. The noble and learned Lord also asked about whether the Government have any intention of amending the thresholds. The threshold is in primary legislation and the Secretary of State has said that he will not reduce it.4.45 p.m.
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has inadvertently neglected to answer the first question. Will she take this opportunity to do that?
Does the noble Baroness regard "secondary modern" as some pejorative term which applies, for example, to Angley School in Kent, which operates in co-operation with Cranbrook School, at the other end of the town, and is sending its children to Oxford and Cambridge and to other universities from an increasingly successful sixth form?My Lords, I thought I had answered the first point. Of course, whenever changes to admission arrangements are made, some disruption will be caused while they are carried out, but it is not believed that long-term damage is done. I reiterate what I said earlier: the Government believe that it was right to consult parents about the issue.
Regarding the point about secondary modern schools in Kent, I am sure there are a great many secondary modern schools in Kent doing the best that they possibly can in a situation which is not at all desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, thinks that the Government are out of touch with public opinion. I think that he is profoundly out of touch with public opinion. When surveys of public opinion were undertaken when the 11-plus was still in place—it still is in Kent—the vast majority of people disliked it intensely and wanted to see it come to an end. I set out my reasons earlier for rejecting the Opposition's proposals and I shall not repeat them all again. I urge noble Lords to support the Government's Amendment No. 136 and to restore the provisions for parental petitions and ballots about the future admission arrangements at grammar schools to the School Standards and Framework Act and to support the position achieved while the Bill was in another place. In so doing, I hope that noble Lords will also be persuaded by my arguments against the Opposition's Amendment No. 136A, which would impose a moratorium of 10 years on further balloting instead of the present five years. To support the Government's amendment and to resist the Opposition's amendment is to support the balance the Government have been keen to strike between ensuring that parents have opportunities to decide the future of admissions to grammar schools and ensuring that schools have the stability between ballots which they need.My Lords, it was the Prime Minister and not the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that the Labour Government were out of touch, and therefore my noble friend was right to refer that. The Prime Minister himself said it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said rather patronisingly that some secondary moderns were doing their best in the best possible circumstances. Many secondary moderns are doing exceptionally well indeed, and so are many other schools, many comprehensives, and many high schools. I refute very strongly the accusation that somehow or other my colleagues and I are not concerned with all children in all schools. It was our government who introduced city technology colleges. It was our government who introduced specialist schools. It was our government who introduced bilateral schools and grant-maintained schools. It was our government who supported grammar schools and the best comprehensive schools, high schools, secondary modern schools, Church schools and special needs schools. That system provides choice and diversity and an education that meets the needs of all children, including children of high academic ability. Why is there a vendetta against 164 schools out of 4,000? We all know why: it is the Government's obsession with academic brilliance and pandering to every other form of selection. Why is it right to select on the basis on an aptitude for science and technology, or art, or music, or sport, and not for a child who is bright and very able academically? I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did ask for it. First, he referred to the ballots which we introduced for grant-maintained schools. There is a very important distinction in that regard. The parents, the teachers and staff in each school which became grant maintained made that decision. This is a very different form of attrition. The parents of children in many of those grammar schools are denied a vote at all about the future of the schools. In the case of grant-maintained schools, they were not voting about whether the school survived as a school; they were voting about a change of management in the school This is about whether the school should survive at all as a school. Many of the schools will cease to exist as grammar schools. I am saying to the noble Baroness that if there is a successful vote in those areas—in other words, to change the admissions arrangements—those schools cease to exist as grammar schools. They are no longer grammar schools. That was not the position in relation to grant-maintained schools. They continued to be the schools that they were and the ballot was on a change of management and the fact that there would be more control over the running of the school. Once again, we have witnessed the two faces of the Liberal Democrat Party. When we were discussing the Bill originally, we all remember that a Front Bench Liberal Democrat spokesman said quite openly in this Chamber, "What we say nationally is one thing; what we do on the ground is another". I have no respect for such a policy. Let there be no mistake that we shall abandon those petition and balloting arrangements when we return to office. A vote for my amendment will be a vote for a widening of choice and diversity in education. A vote against my amendment will impact most strongly on bright children from low income families. This Government prove beyond doubt that the politics of envy and the class war are alive and well. I commend the Motion to the House.4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment No. 136A), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 136, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 206; Not-Contents, 237.
Division No. 1
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Ackner, L. | Carrington, L. |
| Alexander of Weedon, L. | Carver, L. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Cavendish of Furness, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Chadlington, L. |
| Anelay of St Johns, B. | Chalfont, L. |
| Arran, E. | Chalker of Wallasey, B. |
| Astor, V. | Chilver, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Clark of Kempston, L. |
| Attlee, E. | Coe, L. |
| Baker of Dorking, L. | Colwyn, L. |
| Barber, L. | Cope of Berkeley, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Courtown, E. |
| Bell, L. | Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Cox, B. |
| Biffen, L. | Craig of Radley, L. |
| Blackwell, L. | Cranborne, V. |
| Blatch, B. | Crathorne, L. |
| Bledisloe, V. | Crickhowell, L. |
| Boardman, L. | Cuckney, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Dacre of Glanton, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Dean of Harptree, L. |
| Bridges, L. | Denham, L. |
| Brigstocke, B. | Dixon-Smith, L. |
| Brittan of Spennithorne, L. | Donaldson of Lymington, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Durham, Bp. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller] | Eden of Winton, L. |
| Buscombe, B. | Elles, B. |
| Butterworth, L. | Elliott of Morpeth, L. |
| Buxton of Alsa, L. | Elton, L. |
| Byford, B. | Feldman, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Ferrers, E. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Fitt, L. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Flather, B. |
| Carlisle of Bucklow, L. | Fookes, B. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Forsyth of Drumlean, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Fraser of Carmyllie, L. |
| Freeman, L. | Norfolk, D. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Northbourne, L. |
| Garel-Jones, L. | Northbrook, L. |
| Geddes, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. | Norton of Louth, L. |
| Glentoran, L. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Goschen, V. | Onslow, E. |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Onslow of Woking, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Oppenheim-Barnes, B. |
| Hanham, B. | Oxfuird, V. |
| Hanson, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Harris of High Cross, L. | Parkinson, L. |
| Haslam, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Hayhoe, L. | Peel, E. |
| Henley, L.[Teller] | Perry of Southwark, B. |
| Higgins, L. | Peyton of Yeovil, L. |
| Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. | Pike, B. |
| Hogg, B. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Home, E. | Platt of Writtle, B. |
| Hooper, B. | Plumb, L. |
| Howe, E. | Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. |
| Howe of Aberavon, L. | Powell of Bayswater, L. |
| Howell of Guildford, L. | Prior, L. |
| Hunt of Wirral, L. | Pym, L. |
| Hurd of Westwell, L. | Quinton, L. |
| Hylton, L. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Hylton-Foster, B. | Reay, L. |
| James of Holland Park, B. | Rees, L. |
| Jellicoe, E. | Rees-Mogg, L. |
| Jenkin of Roding, L. | Renton, L. |
| Jopling, L. | Roberts of Conwy, L. |
| Kelvedon, L. | Rogan, L. |
| Kimball, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| King of Wartnaby, L. | Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L. |
| Kirkham, L. | St. John of Bletso, L. |
| Knight of Collingtree, B. | St John of Fawsley, L. |
| Knights, L. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Laing of Dunphail, L. | Sanderson of Bowden, L. |
| Laird, L. | Seccombe, B. |
| Lamont of Lerwick, L. | Selkirk of Douglas, L. |
| Lane of Horsell, L. | Selsdon, L. |
| Lang of Monkton, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Liverpool, E. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Lucas, L. | Simon of Glaisdale, L. |
| Luke, L. | Slim, V. |
| Lyell, L. | Sterling of Plaistow, L. |
| McColl of Dulwich, L. | Stevens of Ludgate, L. |
| McConnell, L. | Stewartby, L. |
| Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. | Strathdyde, L. |
| Mackay of Clashfern, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Mancroft, L. | Tebbit, L. |
| Marlesford, L. | Tenby, V. |
| Marsh, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Masham of Ilton, B. | Tombs, L. |
| Mayhew of Twysden, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Miller of Hendon, B. | Trumpington, B. |
| Monson, L. | Vivian, L. |
| Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Montrose, D. | Wade of Chorlton, L. |
| Moore of Lower Marsh, L. | Wilberforce, L. |
| Moran, L. | Wilcox, B. |
| Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Moynihan, L. | Windlesham, L. |
| Murton of Lindisfarne, L. | Wolfson, L. |
| Naseby, L. | Wolfson of Sunningdale, L. |
| Noakes, B. | Young, B. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Amos, B. |
| Addington, L. | Andrews, B. |
| Ahmed, L. | Archer of Sandwell, L. |
| Alderdice, L. | Ashley of Stoke, L. |
| Alli, L. | Ashton of Upholland, B. |
| Attenborough, L. | Grenfell, L. |
| Avebury, L. | Hamwee, B. |
| Bach, L. | Hardy of Wath, L. |
| Barker, B. | Harris of Greenwich, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Harris of Haringey, L. |
| Bassam of Brighton, L. | Harris of Richmond, B. |
| Berkeley, L. | Harrison, L. |
| Bernstein of Craigweil, L. | Haskel, L. |
| Billingham, B. | Haskins, L. |
| Blackburn, Bp. | Hattersley, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Hayman, B. |
| Borrie, L. | Hilton of Eggardon, B. |
| Bradshaw, L. | Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. |
| Bragg, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Brennan, L. | Holme of Cheltenham, L. |
| Brett, L. | Hooson, L. |
| Bristol, Bp. | Howells of St. Davids, B. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Brookman, L. | Hunt of Chesterton, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Hutchinson of Lullington, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor) |
| Carlile of Berriew, L. | Islwyn, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller] | Jacobs, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Janner of Braunstone, L. |
| Chandos, V. | Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal) |
| Chelmsford, Bp. | Jeger, B. |
| Christopher, L. | Jenkins of Hillhead, L. |
| Clarke of Hampstead, L. | Joffe, L. |
| Clement-Jones, L. | Judd, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | King of West Bromwich, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Kirkhill, L. |
| Cohen of Pimlico, B. | Layard, L. |
| Crawley, B. | Lea of Crondall, L. |
| Currie of Marylebone, L. | Lester of Herne Hill, L. |
| Dahrendorf, L. | Linklater of Butterstone, B. |
| Darcy de Knayth, B. | Lipsey, L. |
| David, B. | Lockwood, B. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Longford, E. |
| Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Derby, Bp. | Ludford, B. |
| Desai, L. | McCarthy, L. |
| Dholakia, L. | Macdonald of Tradeston, L. |
| Diamond, L. | McFarlane of Llandaff, B. |
| Dixon, L. | |
| Donoughue, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller] |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | |
| Dubs, L. | McIntosh of Hudnall, B. |
| Elder, L. | MacKenzie of Culkein, L. |
| Elis-Thomas, L. | Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Mackie of Benshie, L. |
| Evans of Temple Guiting, L. | McNally, L. |
| Ezra, L. | Maddock, B. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Falkender, B. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Falkland, V. | Mason of Bamsley, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Massey of Darwen, B. |
| Faulkner of Worcester, L. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Filkin, L. | Methuen, L. |
| Fyfe of Fairfield, L. | Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. |
| Gale, B. | Mishcon, L. |
| Gavron, L. | Mitchell, L. |
| Geraint, L. | |
| Gibson of Market Rasen, B. | Molloy, L. |
| Gilbert, L. | Morgan, L. |
| Gladwin of Clee, L. | Morris of Manchester, L. |
| Goodhart, L. | Murray of Epping Forest, L. |
| Gordon of Strathblane, L. | Newby, L. |
| Goudie, B. | Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. |
| Gould of Pottemewton, B. | Nicol, B. |
| Grabiner, L. | Northover, B. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. |
| Greaves, L. | Oxford, Bp. |
| Greengross, B. | Palmer, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Parekh, L. |
| Patel, L. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Patel of Blackburn, L. | Smith of Leigh, L. |
| Peston, L. | Stallard, L. |
| Pitkeathley, B. | Stern, B. |
| Plant of Highfield, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Portsmouth, Bp. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Prashar, B. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Puttnam, L. | Taverne, L. |
| Ramsay of Cartvale, B. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Randall of St. Budeaux, L. | Thomas of Gresford, L. |
| Razzall, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Rea, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Redesdale, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Rendell of Babergh, B. | Thornton, B. |
| Rennard, L. | Tomlinson, L. |
| Richard, L. | Tope, L. |
| Richardson of Calow, B. | Tordoff, L. |
| Rochester, Bp. | Turnberg, L. |
| Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Rogers of Riverside, L. | Uddin, B. |
| Roper, L. | Varley, L. |
| Russell, E. | Wakefield, Bp. |
| Russell-Johnston, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Sainsbury of Turville, L. | Wallace of Saltaire, L. |
| Salisbury, Bp. | Walmsley, B. |
| Sandwich, E. | Walton of Detchant, L. |
| Sawyer, L. | Warner, L. |
| Scotland of Asthal, B. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Scott of Needham Market, B. | Watson of Richmond, L. |
| Sewel, L. | Wedderburn of Charlton, L. |
| Sharman, L. | Whitaker, B. |
| Sharp of Guildford, B. | Whitty, L. |
| Shepherd, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Shore of Stepney, L. | Wilkins, B. |
| Shutt of Greetland, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Simon, V. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Simon of Highbury, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Smith of Clifton, L. | Woolmer of Leeds, L. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
Commons Amendment
137 Clause 102, page 46, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 (intervention) shall have effect in relation to powers and duties conferred or imposed by virtue of Schedule 7 as if—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 137. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 210 to 228. In view of the need to make progress, I should like to speak in a little detail about one amendment only, Amendment No. 137. The other amendments in this group address minor and entirely technical points. I am happy to give explanations of any of those if noble Lords require.
The purpose of Amendment No. 137 is to apply Sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 to local education authorities, school governing bodies and school organisation committees in the exercise of their functions under Schedule 7 to the Bill. Sections 496 and 497 give the Secretary of State powers to take action where certain public bodies act, or propose to act, unreasonably in the exercise of their functions or are in default of their duties. The various bodies involved in proposals for changes to school organisation under the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are subject to the Secretary of State's powers of intervention. The amendment is needed because, unlike the 1998 Act, the Learning and Skills Bill is not "construed as one" with the Education Act 1996. That means that Sections 496 and 497 do not apply automatically. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 137.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
138 Clause 103, page 47, line 5, leave out subsection(6)
139 Clause 104, page 47, line 21, leave out ("and")
140 Page 47, line 22, at end insert—
("and
( ) a Primary Care Trust.")
141 Clause 106, page 48, line 40, leave out ("and city colleges for the technology of the arts,") and insert (", city colleges for the technology of the arts and city academies,")
142 Leave out Clause 107
143 After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
Inspection
(" .—(1) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England—
(2) A request under subsection (1)(c)—
(3) A reference in subsection (1) to the provision of services includes a reference to the management and use of resources in providing services.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply to an inspection under subsection (1)(c) or (d) of services provided by a person or institution in pursuance of section 103(1).
(5) A person carrying out or participating in the inspection shall have the same powers as an Inspector of Schools under the following provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996—
(6) Section 42A of the 1996 Act (publication of reports) shall apply.
(7) A person who wilfully obstructs a person in carrying out or participating in the inspection—
144 Clauses 108, page 49, line 35, leave out ("age") and insert ("date of birth")
145 Clause 109, page 50, line 12, after ("the") insert ("persons or")
146 Page 50, line 15, after ("person") insert ("or body")
147 Page 50, line 16, after ("Those") insert ("persons and")
148 Page 50, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) a chief officer of police,")
149 Page 50, line 20, leave out ("and")
150 Page 50, line 21, at end insert ("and
( ) a Primary Care Trust")
151 Transpose Clause 110 to before Clause 113
152 Clause 111, page 50, line 33, leave out ("110") and insert ("109")
153 Page 51, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The power under section 103 shall not be used to provide or secure the provision of services outside England.")
154 Clause 112, page 51, leave out lines 8 to 39 and insert—
"Inspection
10B.—(1)Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England—
(2) A request under subsection (1)(c)—
(3) An inspection under subsection (1)(c) or (d) may not relate to services provided for persons who have attained the age of 20.
(4) A reference in subsection (1) to the provision of services includes a reference to the management and use of resources in providing services.
(5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply to an inspection under subsection (1)(c) or (d) of services provided in pursuance of arrangements under section 10(1) of this Act.
(6) A person carrying out or participating in the inspection shall have the same powers as an Inspector of Schools under the following provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996—
(7) Section 42A of the 1996 Act (publication of reports) shall apply.
(8) A person who wilfully obstructs a person in carrying out or participating in the inspection—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 138 to 154.
With the exception of Amendment No. 138 and amendments in respect of the inspection of the Connexions Service, to which I shall turn in due course, the majority of these amendments are minor technical adjustments, which will not, I believe, take up much of our time. For example, Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 150 and 151 add primary care trusts to the lists of statutory bodies in Clause 104 which must be consulted about and collaborate in Connexions provision; and in Clause 109 which are empowered to disclose relevant information to the Connexions Service. As new bodies involved in providing local medical services—including services for young people with special educational needs, they will clearly be important statutory Connexions partners. So too will chief officers of police, who have responsibilities not only for young people in trouble in their areas, but for the protection of all young people, including the victims of crime. They will have relevant information which is unavailable to the other bodies listed in Clause 109. It is therefore important that they are empowered to disclose such information to the Connexions Service. Amendment No. 148 makes provision for that. It was prompted by work undertaken following, and is indeed identical to, the amendment tabled by the honourable gentleman, the Member for Daventry, in another place. We are grateful to him for his help in this matter. Amendment No. 144 changes the reference in Clause 108 from age to date of birth as that corresponds more accurately to the data that is kept on the child benefit register and will be supplied to the Connexions Service under that clause. I turn to Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 154. Together these amendments replace the existing Clauses 107 and 112 in respect of the inspection of the Connexions Service, including careers service provision for young people, in order to make three changes. First, they give Ofsted the independent power to inspect and advise on provision, in addition to its duty to inspect and advise on the service when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. Secondly, the amendments put beyond doubt that the scope of inspections may extend to the management and use of resources by providers. Finally, they introduce a criminal sanction against any person wilfully obstructing inspections. This last part is entirely in line with provisions in the Bill and elsewhere in respect of other inspections by both Ofsted and ALI. I turn finally to Amendment No. 138. This deletes two additions which were made to Clause 103 in respect of careers provision by the successful amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, at Third Reading in this House. As the Government explained in another place, our intention with Amendment No. 138 is to remove wording which we believe could inhibit the Connexions Service's ability to improve the quality and delivery of careers provision and to remove a superfluous provision which simply repeats existing statutory duties on the Secretary of State. I do not believe any more needs to be said about the technical defects of the provisions which Amendment No. 138 seeks to reverse; rather, the debates it gave rise to both here and in another place helpfully aired the concerns which underlay the provisions. I am happy to provide further reassurances about those matters now. We fully recognise that all young people, including those in the average and higher ability ranges and from stable backgrounds, need information, advice and guidance to progress in appropriate learning, particularly at key decision stages in their lives. Failure to provide such support may result in inappropriate decisions which will result in more serious problems, such as dropping out of training or further or higher education. We are determined that all young people should get the help that they need to identify the right path for them and to stay on it. That is why careers advice will be a core element of the Connexions service. We consider it vitally important that all young people receive information and advice on the full range of post-16 opportunities, including opportunities in further and higher education and in work-based learning. We are also aware of concerns about the continuing impartiality of careers advice in schools. We have made clear that the Connexions personal adviser in schools will supplement the advice given by careers teachers and, where appropriate, will refer young people to specialist advice and support, including specialist careers advice and guidance. Connexions personal advisers will be appointed and managed by head teachers, but their remit will make clear their responsibility to provide objective careers advice for school pupils. We intend to explore further how the role of schools and colleges can be developed in support of improved careers education; how impartial guidance in schools can be developed and technology better used. In addition, we shall be looking to set up rigorous standards for careers information, education and guidance in schools and colleges against which Ofsted might inspect provision. There has also been much discussion about how the Connexions service will be resourced. We have said that resources for the service will come from the co-ordination of existing central government resources and from those already devoted by local partners to youth support and guidance. In addition, through the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review we shall be looking to identify any additional resources which may be available to the new service. A range of individuals and bodies have attempted to calculate the potential cost of the service in terms of personnel and funding on the basis of existing delivery mechanisms. But of course it will not be possible to arrive at national figures with any precision until proper audits of existing local provision, staffing and need have been completed and until we have explored what existing—and new—delivery mechanisms work well. That is why we are piloting the service and phasing it in over a number of years. An adequate supply of personal advisers is, of course, crucial to the effective operation of the Connexions service and it is important that they should not be met at the expense of other essential services. The Connexions strategy document made it clear that we shall be consulting on the implications for professional working in related fields, such as the provision of information, advice and guidance for adults. We have also set up a cross-government group to look at the labour market implications of the demand for personal advisers across public services and how that demand might best be met. We are determined that the new service will have sufficient high quality staff to achieve its aims. That is why the rate at which it is phased in will depend partly on the availability of appropriate local personal adviser staff, without adverse effect on other important services. Finally, concerns have been expressed about the effect of the Connexions service on the provision of adult careers information and advice services. Adult careers provision is, of course, delivered by a very wide range of private, voluntary and public sector providers. As the Connexions specification makes clear, it will be critical to ensure that effective careers provision for adults is coherent with that for young people. Information, advice and guidance partnerships are currently leading in the development of such services for adults, and the Connexions service locally will be represented as members of those partnerships. Indeed, in some areas, partners in the Connexions service may act as the lead body for advice and guidance services for adults. Connexions partnerships will need to take those arrangements into account when developing their plans and services. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, noble Lords will agree that Amendment No. 138, like the other Commons amendments in this group should stand. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 138 to 154.—(Lord Bach.)5.15 p.m.
My Lords, I have heard it bandied around that between 20,000 and 47,000 advisers are to be employed. Can the Minister give us the figure and tell us how much it will cost?
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 138. I was sad to see that the Government dropped what I felt was our elegantly worded, redrafted subsection of the Bill. As the Minister argued during many phases of discussion in this House, the additional words were unnecessary. She gave us repeated assurances, which were also given by the Minister in the other place, that the intention of the new Connexions service was not to diminish in any way the quality or quantity of careers information advice and guidance given to the general run of students; it was to ensure that such advice was available to those who, in the past, had failed to obtain it. Yet it was precisely because they lacked the skills and qualifications—and jobs—that they needed it more.
As I made clear in our discussions through all stages of the Bill, I did not dispute the logic of that argument. From these Benches we support wholeheartedly the emphasis on the disadvantaged and the concern to equip those who have dropped out of the schooling process with skills and capabilities which can help them to play a full and useful role in society. But on the practical side of those ambitions, things do not add up. There is neither enough money nor enough people to fulfil both those functions adequately. That may be changed by this afternoon's announcement in the other place. I hope that we see a generous settlement for education which will allow those ambitions to be fulfilled. There are real problems in terms of the supply of people who are suitable to be mentors and their training. For that reason I take on board and welcome the fact that, as the Minister said, the new services are to be phased in. But the evidence on the front line at the moment is that both services are not being provided. Instances have been drawn to my attention where schools have lost the advice and guidance and it is being claimed that that is because there are pressures on the Careers Service to fulfil their Connexions responsibilities in other ways. I can see that, inevitably, there will be glitches in the process of transition; I accept that. But I hope that the ambitions of the Government are fulfilled and that we see enough resources and training to do that.My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am afraid I cannot give her either a figure or the cost. Everything depends on the planning from the bottom up. We have always made that absolutely clear.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does that mean that there is an open-ended budget? Whatever the number is, will there be money to fund it? If so, what is the budget head for it?
My Lords, the noble Baroness need not worry. Of course it is not an open-ended budget; there never is one. But we have to make certain, from when the planning begins, that we get this right. It would be ridiculous and misleading to the House to suggest a number and cost at this stage.
The criticism of the amendment that was successful here was not that it was not elegantly worded; it certainly was. But we felt that it was a little imprecise and obviously the other place agreed. However, the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, today, will be very much taken on board. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
155 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("Support for 11 to 25 year olds: Wales
Provision Of Services
.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may direct a local authority—
(2) In this section "youth support services" means services which in the opinion of the National Assembly will encourage, enable or assist young persons (directly or indirectly) —
(3) In this section "young persons" means persons who have attained the age of 11 but not the age of 26.
(4) A direction under subsection (1) —
(5) A direction under subsection (1) —
156 Insert the following new clause—
Local Authority: Duty And Powers
(" .—(1) A local authority—
(2) Action which a local authority takes in pursuance of subsection (1)—
(3) In complying with a direction under section (Provision of services)(1) a local authority shall have regard to the expediency of co-operation with voluntary organisations.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (1) a local authority may—
(5) Nothing in or done under section (Provision of services) shall prejudice any power of a local authority to provide services or incur expenditure.")
157 Insert the following new clause—
Consultation And Coordination
(" .—(1) Before complying with a direction under section (Provision of services)(l) by providing, securing the provision of or participating in the provision of services for residents of a particular place or area, a local authority shall consult each of the following with responsibility for all or part of the area—
(2) The local authority shall also—
(3) Subsection (4) applies where a local authority—
(4) Where this subsection applies, persons and bodies listed in subsection (1) with responsibility for all or part of that place or area shall—
(5) Subsection (4) shall not require persons or bodies to take action which would significantly interfere with the efficient or effective exercise of their functions.")
158 Insert the following new clause—
Educational Institutions: Information And Access
(" .—(1) Where a person is involved in the provision of services in pursuance of section (Provision of services)(1)(a) or (b), an educational institution to which this section applies shall, for the purpose of the provision of those services—
(2) Information shall not be provided under subsection (1)(c)—
(3) This section applies to the following institutions—
159 Insert the following new clause—
Inspection
(" .—(1) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales—
(2) The National Assembly shall consult the Chief Inspector before making a request under subsection (1)(a) or (c).
(3) A request under subsection (1)(c)—
(4) A reference in subsection (1) to the provision of services includes a reference to the management and use of resources in providing services.")
160 Insert the following new clause—
Conduct And Effect Of Inspections
(" .—(1) This section applies where a service is inspected pursuant to a request under section (Inspection)(1)(c) or in accordance with section (Inspection)(1)(d).
(2) A person carrying out or participating in the inspection shall have the same powers as an Inspector under the following provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996—
(3) Section 42A of that Act (publication of reports) shall apply.
(4) Where the Chief Inspector arranges for the publication of a report of an inspection, the person who provides the inspected service shall—
(5) Where a local authority provides an inspected service, or secures or participates in the provision of an inspected service, the authority—
(6) If the National Assembly consider that a local authority is failing to comply with its duties under subsection (5)—
161 Insert the following new clause:
Supplementary
(" .—(1) In sections (Provision of services) to (Conduct and effect of inspections)—
- "local authority" means a county council or a county borough council,
- "Health Authority" has the meaning given by section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977,
- "parent", in relation to a child, means a person who has parental responsibility for him within the meaning of section 3 of the Children Act 1989,
- "probation committee" means a committee established under section 3 of the Probation Service Act 1993,
- "police authority" has the meaning given by section 101 of the Police Act 1996,
- "young person" has the meaning given by section (Provision of services)(3),
- "youth offending team" means a team established under section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and
- "youth support services" has the meaning given by section (Provision of services)(2).
(2) The power under section (Provision of services) shall not relate to services which are provided or to be provided outside Wales.")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 161. In moving these amendments, I shall speak also to Amendment No.169.
Perhaps I may begin by setting out the background to these amendments. The new clauses that they insert into the Bill on youth support services for 11 to 25 year-olds in Wales flow from our consultative Green Paper, Learning is for Everyone, which was published in April 1998, and consideration of youth issues by the National Assembly. The new clauses prepare the ground for the Assembly to introduce a distinctive Wales approach to support services for young people in partnership with Welsh local authorities and in co-operation with the voluntary sector, and others. They will enable the National Assembly, in consultation with local authorities and others, to introduce measures aimed at: supporting young people in the transition to adulthood and independence, so that they maximise their potential as individuals and as members of groups and communities; encouraging young people of compulsory school age to remain in education or training and encouraging people up to the age of 25 to remain in, or return to, education or training; providing young people with information and counselling services and co-ordinating other support services; identifying disaffected, disengaged and socially excluded young people, meeting their needs for support and bringing them into or back into education and training; and preventing offending and other risk-taking behaviour by young people in co-operation with organisations that have specific responsibility in those fields. The amendments will strengthen and improve the statutory basis for youth support services and underpin National Assembly initiatives aimed at enhancing services for children and young people in Wales. They have been warmly received by the Welsh Grand Committee. They represent good news for Wales and are a clear and potent example of devolution in action. The amendments demonstrate how effectively the National Assembly, the Wales Office and UK government Ministers work together, with common purpose, in the best interests of Wales. In commending these amendments to the House, perhaps I may point out that I did note the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I take his point about the period of time that it took to ensure, so close to the enactment of devolution, the appropriate circumstances for meeting in full the needs determined by Welsh people for people in Wales. I thank the noble Lord for his patience and hope that we now have his support. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 161.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
162 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("City colleges and academies
City Academies
.—(1) Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 (city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(c)—
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The subject areas are—
(4) In subsection (3) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
(c) as a city academy, if the emphasis of its curriculum is on a subject area mentioned in subsection (2A)."
(5) After subsection (3) insert—
(6) After subsection (5) insert—
"(6) For the purposes of subsection (3A) the relevant day is the day on which section (City academies) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 comes into force."
(7) This section does not apply to schools in Wales.")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163 to 165 and 229. Perhaps I should mention at the beginning of my remarks that I believe there is a small error on the groupings list. It refers to this group as relating to Amendments Nos. 162 to 164, whereas it should refer to Amendments Nos. 162 to 165.
These are important amendments. They provide for the establishment of city academies—a new type of school intended to provide new opportunities for pupils in our most deprived urban areas. I am very sorry that this House has not been able to debate these provisions until now. The city academy policy is new, but I am glad that a number of noble Lords were able to attend a meeting held last week to consider the Government's proposals. City academies are a logical and necessary extension of existing policies, such as Excellence in Schools and Fresh Start. If we are to ensure that all pupils, especially those from the most disadvantaged and challenging areas, have the opportunities that they deserve, the Government recognise that we need radical action. The Government have set LEAs a challenge: by the year 2004 at least 20 per cent of pupils in every secondary school should achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A to C; and by the year 2006, at least 25 per cent of pupils should reach that bench-mark. However, there is a long way to go. In 530 secondary schools in England last year—one in six of the total—fewer than 25 per cent of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at Grades A to C. Many of those schools are in our major conurbations, serving communities that are disadvantaged and at risk of social exclusion. Many schools in these areas do succeed, often in the face of quite incredible odds. But we need to ensure that every school is a successful school. All the young people in these areas need access to high quality schools that have the vision and determination to succeed. The city academy route will be one way to provide such schools. In most cases city academies will replace existing poorly-performing schools. This might involve a city academy replacing one school that is closing. Alternatively, a city academy might be set up as part of a wider re-organisation to replace two or three schools. In a few cases, city academies will be new schools set up in areas of under-achievement where there is a need for new places. Initially, we expect to fund up to 10 pathfinder city academies. We shall want to monitor their progress carefully, so that we take account of their experiences in our wider work to raise standards. In all cases, we expect the decision to establish a city academy to be reached following local discussions and debates. We are not looking for a simplistic definition of schools that should become city academies: we will want to look at the individual circumstances of schools; the nature of the area that they serve; and the challenges that they face. Above all, we will want to look at whether closing the existing school and setting up a city academy would offer better opportunities for pupils. City academies will be mixed-ability secondary schools, employing qualified teachers. They will be specialist schools offering a curriculum focus drawn from the range that applies to all specialist schools. Amendment No. 162 also gives the Secretary of State the power to specify by order other subject areas. We want to encourage innovation and creativity and so we do not want to close the door to any new ideas. City academies will be set up and run by sponsors from the private and voluntary sectors. Sponsors will contribute to the capital costs of city academies, but will not be required to provide any part of the running costs. City academies will be funded at the same level as similar LEA schools in the same area. The only additional funding that they receive will be to take account of the services that LEAs provide for their own schools free of charge. They will also receive the same per pupil funding as other specialist schools. City academies will be accountable to the Secretary of State through a funding agreement that will cover the key elements of their governance and management and the characteristics of the education that they provide. City academies will have considerable freedom to manage their own affairs. They will be able and expected to use that freedom to try out new approaches to curriculum development and delivery; to school management and organisation; and to the length of the school day, term and year. City academies will be different from the schools that they replace and from other maintained schools. But they will not be divorced from the local family of schools or, indeed, from the LEA. On the contrary, we expect them to be set up with the involvement and support of LEAs. The prospectus for sponsors makes this very clear. We want close links between LEAs and city academies, both while the academy is being set up and once it opens its doors to pupils. We recommend that the LEA—and other local interests—should be represented on each city academy's governing body. Against that background, I am delighted to tell the House that we have received a very encouraging response from several LEAs which have welcomed this initiative and can see how a city academy might benefit their pupils. We have also been approached by a number of potential sponsors from the business world and from the voluntary sector who are interested in sponsoring these academies. We want city academies to be at the heart of their communities and to work with other local schools. All the schools in our specialist schools programme are required to share their expertise, facilities and good practice with other schools. It will be the same for city academies. The latter will have admission arrangements that are consistent with admissions law and with the codes of practice on admissions. They will work to meet the needs of challenging pupils and will not be able to exclude pupils more readily than other schools. Many noble Lords have long taken a particular and close interest in the education of children with special needs. Let me emphasise that city academies will cater for children with special educational needs—both those with and without statements. We are taking this opportunity to clarify the law about provision for pupils with statements of special educational need attending city academies and city technology colleges. There has been some confusion about the Education Act 1996. Amendment No. 165 amends that Act by inserting a clause providing a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to govern the powers and duties of LEAs in respect of pupils with statements who attend CTCs and city academies. In particular, this will mean that LEAs are able to pay CTCs and city academies for the provision they make for pupils with statements and will also be able to provide other in kind support and assistance to CTCs and city academies in connection with such pupils. We intend to consult widely with organisations involved with special educational needs before these regulations are made. I am pleased that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recognised the importance we are placing on that full consultation before we use this power. Amendments Nos. 163 and 229 are concerned with the provision of land for the purposes of setting up a city academy. They allow the Secretary of State to transfer land which has been used as a community school to a sponsor for use as a city academy. I must emphasise that we envisage that these provisions will be used rarely. In the great majority of cases we expect the sponsor and the LEA to work out together the arrangements for providing land for city academies. That is the spirit of this initiative and the prospectus makes this clear. But there may be rare cases where an LEA unreasonably sets its face against a city academy. It would be wrong to allow intransigence of that kind to deprive pupils of the opportunities a city academy could bring. In such circumstances—and as a last resort—it must be right for the Secretary of State to have the reserve powers to transfer land to a sponsor. Before exercising this power the Secretary of State would have to consult the LEA. There are important safeguards in Amendment No. 229 which mean that land transferred to a sponsor for a city academy can only be used for a city academy. It may be helpful to the House if I use this opportunity to respond to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, although I shall, of course, listen carefully to what she has to say and respond in more detail later. I understand the intention behind Amendment No. 162A. I have made clear our hopes that LEAs and city academies will work closely together. Government Amendment No. 162 provides already for LEAs to be consulted before a city academy is established. This gives the LEA the opportunity to make its views known and these will have to be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Co-operation between city academies and LEAs should rightly be agreed between them. They will, after all, have a shared interest in securing the best education for all the young people in the area. Our experience so far is that LEAs and sponsors want to work together. Against that background, Amendment No. 162A is unnecessary. It sends a signal that we do not expect city academies and LEAs to be able to work together freely. That would be wholly opposed to the nature of the experiment that we are introducing. Let me outline what we expect to happen for each of the areas covered by Amendment No. 162A. The governance of each city academy is a matter for the city academy and the Secretary of State. We expect local interests always to be represented on the governing body and we have said in the prospectus that we are encouraging sponsors to appoint LEA representatives. So far as admissions are concerned, we have given assurances in the other place, in this House and elsewhere that the funding agreement between the city academy and the Secretary of State will require each city academy to have admission arrangements which are consistent with admissions law and the DfEE codes of practice which apply to maintained schools. I am happy to give a further firm commitment to the House that this requirement will be non-negotiable. Similarly, we shall require proposals for city academies to set out clearly their plans for pupil support and these would be included in the funding agreement. We have made clear that city academies should not be able to exclude pupils more readily than other schools. We expect city academies to be involved in local initiatives with other schools to support challenging pupils. As with all schools, the main responsibility for monitoring pupil achievement rests with the school itself. Of course, LEAs have an important role in challenging and supporting the schools they maintain. But city academies will not be maintained by LEAs. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the value of these firm commitments on these important issues and that with the assurances I have been able to give she will not feel the need to press her amendment. Our proposals for city academies offer a real change and an opportunity to raise standards by breaking the cycle of underperformance and low expectations. I commend these amendments to the House. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162.—(Baroness Blackstone.)As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 162
162A Line 35, at end insert—
("(3D) On an application by the local education authority in whose area the school is situated, the Secretary of State shall direct the person who is to conduct the school under subsection (1) to agree arrangements for governance, pupil admissions, pupil support and monitoring pupil achievements with the local education authority.").
5.30 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 162A. I thank the Minister for the reply that she has already given to my amendment. However, in discussing the amendment, I wish to speak more generally about city academies. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this is the first time we have had the opportunity to debate them in this House.
I should like to begin by discussing the more general issue. We on these Benches are sympathetic to the measures which the Government are putting forward which seek to improve the position of inner city schools in disadvantaged areas which have a disproportionately large number of people with all the multiple problems of poverty and who live in rundown communities. We have long argued that these schools should be in the front line of the fight against poverty and need more resources, more talented teachers and innovative programmes. However, we see these proposals for city academies not as part of a co-ordinated strategy on the part of the Government to cope with these issues but, regretfully, as another ad hoc piece of legislation and another gimmick adding to an already complex situation for these schools. We already have community schools, foundation schools, Church schools and city technology colleges, all of which have different set-ups, different relations with local authorities and different governance systems. On Report in the other place the Secretary of State made it quite clear that the new academies were not, like city technology colleges, to be placed outside the local authority system. On the contrary, he said,The noble Baroness echoed the words of the Secretary of State in that regard. However, the question then arises: why is this legislation necessary? The Secretary of State already has sufficient powers to set up such city academies without having to pass special measures to set them up as, in effect, city technology colleges with a wider remit to enable them to be arts colleges and not just technology colleges. The key issue is that of independent sponsors whose only function is to contribute 20 per cent of capital funding. All revenue funding is to come from the LEAs. However, in return for their 20 per cent capital contribution, the sponsors have the freedom to set up their own management structures and processes. The initial draft prospectus had little to say about local government except that the sponsors would liaise with local education partners, including the LEA and other schools. But the revised prospectus which has been issued more recently has shown that the Government expect that city academies will be established with the consent of local education authorities. We take that on board. It contains reference to local government—including encouraging sponsors to invite the LEA to nominate a representative to the governing body—and to the LEA role in identifying potential schools and proposing closures. A government amendment at the Commons Report stage requires the Secretary of State to consult with LEAs about the establishment of city academies. This is one of the amendments we are considering. However, despite this requirement to consult and the emphasis on partnership, there remain doubts. A requirement to consult does not mean that the Secretary of State will react to the concerns of local authorities. City academies will essentially remain outside the sphere of local government and, consequently, separated from the integrated range of services that local government offers. The amendment seeks to address these concerns. If city academies are meant to be at the heart of the community they need to have community representation on the governing body. Arrangements for governance will allow for community representation on that governing body—not only a single representative nominated by the LEA. Arrangements for pupil admissions will ensure that admissions are fair—with no interviewing—and inclusive and will reflect the local population. Arrangements for pupil support will ensure that children in city academies will have access to the same support arrangements that operate in LEAs, including welfare benefits, support for children at risk of exclusion and education welfare officers. Arrangements for monitoring pupil achievements outside the Ofsted school inspection system are essential to the Government's policy objective of raising standards. The LEA should have the ability to monitor the achievements of all local schools provided through their financing. Moved, That Amendment No. 162A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 162, be agreed to.—(Baroness Sharp of Guildford.)"City academies are not like the old city technology colleges—15 of them parachuted in like cuckoos in the nest, for good or ill … I have made it clear that the admissions code will hold, and that schools cannot be parachuted in … It is clear—and I shall make it explicit in the funding agreement—that city academies will co-operate with the admissions forum and seek to work in partnership with other schools in the neighbourhood. This is a collaborative, not a competitive, approach".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/00; cols. 751–54.]
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she was sorry that we were unable to debate these proposals earlier. However, I am deeply saddened that I was not shown the courtesy of being given notice that these amendments were being laid in another place; nor did I receive the consultation papers. I have had to go around carrying out detective work to obtain information about what the Government were doing. It is not unusual—I have made this complaint before—but I wish to register it for the record.
My noble friend Lord Baker, who is in his place, developed city technology colleges. They have been hugely successful—so successful, in fact, that the Government have not only retained them but are building on that experience. My noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham has been incredibly generous in respect of his CTC, and many other people have been equally generous. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a number of questions. First, following consultation, but without the consent of an LEA and without the consent of the governing body of a school which is destined to become a new academy, can the Government set objections aside and press on with the development of a city academy anyway? In which case, will every child in the school have the right to become a pupil of the new city academy? My understanding of a reply given to a question in another place is that Estelle Morris referred to "some" children having a right to transfer to the new city academy. If that is the case, what happens to those children who do not? It is said that city academies will be all-ability schools which cater for pupils who are 11 to 16 or 11 to 18 years' old, according to the pattern of local provision; so, too, do all comprehensives, city technology colleges and many other schools. It is said that they will be situated in major urban areas; well, such schools are in such areas. It is said that schools will be at the heart of their communities, sharing their facilities with other schools and the wider community; all schools are at the heart of their communities and many of them share their facilities with the wider community. Schools will be registered as independent schools, subject to inspection by Ofsted, and charge no fees; that, of course, is the case with CTCs. Schools will have state-of-the-art facilities, with sponsors making a contribution; that, of course, is the case with CTCs—but why should it be only these schools with state-of-the-art facilities? What makes them distinctive? They will be owned and run by sponsors; so are CTCs. They will be schools with a broad curriculum but with special emphasis in an area of the curriculum such as science, languages, arts or sport; our specialist schools do that. They will be schools developing in their pupils the qualities of enterprise, self-reliance and responsibility which young people need for adult life; I would hope that that is a mission for all of our schools. They will be schools aiming to secure the highest possible standards of achievement, never satisfied with past levels of achievement; I hope that also applies to all other schools. What is distinctive about the city academies when compared to city technology colleges and our specialist schools?5.45 p.m.
My Lords, earlier I was critical of the Government's policy on grammar schools; on this occasion I fully support the proposals tabled by the noble Baroness. I think these academies are an excellent idea, for several reasons. First, they will be based in the inner city areas, which, as everyone recognises, present the most difficult educational problems. Secondly, they will be supported by local industry—in fact the Government expect £2 million per college to be contributed. I hope that they will be successful in that. When we set up the city technology colleges we raised some £44 million for the first 15 colleges. For me, it was quite easy money to raise. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it as easy to raise money from industry and commerce as we did.
Thirdly, they will be independent of local government. I certainly congratulate the Government on this. When I introduced the technology colleges I was lambasted for this particular proposal. The original CTCs were independent of local authorities and that gave them the freedom and flexibility they needed. They could experiment with timetabling; with opening and closing schools at different hours; with varying the holidays of the year and so on. The city academies should have the same degree of freedom. The fourth reason I welcome the academies is that the Government have done something that I did not perhaps have the percipience to do: they have taken powers—which, if I had introduced them, would have been accused of being draconian—to transfer the property of schools at no charge to the city academies. When I came to set up the city technology colleges, the schools said "Our school is worth £4 million or £5 million for development value; please give us £4 million or £5 million". The Government have sensibly taken these draconian measures—which I fully support—to transfer the schools. That is not a loss to the local community; it is transferring an existing educational asset, which is defunct and not operating correctly, into an educational asset which is properly run. I am very glad to support the Government. As I say, the academies will be virtually indistinguishable from city technology colleges, whatever oratory and clever words the Government may use. I do not complain about that. I always feared that when the Government came to power in 1997 they would stand by their original proposal to abolish the CTCs. Not only have they not done that; they have expanded them into a network of 700 colleges. Collectively, they produce some of the finest schools in the country. I hope that the academies will be a considerable addition to them.My Lords, perhaps I may briefly note the fact that Wales is entirely excluded from the proposals relating to city colleges and academies. I can think only of one reason for that—namely, that the National Assembly did not foresee certain circumstances in which they would be needed. In that case, we should all remind ourselves of a saying I once heard Nye Bevan utter—namely, that one of our troubles is that we plan for society as it is rather than for society as we would wish it to be.
I welcome very much the youth services support referred to in the last group of amendments, but I am somewhat surprised that this initiative is not being made applicable to Wales as well. What is good enough for England is usually good enough for Wales.My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Roberts, for their support for this idea. City academies are intended as a radical solution to very intractable problems. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that they are in no sense a gimmick. They are designed to try to find our way through a problem with which successive governments have found it difficult to deal. Let us be clear. They are not the only solution. And nor are we intending to impose them on unwilling communities.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it would be unthinkable for us to set up city academies against local opposition. In most cases the LEA or the school itself will publish the proposals which lead to a school closing so that a city academy can be set up. In very rare cases the Secretary of State could use his powers under the School Standards and Framework Act to propose the closure of a school which is already seriously failing. But, in doing that, he would want to take account of local views. The noble Baroness asked whether pupils who have been at a school which is being closed, with a city academy being formed in its place, would go on as pupils in the city academy. We certainly expect that the vast majority of pupils at schools replaced by city academies will transfer to the city academy. However, it would be a mistake to try to lay down hard and fast rules now which could not possibly take account of particular cases. For example, the establishment of a city academy may be part of a reorganisation where several schools are closing or changing size. Two schools might be merged and be replaced by a single city academy. Where that happened, pupils might prefer to transfer to another local school rather than to the city academy. Parents might also choose to send their children to a school other than the city academy. What we are clear about is that we do not want to create surplus places. The noble Baroness asked about the difference between CTCs and city academies. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was perfectly happy to have city academies that would be slightly different from CTCs. The first respect in which they will be different is that, unlike CTCs, the creation of city academies will not create surplus places and in that sense threaten other schools in the area. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, they will have fair and open admissions systems. CTCs were set up able to interview applicants and take into account rather subjective criteria, such as parental commitment. Finally, city academies will be required to use their specialist status to benefit other schools too. Those are all important differences. Perhaps I may respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about Wales. The provision does not apply to Wales because the National Assembly decided that it did not want these powers. The noble Lord will have to go back to his colleagues in the National Assembly on that point. I return to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I can assure the House that governance arrangements for city academies will be transparent and will ensure that they do reflect best practice from the maintained and independent sectors on all the key issues—from child protection to financial probity, the involvement of parents, and so on. I have already given an assurance about admissions arrangements. The LEA will also have the ability to make representations to the Secretary of State should it have concerns about them. I accept that proper arrangements for pupil support are essential and we will ensure that the funding agreement for each city academy gives proper attention to that. But city academies are to have the freedom to devise new solutions. That is the whole point of them. We do not want them to be constrained in what they are doing. For all schools, working to ensure that pupils achieve their full potential is by far the most important task. We know that careful monitoring of pupil achievements is the key to achieving high standards. That work must be first and foremost the responsibility of the school itself. The prospectus makes it clear that city academies will set targets against agreed performance indicators. I hope that, taken together with my earlier comments, the noble Baroness will feel that we have given adequate reassurances about our plans for city academies. In particular, I hope that the House will agree that our plans give city academies the freedom they need to be truly innovative and that they also protect the interests of the young people who will attend them and the other schools in the area. With that in mind I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and join the House in agreeing with the Commons amendments.My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reassurances on these issues. It is clear that if city academies are to succeed they have to be in the heart of their local communities and work extremely closely with their local education authorities. I take on board the Minister's assurances that that will be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 162A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 162, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
163 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
City Academies: Land
(" .—(1) Schedule (City academies: land) contains provisions about land in relation to city academies.
(2) That Schedule does not apply to land in Wales.")
164 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
City Academies: Financial Provisions
(" . In section 483 of the Education Act 1996 (city colleges: financial provisions) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) If the school is a city academy, subsection (3) shall apply with such modifications (if any) as may be specified by the Secretary of State by order."").
165 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
City Colleges And Academies: Special Educational Needs
(" . After section 483 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
"City Colleges And Academies: Special Educational Needs
483A.—(1) This section applies in relation to any child falling within subsection (2) if the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied.
(2) A child falls within this subsection if—
(3) The condition in this subsection is satisfied if—
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for securing that arrangements are made—
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may require or authorise a local education authority—
(6) No condition or requirement imposed by virtue of section 482(4)(a) is to prevent a local education authority making payments or providing assistance by virtue of subsection (5).
(7) This section does not apply to schools in Wales."").
166 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("Pensions
Pensions
.—(1) Section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (persons to or in respect of whom benefits may be provided by schemes under that section) shall apply to persons falling within subsection (2).
(2) This subsection applies to a person if—
(3) The employers are—
(4) A scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (a new scheme) may not be made in relation to the persons falling within subsection (2) unless—
167 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
Pensions: Interpretation
(" .—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section (Pensions).
(2) Rights in relation to a person include—
(3) A deferred pensioner is a person who has rights under the occupational scheme but is neither a pensioner under it nor a person to whom rights are accruing under it by virtue of his employment.
(4) "Salary related occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 93(1A) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.")
168 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
Pensions: Delegation
(" .—(1) A function exercisable by virtue of section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in consequence of section ( Pensions) or of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 may be exercised by (or by employees of) such person as may be authorised in that behalf by the person whose function it is.
(2) An authorisation given by virtue of subsection (1) may authorise the exercise of a function—
(3) An authorisation given by virtue of subsection (1) is to be treated for all purposes as if it were given by virtue of an order under section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (contracting out of functions of Ministers and office-holders).
(4) An authorisation given by virtue of subsection (1) may be revoked at any time by the person who gave it.")
169 Before Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
Wales: Provision Of Information By Public Bodies
(" .—(1) For the purpose of the provision in Wales of services mentioned in subsection (2), any of the persons or bodies mentioned in subsection (3) may supply information about a young person—
(2) The services are—
(3) The persons and bodies are—
170 Clause 113, page 52, line 29, at end insert—
("(12) Sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 shall have effect as if—
171 Clause 114, page 52, line 45, leave out ("and")
172 Page 53, line 2, at end insert (", and
( ) who is receiving, or in the Secretary of State's opinion is likely to receive, post-16 education or training (within the meaning of Part I of this Act) or higher education (within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988).")
173 Page 53, line 10, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) In its application to Wales this section shall have effect with the following modifications (in addition to those specified in section (Wales)—
("(a) the reference to Part I of this Act shall be construed as a reference to Part II, and
(b) the reference to section 13 shall be construed as a reference to section 41.")
174 After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
Training Programmes: Cessation Of Funding
(" .—(1) This section applies to a company if—
(2) Unless the Secretary of State consents in writing, a company to which this section applies may not after the passing of this Act—
(3) In subsection (2) "prescribed" means prescribed by order of the Secretary of State; and the action which may be prescribed under that subsection includes, in particular—
(4) A company to which this section applies shall comply with a written direction from the Secretary of State given after the passing of this Act which requires it to transfer an asset to—
(5) Before giving a direction to a company under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult the company.
(6) Where a company to which this section applies takes, causes or permits action in contravention of subsection (2) the High Court may on the application of the Secretary of State make any order which seems to it appropriate.
(7) An order under subsection (6) may, in particular—
(8) Section (Wales) shall not apply to this section; but in the application of this section to a company which operates in Wales—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 to 174. All of these amendments have been spoken to, respectively, with Amendments Nos. 117, 155 and 162. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 to 174.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
175 Clause 116, page 55, line 21, after ("of(", insert ("property,")
176 After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
Designated Institutions: Disposal Of Land, &C
(" .—(1) This section applies to land which after the coming into force of this section is transferred to trustees under section 32(3)(b) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (transfer of property on designation of institution).
(2) This section also applies to land which—
(3) If trustees dispose of land to which this section applies they shall notify the appropriate council.
(4) If trustees dispose of land to which this section applies they shall pay to the appropriate council so much of the proceeds of disposal as may be determined to be just—
(5) In making a determination under subsection (4) regard shall be had, in particular, to—
(6) More than one determination may be made under subsection (4) in relation to a particular disposal where it is just to do so, in particular where the disposal involves the creation of a lease.
(7) If trustees permit land to which this section applies to be used for purposes not connected with the designated institution—
(8) Where a designated institution has ceased to exist—
(9) In this section "the appropriate council" means—
177 After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
Further Education Colleges: Governors' Liability
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) applies where a member of a body listed in subsection (3) is found liable in civil legal proceedings in respect of something which he did or omitted to do in the course of carrying out his duties as a member of the body.
(2) If—
the court may make an order extinguishing, reducing or varying the liability.
(3) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) are—
(4) Where a member of a body listed in subsection (3) applies to a court for an order under this subsection, the court may make any order which—
(5) In subsections (2)(a) and (4) "a court" means the High Court or a county court; but this subsection is subject to any order under section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (allocation of business between High Court and county courts).")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 175 to 177. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 177. Amendment No. 177 inserts a new clause which meets the commitment we made at the Committee stage in this House to consider what provision we could make to protect the personal liability of individual FE governors. This clause will place governors of FE corporations on a similar footing to trustees of charities or directors of companies. The new clause allows a governor to apply to the courts to be relieved fully or partially from an actual or potential personal liability if the courts find that the governor has acted honestly and reasonably. However, cases where liability has arisen from criminal acts will be excluded, which is consistent with the treatment of trustees and company directors. I should like to thank noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Tope—for the interest they have taken in this issue. I hope that the provision meets with their satisfaction.
Amendment No. 176 inserts a new clause which will correct inadequate provisions in current legislation in the interests of protecting investments of public funds. Under Section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 institutions may be designated by the Secretary of State to be part of the FE sector but, on closure, he has no powers to prevent land acquired or enhanced by public funds being lost to the trustees. Given the possibility of the creation of new designated institutions under the provisions of this Bill, we must make sure that there is provision for the recovery of the proceeds of sale of such land or its value where the use of the land is changed, including cases where the institution closes. The new clause achieves that by requiring that the trustees of such an institution inform the LSC or CETW if they dispose of or change the use of land acquired or enhanced in value using public funds and repay the proceeds or value as may be determined. If agreement cannot be reached by the council and the trustees, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly will determine the amount that must be repaid. Amendment No. 175 addresses a minor drafting point. By inserting the word "property", we secure a formulation: that is, "property, rights and liability", which is consistent with the education Acts. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 175 to 177.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.6 p.m.
Commons Amendments
178 After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
Financial Support For Students
(" .—(1) The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 22 (new arrangements for giving financial support to students)—
(3) In section 23 (transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) in subsection (1)(b)—
(4) In section 26 (imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions) in subsections (4), (5) and (10)(b) for "attending" (in each place) substitute "undertaking".
(5) In section 28(1) (interpretation) in the definition of "fees" for "attendance on" (in each place) substitute "undertaking".")
179 After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
Financial Support For Students: Northern Ireland
(" .—(1) The Education (Student Support) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Article 2(2) (interpretation) in the definition of "fees" for "attendance on" (in each place) substitute "undertaking".
(3) In Article 3 (new arrangements for giving financial support to students)—
(4) In Article 4 (transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) in paragraph (1)(b)—
(5) In Article 7 (imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions) in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (8)(b) for "attending" (in each place) substitute "undertaking".")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 and 179. In moving these amendments, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 264.
Amendment No. 178 will enable the Secretary of State to provide financial support to students on open learning courses that do not have attendance requirements. The new clause it inserts into the Bill makes technical but important changes to existing legislation which is currently couched in terms of attendance and which prevents, for example, Open University students being eligible for the same support as students in other universities. In 2000–01 this support will be provided in the form of loans for part-time students on low incomes and disabled students' allowances for part-time students with disabilities. I know that the Open University had been concerned at the unforeseen limitations of the wording in the Teaching and Higher Education Act and we are now delighted to put things right. Amendment No. 179 makes equivalent changes to the relevant legislation for Northern Ireland. Although the Assembly would normally prepare its own legislation in this area, by making provision directly in the Bill we are ensuring that the new arrangements can be put in place for the next academic year. The relevant committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved the approach. Lastly, Amendment No. 264 simply makes transitional provision to cover so-called "old-style loans" under the new post-16 arrangements. It is merely part of consequential amendments which replace references to the FEFCs with the LSC and the CETW. The whole of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 was repealed by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Order-making powers under the latter were used to ensure that the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act were preserved to cover existing student loans or students whose circumstances meant that they were still eligible for "old-style loans". This includes students on particularly long courses, the final stages of which may be funded by the LSC or the CETW. Amendment No. 264 therefore provides that the provisions preserved from the 1990 Act also apply in respect of institutions receiving funding from the LSC or the CETW under this Bill. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 and 179.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.My Lords, before we move on to the next grouping, Amendments Nos. 180 to 182C, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the order in which the business on this grouping of amendments will proceed.
All the Lords amendments to Commons Amendments Nos. 180 to 182 are on the subject of sex education guidance. They have therefore all been grouped together. It is intended that we should hold a single debate encompassing all these amendments. After the debate we shall then move to a series of decisions, all of which should be moved formally without any need for further debate. To open the debate, the Minister will move that Commons Amendment No. 180 be agreed to. At that point, the Minister will make her speech. She will then move her own amendment to Amendment No. 180; namely, Amendment No. 180A. In practice, the rest of the debate will then take place on that amendment. Any noble Lord who wishes to speak to any of the amendments on the subject of sex education guidance—Amendments Nos. 180 to 182C inclusive—should do so at that point, when Amendment No. 180A is the Question before the House. At the end of the debate, the Question will first be put on Amendment No. 180A and decided. The other amendments dealing with sex education guidance will then be taken in the order in which they appear on the revised Marshalled List when moved formally. They will be decided or withdrawn without further debate. In short, it is intended that only one debate should take place on the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 180A.My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Chief Whip a question. Is the entire debate to take place on only one amendment? Do I understand, however, that noble Lords who have tabled amendments will be entirely free, as will be the whole House, to debate any other amendment in the grouping?
My Lords, that is the intention. Because all the amendments address the same subject, we shall hold a single debate on the whole grouping. Any noble Lord who has tabled an amendment in that grouping will be free to speak to the amendment. At the end of the debate, the Questions will then be taken in order. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has agreed that this will be a good way to proceed.
Commons Amendment
180 Page 55, line 26, at end insert—
("(1A) In section 351 (general duties in respect of the curriculum) after subsection (5) insert—
"(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose duties on a local education authority with regard to sex education."").
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180. Perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 181 and 182.
I should like to start by reflecting on how we have reached this position. At Third Reading of the Bill in this House, the Government brought forward a carefully balanced amendment built on consensus and agreement. There was general agreement that our amendment was well constructed. That carefully balanced amendment was demolished and replaced by what in our view was a partial and selective amendment. I pledged that the Government would delete it in another place—and this we have done. We brought forward in another place amendments which focused on the key concerns that have been raised. These amendments brought from another place have one firm and central purpose: the protection of children from inappropriate teaching and materials in the delivery of sex education in schools. They clarify that local education authorities have no duties in the policy or delivery of sex education in schools. They place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance so that pupils are protected from inappropriate teaching and materials. They require governing bodies and head teachers to have regard to that guidance. They deal also with material produced by health authorities for schools. The Government have fulfilled the commitment that I made at Third Reading. We have taken a consistent approach throughout the debate on sex and relationship education. Our approach has centred on providing protection for our children, support for our teachers and governors, and reassurance for our parents. The Secretary of State issued new sex and relationships education guidance on 7th July. That guidance provides clarity and support to schools, governors, teachers and parents. It is backed up by the personal, social and health education framework issued last autumn as a part of the Government's national curriculum review. It may be helpful to the debate if I comment immediately on Amendment No. 182A tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. This amendment is very close to the wording of part of the original amendment that the Government brought forward at Third Reading. It is clearly grounded in the personal, social and health education framework and it is consistent with the sex and relationships education guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Our new sex and relationships education guidance provides for pupils to learn about the importance of marriage for family life and for bringing up children, and about the significance of marriage and stable relationships as the key building blocks of community and society. That guidance achieved broad consensus in consultation. Our guidance is underpinned by the personal, social and health education framework. The PHSE framework provides that at ages seven to 11, pupils should be taught to be aware of different types of relationship, including marriage and those between friends and families, and to develop the skills to be effective in relationships. At ages 11–14 pupils should be taught about the role and importance of marriage in family relationships. At 14–16 pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children. Our guidance will also be supported by our National Healthy School Standard, to which every school is expected to sign up within the next few years, and which contains as success criteria the requirement for schools to teach in line with the Secretary of State's guidance. I want to make it clear at this stage of the debate that the Government support the amendment put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. We believe that it underpins and reinforces the balance that we have achieved. Taken in the context of the Secretary of State's guidance, we believe that accepting this amendment will underpin the effective delivery of our sex education policy. That policy is grounded in consultation and consensus. It may also be helpful if I comment on the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.My Lords, I should like to ask a very important question. Does the Minister accept that the guidance is wholly unenforceable in any court of law? Even if the amendments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn or my noble friend Lady Young are accepted, the provisions will remain wholly unenforceable. How does the Minister propose that conformity with the guidelines should be achieved? Thank you for allowing me to intervene.
My Lords, the amendments that the Government are bringing forward today require schools and governing bodies to take notice of the guidance. Of course it will be enforceable in a court of law, thanks to its place in the Bill.
I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has a serious intention in wanting to ensure that the law works effectively. I shall listen very carefully to what he says, but I hope that when I reply I shall be able to reassure him that the amendments that we have inherited from another place already secure the objective that he seeks to achieve. It might also be helpful if I comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I recognise that she has identified a particular issue that some people have concerns about: the training and advice that local education authorities provide to schools. I recognise the motivation behind the amendments, but the form in which they are expressed is too narrow. It would be wrong to focus on marriage as a single issue. We want local education authorities to have regard to the broad range of issues identified in our guidance, including protecting children from inappropriate teaching and materials, which is central to the amendments brought forward by the Government in another place. For that reason, the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 180A, which we believe to be a more effective response to the issue identified by the noble Baroness. It ensures that when local education authorities carry out any activity that may have a bearing on the provision of sex and relationship education, they must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on sex and relationship education, based on the PSHE framework and on a broad consensus achieved in consultation. I emphasise that the Government's amendment does not change the existing provision that the key responsibility for sex and relationship education must remain with the head teacher and the governing body, and that the local education authority has no duty in the policy or delivery of sex education. I must contrast Amendment No. 182B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with Amendment No. 182A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Amendment No. 182A rests on the wording of the PSHE framework. It is founded on a careful statement built on consensus. Amendment No. 182B, on the other hand, is based on wording taken from the Home Office document, Supporting Families, published in 1998. We know that because her honourable friends in another place made it clear when they introduced the same amendment. That text was written for a specific purpose, and unfortunately the sentence used in the amendment does not give the full picture. I believe that noble Lords would find it helpful to hear the words that the noble Baroness chose to leave out of her amendment. The relevant passage reads:The document goes on to say:"This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. This does not mean trying to make people marry, or criticising or penalising people who choose not to. We do not believe that Government should interfere in people's lives in that way."
It then says:"But we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children".
By lifting words selectively, the noble Baroness's honourable friends in another place did not give the full picture, and I fear that the noble Baroness is about to do the same. In summary, I want to make it clear that the Government will oppose Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C. I encourage noble Lords on all sides of the House to support instead the Government's Amendment No. 180A, which is a broader, more balanced response to the issue identified by the noble Baroness. We support Amendment No. 182A, put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, but we cannot support Amendment No. 182B, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.—(Baroness Blackstone.)"There are strong and mutually supportive families and relationships outside marriage and many unmarried couples remain together throughout their children's upbringing and raise their children every bit as successfully as married parents".
As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 180
180A Line 4, at beginning insert ("In exercising any function which may affect the provision of sex education in maintained schools, every local education authority must have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 403(1A).
(7) Except to the extent provided in subsection (6),").
My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 180A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, be agreed to.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
6.15 p.m.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 180B, 180C and 182B. I am very glad that the government amendments, which were inserted as Clause 117 in another place, cover national health service trusts. The Minister did not refer to that, but the issue was referred to on a number of occasions when we debated the matter last March. I am also glad that they ensure that sex education takes account of the religious and cultural background of pupils. I welcome the Minister's further amendment that she has moved this afternoon.
However, although I welcome the new amendments, they are much weaker than those that were passed by the House of Lords last March. My amendments, which the House was then good enough to support, encouraged marriage, set clear principles for determining inappropriate material and gave governors an absolute veto over what materials could be used in schools. In welcoming the fact that the Bill now takes account of pupils regardless of their religious or cultural background, I make the point once again that my amendments have cross-party support and cover all religions. Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C are essential. I am glad that the Minister recognised that I have identified a gap in the provisions made for sex education. I make no apology for the terms in which I speak to the amendments. They are essential because I know full well that local education authorities give training and advice to teachers, governors and parent governors on sex education and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so and that such advice will increase with the new guidelines. Local education authorities are also the major providers of in-service training. It is therefore essential that marriage is put at the centre of their courses. I am delighted to see so many on the Bishops Bench today. I do not think that I have ever seen quite so many before. I hope that they will support my amendment if they really believe in marriage. The wording of my Amendment No. 180C applying to local education authorities is very nearly the same as Amendment No. 182B, which applies to governors and teachers. So I am completely consistent in what I am saying. It seems to me that one should be consistent, and that marriage should be on the face of the Bill in the two areas of provision relating to sex education. I was pleased that the noble Baroness made the point that I have taken the wording from the Government's own publication. I do not want to spend time now telling the noble Baroness on just how many occasions marriage is included in the Government's Green Paper, Supporting Families. Incidentally, I was always under the assumption that a Green Paper emanated from the Government, not from one particular department, and that every department signed up to it. The noble Baroness explained in some detail why the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was acceptable and mine was not. That is an outstanding example of government spin. There are those of us who take these matters very seriously; I count myself as one. Marriage is at the centre of Supporting Families, and all I am doing, with the intention of being helpful, is to quote from the Green Paper. I had intended to quote precisely the same paragraph as the noble Baroness quoted, but I shall not take up the time of the House. It is important that the House should be aware that, even today, local education authorities are producing material which is entirely inappropriate. My attention was drawn to this by a friend of mine who is a school governor and who was invited to attend a conference a couple of months ago on sex and relationship education. Perhaps I may read part of the paper that was issued to participants. It stated:That is the message. The section on marriage refers to:"Sex and relationship education should empower pupils after a positive view of sex and sexuality and support sexual self-acceptance, be well linked to contraceptive services, be sustained by working within a theoretical framework, meet local needs, undertake specific work to meet the needs of vulnerable children, be provided early, reinforce value messages, focus on risk education, use active learning and participatory techniques, ensure that children have a critical awareness of the messages that are portrayed in the media".
My friend made a note that the man running the course said of marriage that it was,"marriage linked with relationships and homosexuality".
The message is clear. This amendment is essential. It is essential because of the material that is currently being used by LEAs. One example is a book that is being used in Birmingham. Marriage is not mentioned at all, yet it contains plenty of advice on abortion, "coming out", gay rights and bisexuality. Material recently issued by Leicestershire mentions marriage only when pupils are about to leave school. I do not believe that the guidelines that are linked to the government amendment make clearer the whole issue of what is appropriate or inappropriate. What emerges from paragraphs 1.8 and 4.5 is that what is not appropriate is inappropriate. It is a kind of circular argument. Yet those who saw the exhibition that we held with regard to what local education authorities and some teachers thought appropriate in 1988 and what health promotion units think is appropriate today will have found much of the material simply appalling. All this material is paid for by the taxpayer. Many people, myself included, would regard much of it as pornographic, and all of it is put before children. I am certain that if Section 28 is repealed and the minimum provisions are not in place, the floodgates for this appalling material will be open for ever more. Perhaps I may reinforce the comment of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Guidelines, weak as they are, are not enforceable. So I believe strongly that my first amendment is essential. I hope that everyone in the House who believes in marriage will support it. My second amendment—again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—is similar to the one introduced by my honourable friend Mr Gerald Howarth in another place. As I said, it is based on words from the Government's Green Paper. If the Government do not believe the words in their Green Paper, what can I do about it? It now seems that they do not. If they do—one must assume that that is the case—why not write them on to the face of the Bill? I am not asking for anything other than that. It is incredible that we should be debating the need to include marriage in sex education. Marriage is still the basis of society. Many of the greatest problems being faced today—rising crime and an enormous welfare bill, to name but two—arise from the breakdown of marriage. If we examine the guidelines, we get little comfort. Marriage is mentioned only three times in 33 pages. In modern jargon, the guidelines are non-judgmental and value free. That means in effect that adults have abdicated their responsibilities to pass on traditional beliefs and knowledge, leaving children free to choose any kind of lifestyle, and that all lifestyles are to have equal value. As a kind of sop to adult consciences, children are given more rights in exchange. I was interested to read a report by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham in the Catholic Herald on 14th July about the guidelines, in which he said:"not important per se, but important for some".
He went on to say:"Yet in the document there is no guidance concerning the moral principles that shape and guide a true understanding of the nature and purpose of human sexuality".
I have long argued that there is a major debate in this country between those of us who stand by the belief that our country has been shaped and formed by the great Judaeo-Christian tradition, and those who wish to see a secular society and are quite prepared to sign up to it. I am not. Good teachers, on reading the guidelines, will be placed in an impossible position as they struggle to follow all of this. There is no mention of right or wrong. That is extraordinary in a document such as this. The rest of us who have read it should hardly be surprised that there are so many teenage pregnancies and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Yet the extraordinary thing is that we know from all the polls taken that the overwhelming majority of young people want to get married, and that the overwhelming majority of parents would welcome education on sex in marriage. I cannot understand why, if the Government really listen to what people want, they will not accept the amendments. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will not think me discourteous if I comment on his amendment before he has spoken to it. But in the way that this debate in being taken, this may be my only opportunity to do so. Some noble Lords may well think that there is very little to choose between the amendment of the right reverend Prelate which refers to governors and teachers and my second amendment, Amendment No. 182B. I want to press my amendment because—I say this with much regret —I consider the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate to be a much weaker amendment than mine; and as I have said, I regard mine as much weaker than that which the House agreed last March. I do not want to take up the time of the House splitting hairs over what each means, but there is a difference between the two verbs "to learn" and "to be taught". "Taught" is much stronger and likely to be more effective. Children may or may not learn: they are actually taught. The right reverend Prelate stresses the importance of marriage for family life. My amendment says that marriage provides "the most reliable framework", which is a statement of fact and based on the Government's own words. This is not a matter of semantics. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said, the House must understand that this is a package. Amendment No. 182A is linked to Amendment No. 180A. Clearly, the intention is that, if carried, the Government will be able to repeal Section 28 with impunity. In fact, it is not a substitute for Section 28. I have already made quite clear what is happening in local education authorities. The amendment on marriage is in effect a toning down of what the Government themselves said previously. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will accept my amendment. To sum up: I believe that the two amendments that I am moving are an absolute minimum requirement. They are in the interests of children and parents. They must include marriage because I believe—as I believe do most people in the country—that marriage is the basis of our society. Weakened as it has been, it is still the basis and we should put in front of children the ideal by which they should live. Of the alternative amendments directed at governors, I believe that mine is the stronger. It is not as strong as I would like, but stronger than the others. Therefore, I ask the House to support my two amendments this evening. I have spoken on this issue before. It is something about which I believe strongly. I am as certain as I am standing here that I speak for thousands of people in the country as a whole, an overwhelming majority, who wish to see these amendments carried."the document indicates clearly that England and Wales are seen by government to be thoroughly secularised societies".
6.30 p.m.
My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 182A tabled in my name. I want to make it clear that, although the Churches were not consulted about the amendments made in the Commons, insofar as it goes, I welcome what Amendment No. 182 sets out, not least because it further clarifies what for some has been a continuing area of uncertainty; namely, that some LEAs now have no responsibility for sex and personal relationship education in schools. That is a matter on which there is a misleading article even in today's Daily Telegraph.
This matter clearly rests with the governors and headteachers of schools, having regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. But it is helpful in our consideration of Commons Amendment No. 182, that the guidance has been published by the Secretary of State before our debate. With the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I also welcome the protection offered to pupils from inappropriate materials, and the inclusion in that protection of material published by NHS bodies, which has been the cause of concern to so many parents and others. It is also good that the teaching must have regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned. That is vitally important. But we must not underestimate the demands which this very sensitive area of the curriculum places on our teachers. We need to get into the real schools in the real world, acting, as the teachers are, very much in loco parentis, seeking to impart sensitive knowledge which many believe properly belongs to the home and to the parents. Headteachers and governors must clearly not only keep in touch with parents about this, but carry their confidence and that of the local community. That in itself is no easy task in modern Britain. That said, I must now return to a concern first expressed in this House by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill on 9th December last year (Hansard, col. 1044); namely, the importance of marriage. Despite the quasi-jocular remarks made, this Bench remains full square about the importance of marriage. It has consistently done so and nothing that I have said in this House on any occasion during the passage of this legislation or the Local Government Bill can call that into question. Indeed, the bishops of the Church of England issued a statement on marriage, as they understood it, as recently as last year. In my view, and that of the Church of England Board of Education, a balanced group of people representing different opinions within the Anglican tradition, and which has recently debated the new Clause 117 from the Commons, and the Catholic Education Service with which I have been working very closely are of the view that Commons Amendment No. 182 does not provide, in the statutory enforcement of the guidance, all that is required or indeed all that I believe I was promised. It is for that reason that on 18th May the chairman of the Catholic Education Service, Archbishop Nicholls, who has already been referred to, and I, in a statement broadly welcoming the provisions of Clause 117, said,In the situation in which we find ourselves, my amendment seeks to rectify that omission. I have had no discussion with the Government about it. The amendment was simply tabled after discussion with the Board of Education, with the Catholic Education Service and with a very rare meeting of the Lords Spiritual. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am also glad to see so many of them here this evening. As long ago as February, when we were dealing with the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told the Committee,"We regret the omission from the government amendment of any affirmation of marriage and we look to the forthcoming guidance to state clearly the importance for all pupils of positive teaching about marriage".
We are therefore very concerned that that is not included on the face of the Bill in order to protect our children from those unscrupulous teachers—there will not be many of them—whose own lifestyle may cause them to overlook this part of the guidance, not least because in the guidance marriage and stable relationships are linked together as though they held for everyone a moral equivalence with no recognition of the fact that the state as well as the Christian and other faith communities give marriage a unique standing among relationships. As two of the correspondents to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who copied their letters to me, put it,"We agree wholeheartedly that children should be taught about the importance of marriage, of family life and of bringing up children".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; co1.434.]
That should be expressed in some form on the face of the Bill even if that may be, for those cleverer than myself, something of an exaggeration. As my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester put it in that debate,"Whilst we appreciate that we cannot impose our Christian view of morality on the population as a whole, every society in recorded history has promoted marriage as a basis for the organisation of that society".
Many people, including the Government, are anxious about what is happening in British society, from concern about teenage pregnancies to mindless football hooliganism; from road rage to rural crime. We seem to expect the schools, the Churches and the Government to do something about them. But surely at its root lies the modern cult of individualism: that what I want matters most. As I see it, the difference between marriage and other relationships, no matter how stable they may be, is that marriage involves not just the people concerned but an accountability to society which formally recognises that family unit and has clear expectations of it. Marriage is a public statement of intention and commitment made by the couple but witnessed on behalf of society. It does not rest simply on the say-so of the individuals concerned. Others are asked to respect that relationship, that new family unit. So I hope I have made it clear why I seek to amend the Bill in the way I do. Finally, I return to the classroom and the frequently stated proper concerns that if marriage is affirmed in the way I wish it to be, then the children whose parents are not married will in some way be disadvantaged. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task that we ask of our teachers in providing sex and relationships education. However, the importance of marriage is taught regularly in Church schools. In the eyes of many parents and impartial observers, those schools are given a very high rating for the pastoral care of their pupils. I do not want pupils in community schools to be denied what is offered in Church schools. We must be careful that in our pastoral concern for pupils we do not remove ideals and reduce everything to a kind of basic common denominator which may better fit health than sex and relationships education. The best schools in our country are communities in which ideals and challenges are presented and pupils are prepared to make a contribution to society. Demanding though that task is, I believe that our teachers, supported by their governors, want to achieve it. I ask the House to support the inclusion of the amendment standing in my name that pupils learn the nature of marriage and its importance to family life and the bringing up of children."The Government's claim that they wish to promote marriage and a stable family as the basic building block of society must find an echo not only in their policies but in their legislative programmes".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; col. 451.]
6.45 p.m.
My Lords, not very long ago I argued against the repeal of Section 28, and that view was upheld by your Lordships' House. Subsequently, the Secretary of State acknowledged the decision of this House and introduced an amendment to the Learning and Skills Bill. I appreciated that in introducing that amendment the Secretary of State had genuinely addressed the concerns that I had expressed. Therefore, I spoke in favour of that amendment, believing that if it was carried resistance to the repeal of Section 28 would no longer be necessary. However, the government amendment failed to find favour in your Lordships' House and was defeated by a mere 15 votes. Hence, we return to the issue following further consideration by the other place.
I have given this question much attention. I hope that what I am about to say will not be a repeat of the arguments that I advanced previously. I address the terms of Clause 117, with particular reference to Amendments Nos. 182A and 182B. It is worth while first to explore the common ground on which all sides of the House can unite and compare it with that which divides us. We all recognise that sensible, sensitive sex education must be provided in schools. We know that this issue is not about homosexuality between consenting adults in private. That issue is dealt with in other legislation which has been in force for some time. None of us wants to see homophobic bullying in schools or anywhere else. All of us want children to be protected from sexual abuse, or any other form of abuse. We do not want to see the promotion—I emphasise that word—of homosexuality in schools. We want the teaching of sexual relationships to be carried out in a sensitive and delicate way. Although we want the importance of marriage and family life to be expressed, none of us wants any child to feel inferior because his or her parents have chosen not to marry but, none the less, provide a very stable home life. We do not want the children of single parent families to feel second class. For me, those are the fundamental, sensible and compassionate factors on which we should all be able to agree. They reflect the objectives on which we should be united, and I believe that they are embraced in this Bill and the guidance notes. Let us consider whether the issues that divide us have any importance or relevance. To be able to do that it is necessary to trace legislative developments since 1986. First, Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 dealt with the prohibition of political publicity. Secondly, in 1988 Section 28 was introduced. Under Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, the promotion of homosexuality in schools by local authorities was prohibited. A decade later, in 1996, the same Conservative administration introduced the Education Act. Sex education in schools is dealt with in Sections 403, 404 and 405 of that Act. I do not need to deal with Sections 404 and 405. However, Section 403(1) provides:From that we see immediately that the authority for teaching sex education in schools has changed and the language used differs from earlier legislation. The essence of Section 28 as contained in the 1988 legislation has been overtaken by the enactment of the Education Act 1996. In reality, Section 28 is virtually ineffective, if not totally moribund. In the circumstances, I believe that the Government would have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie than propose the repeal of Section 28 and stir up a hornets' nest unnecessarily. I believe that it has created a polarisation of views—a rallying call around a symbolic flag—between the opponents of homosexuality in general and its supporters, many of whom believe that homosexuality is an equal and alternative lifestyle. That is not, and should not be, what the debate is about. The debate is about the teaching of sex education in schools and, in the process, the protection of school children. Unfortunately, the issue has attracted such publicity that often it overshadows many of the worthwhile successes of the Government, which I support. None the less, this is where we are. When I opposed the repeal of Section 28, I did so to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State my concerns and those of many others about the protection of children and young people in schools from possible abuse which, in the absence of legislation to prevent it, a minority might try to perpetrate in the teaching of sex education. The proposed repeal of Section 28 can now be seen as something of a blessing in disguise because its defeat has led to Clause 117 of the Bill. I believe that the Secretary of State has responded. I was disappointed that this House rejected this provision on the previous occasion. However, we now have another opportunity to deal with this matter in Clause 117, the provision having been further refined in the other place. A number of amendments have been tabled, to which I have no fundamental objection. However, as I believe that this House should be united as much as possible on this very sensitive and delicate issue, I favour the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I believe that the terms of that amendment are less likely to be misinterpreted and to cause confusion and resentment, and that the sentiments which it reflects are less dogmatic. This Bill, including Clause 117 and the accompanying guidance notes, is a good one. It is my hope that the House will overwhelmingly embrace the Commons amendments and Amendments Nos. 180A and 182A. In conclusion, I hope that, having secured in this Bill all that we seek, the House will unite and no longer find it necessary to divide again next week on Section 28. I am sure that we all recognise that that provision no longer has any real relevance."The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where sex education is given to any registered pupils at a maintained school, it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
My Lords, I believe profoundly and passionately in the holy and honourable estate of marriage. It is wholly because of that commitment to marriage that I must speak against Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C.
As a Methodist minister, I have conducted many hundreds of marriages. I belong to a Church which for the past 25 years has permitted its ministers to conduct people's second marriages provided they are satisfied with the reasons for the failure of the first and that better hopes for the future are in place. Many couples have spoken to me about their previous experiences of marriage, giving reasons for its failure. I have listened to stories of abuse and neglect and of couples who had grown apart because they married when they were too young. Some couples have told me how little preparation they had for entering into marriage in the first place, many of them with a romantic ideal of what marriage would give them. Some married under parental pressure, mostly because of pregnancy. Some married in order to get out of their family home because they could stand it no longer. Some married because the teachings of the Church were that there should be no sexual relationships before marriage. Marriage was therefore the legalisation of sex. I agree entirely that marriage may provide a strong foundation for stable relationships, but I believe even more that strong stable relationships provide the basis for marriage. I do not believe that entering into marriage, and going through a form of marriage, guarantees that the relationships will be strong enough to support the couple through life's difficulties. Neither do I believe that there is a simple, reliable framework for the raising of children. We would long for marriage to be that framework for raising children, but the incidence of child abuse and neglect and the number of children taken into care because of danger and for protection from their parents reveals that the ability to bear children does not confer parenting skills. The skills involved in both marriage and the upbringing of children need to be learnt in the commitment to seeing it through together. Amendment No. 180C provides that we,It is not a good teaching method to proclaim that as a fact when the experience of many people shows that it is demonstrably untrue in many cases. It is wonderfully better to proclaim it as an ideal and as an aspiration to be worked towards in lifelong learning together. We must also recognise that it is an ideal which many people will never be able to fulfil either because of their orientation or for other reasons which are not for us to enter into. To label them as failing in an ideal from the beginning is something we would not want to do for our children. My main objection is that the amendment proclaims something which is not a fact but an aspiration. I therefore wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 182A and the Government's Amendment No. 180A and hope that the other amendments, which in my opinion are too strong a declaration of our hopes, will be defeated."shall have regard to the fact that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships".
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, speaks from wide experience and exceptional qualifications. I do not agree with her conclusions but believe that she made an impressive speech. I have my qualifications which the House may feel disable me. I have been happily married for 69 years and I cannot see anyone here who has been married for longer. Your Lordships may believe that that gives me a bias in favour of marriage. Be it so, but I plead not only that marriage is important but that it should be treated as pre-eminent. That is a word which I like.
I know many people both inside and outside my family who are happier in their second marriage than in their first. A young friend, a much admired man, has lived with a lady for many years and they have several children. They are happy and good people, so of course it can be done. But I retain my conviction that marriage is pre-eminent; it is a better way. Many people have spoken of an ideal and we should aim at the ideal. I am not one of those people who believes that the whole country is going to the dogs. I believe that there has been a sexual decline but that in many ways we are a more compassionate society. The wonderful debate on the disabled which we had in this House only last week shows that we are a more compassionate society, but our sexual life has deteriorated. We must make an effort and this is a chance to try to pull the country together again in that area. I realise that one should never mention one's conscience because that can be dangerous. I remember Ernest Bevin deriding George Landsbury, the then Leader of the Labour Party. He said, "I'm not going to have George Landsbury hawking his conscience all round Europe". Landsbury did not last as Leader for much longer. I know that everyone has a conscience; we are all equal in that respect. Mine tells me that tonight we should find the strongest Motion in favour of marriage and vote for it.My Lords, I want to make two points. First, Amendment No. 182, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, states that:
Who decides what is inappropriate? Presumably, some of the material referred to by my noble friend Lady Young, and which some of us saw, was considered by some people to be appropriate, otherwise it would not have been produced. Therefore, the provision would not prevent such material from being used. Furthermore, the Minister puts great store on the words "must issue guidance". However, guidance is guidance; one is not obliged to be held by it. The guidance requirement has effect only when a person is taken to court. The fact that he or she did not follow the guidance which was issued can be taken into account. That is the strength of guidance. My second point relates to the important difference between the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. The right reverend Prelate's amendment states:"The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools they are protected from teaching materials which are inappropriate".
One cannot ensure by statute that anyone learns. All one can ensure by statute is that people are taught. Whether they absorb what they are taught is another matter. That is why I believe my noble friend's amendment is far better. The power it contains ensures that people are taught, but whether they learn is another matter."they learn the nature of marriage".
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I speak as someone who has spent much of his working life dealing with issues relating to children. I believe that those amendments are deeply stigmatising to the children brought up in households where the parents are not married. Children experience the effects of the legislation.
I fully accept that marriage is a desirable state in which to bring up children. However, in my experience children recognise cant and hypocrisy from the adult world. A proportion of the children taught under the regime of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have experienced divorce—some very painfully; others would have been brought up perfectly satisfactorily by parents who are not married but cohabiting. I believe that that was recognised fully in the Government's consultation paper, Supporting Families, which I was glad to have a hand in preparing, and from which I believe the noble Baroness quoted somewhat selectively in speaking to her amendment. I also remind the House that good research shows that the conduct of fathers in married and cohabiting relationships is virtually indistinguishable in terms of their participation in their children's life. As I said, many of those children would be the recipients of the type of tuition which would come forth as a result of the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that, if we are not careful, we are in danger of dividing children into two groups. In their eyes we shall undermine their and their parents' position when they compare what they are being taught under this regime with their personal experiences at home. I hope that the House will not support the noble Baroness's amendment.7 p.m.
My Lords, I have not taken up the time of the House on this subject until now, partly because it seemed to me that the issues were so clear that they hardly needed lengthy debate. However, I should like to say a few words tonight in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young.
Her amendment seems to me to be the clearest possible statement of the primacy of marriage and of its fundamental role in bringing up families. The only possible reason for diluting the language is to introduce ambiguity. The only consequence that I can see of introducing ambiguity is that an element of fudge would be allowed to enter at local level that would enable activists who wish to ignore the primacy of marriage and to promote alternative lifestyles as equivalent to find doors through this legislation which would enable them to carry on pursuing education in the way they see fit. Some noble Lords may believe that that is appropriate, and I respect their views. I do not; I support the stance behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that there is no reason for the House not to accept the amendment unless it is seeking to introduce a form of ambiguity or fudge. I can see no purpose whatever in that. Therefore, I urge the House to support the very firm statement put forward by my noble friend Lady Young.My Lords, I simply want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question or two. No doubt she will be aware of the Sex and Relationship Education Guidance paper. On page 14 it states that:
I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that it is reasonable to ask that of teachers. I do not believe that it is; if we were to pass her amendment. Many teachers would then have to say things that they did not believe. It is not that they might not believe marriage to be a good thing; very probably they would consider it to be a good thing. Some might even have tried it—several times! In one sense or another they might well believe marriage to be the most reliable framework for raising children. For many people it is. However, when the noble Baroness said that she can prove it, my response is that I should love to see the evidence. What she makes is a value statement. One cannot prove value statements, but never mind. We should all like it to be true. But what are teachers to do in the average maintained school if this amendment is passed? They may not be married themselves. But the kids will know whether or not they are married. Even if they are married, it may not be a good marriage, and the kids will know that too. In many areas, most of the kids will come from homes where the father has disappeared, or it is not even known who he is. However, all the same, they may have stable backgrounds. They may say, "I see, Sir, you're married, are you?"; or, if they have a little more nerve, they may say, "And I suppose that you think my mum should get married". One is placing teachers in an impossible position. If one says that they are not allowed to give their own opinions and are not even allowed to have opinions, one can only ask them to do things which are generally accepted throughout society, and, frankly, this proposition is not generally accepted. It is a step too far. I want to know what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, believes that the teacher should say in a situation such as I outline."Parents and pupils may need to be reassured that the personal beliefs and attitudes of teachers will not influence the teaching of sex and relationship education within the PSHE framework. Teachers and all those contributing to sex and relationship education are expected to work within an agreed values framework".
I wish to speak in defence of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. One should not idealise marriage. Often it fails—and fails miserably. However, marriage is important for children. The US national longitudinal survey of youth found that boys raised by unwed mothers were approximately two-and-a-half times more likely to be imprisoned. In England and Wales between 1993 and 1995 the infant mortality rate was approximately 50 per cent higher among children of unmarried parents.
I have met children. I met a child whose mother said to him, "I wish that you had never been born and I wish that I had had an abortion". Obviously she said that in the heat of the moment. She would not have said that if she had thought more carefully. I believe that one reason why marriage works is that it provides a process by which adults can decide that they wish to commit to one another and are likely to want to have children together. That does not necessarily come about through cohabitation. I very much favour the Home Secretary's idea of having a six-month delay between saying that one wishes to be married and the act of marriage taking place. We should reinforce marriage. We should make it more of a credible institution so that people say, "We are marrying and are thinking of having children. This is a very serious business". That is desperately important. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.My Lords, I rise to support the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I support strongly my noble friend's amendment and, indeed, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We all hope that in relation to guidance for sex education the Bill will be strengthened through the amendments tabled this evening. However, whether or not we are successful in that objective, it will be no substitute whatever for the repeal of Section 28. Sadly, that is what the Government's late amendments to the Bill are about.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is absolutely right and I hope that the Minister will accept the point because it is a legal point. The guidance is not enforceable in law. The only thing that is enforceable is having regard to it. It is possible for a governing body to meet, to discuss the guidance and then to do its own thing. At a tribunal it has only to prove that it has had regard to, and has good reasons for disregarding, the guidance. That is my first point. My second point relates to a matter raised by the right reverend Prelate; that is, even if it were possible by law to enforce the guidance, it is not possible to enforce learning. It is possible to enforce teaching but not learning. The new Sex and Relationship Education Guidance has been published—even before this Bill reaches the statute book. Therefore, so far as concerns most of us here, the guidance is a fait accompli. Thirdly, on the basis of Amendment No. 182, the only part of the guidance that appears to be compulsory is item 1.8 which relates to the use of materials. That is why amending the Bill is so crucial. We need something stronger on the face of the Bill: the guidance must be strengthened. We should be concerned about children not only in the classroom but at the school gates, in their play areas, in their youth clubs, or wherever they are prey to the influence of other people. Freedom under the law for parents to withdraw their children is now made nigh on impossible by the encouragement of schools to teach sex education through many curricular subjects; for example, drama, personal and social health education and many others. Would the Minister say how parents will be advised and helped to exercise their right to withdraw their children from sex education? The Prime Minister himself has said that it is absolute nonsense—I think he used the word "rubbish"—to those who said that role playing was permitted in schools. However, paragraph 4(4) of the guidance actually encourages role playing for sex education in our schools. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, in his amendment, is asking that children learn about the nature of marriage. The right reverend Prelate's interpretation of the nature of marriage is wholly acceptable to me in the terms in which he has spelt it out, but I have to say that the nature of marriage as understood by many other noble Lords—whom I shall not name—would not be acceptable. I think the noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave it away: it is a dumbing down. It is equivocation. It is taking the lowest possible common denominator. I do not believe it is stigmatising children. I think children from broken homes would benefit greatly from the sort of education that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is proposing through her amendments. All the evidence shows that marriage is the most stable form of relationship and that children brought up within marriage do better in every sense. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asks that children are taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and that that is the most reliable framework for raising children. It is unequivocal as opposed to what I believe is equivocal. My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C refer to local education authorities which provide training and advice. I hope I did not mishear the right reverend Prelate when he said LEAs will from now on have no role in sex education. That is simply not true. LEAs have responsibility for giving advice, for giving guidance to their schools and also for providing training for sex education, and, in so far as they do, it is absolutely essential that my noble friend's amendment ensures that when LEAs are undertaking that obligation and duty for their schools that they do so having regard to the guidance. The Government at this time in another department are considering relaxing the laws on cruising for sex, group sex, gay people kissing in public and soliciting, under which a man can be jailed for up to two years for asking another man for sex while in a public place. That is not joined-up government. All surveys undertaken have shown that there is real concern on this issue. My noble friend has overwhelming support for the stand she is taking. I believe she has taken a courageous stand. The level of care and concern among the thousands who have written contrasts starkly with the level of intolerance by a high proportion of the few who have written opposing my noble friend's stand on this issue. Their mission is clear, and so too is the Government's; that is, do what you can today because it will leave us free to repeal Section 28 next week. Childhood is precious, and the combination of weak and equivocal guidance and the repeal of Section 28 will violate their innocence and healthy education. I hope that noble Lords will think very carefully and support my noble friend in her amendments.7.15 p.m.
My Lords, I have the sense of the House that it would like to reach a decision very soon, but on this issue it is appropriate that at least one speaker from our Benches should take part. I shall do so briefly to set out our position, which has been well rehearsed in the many, many hours of debate we have had on this subject during the course of the Bill.
I have a little sadness that it is this subject, important though it is, that has consumed so much time from so many of your Lordships on a Bill which is actually about post-16 education and of which this issue, important though it is, is not a central part. I start by welcoming the changes which the Government have made to the Bill in this area. It is in the nature of compromise that it never satisfies everyone. Indeed, it rarely satisfies anyone. In this, all of us who are going to support the Government's view are to a greater or lesser extent compromising. I recognise that that is true on the Benches opposite me, and I refer to the right reverend Prelates here in such number. We are doing that because we want to reach consensus and agreement on what is a very important and sensitive issue. I would appeal to all your Lordships to try to think of it in those terms. We do no good to the people we wish to help and to protect by going forward in such a divided manner. The hours that have been spent on debating this matter, more particularly outside this Chamber than in it, have produced amendments to the Bill which cover most of the points of concern raised by your Lordships through the many hours of debate. Similarly, little reference has been made tonight to the guidance. I welcome most of what is in the recently published guidance document. On the whole that document is thoughtful and well balanced. I have concerns over one or two elements but I sense that this is not the time to deal with those. I deal briefly with the amendments. I agree with much that has been said about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, so I shall not repeat it. I believe she is insisting on including in this Bill a comparative statement about the value of relationships. That is her view, and a very sincerely held view. It is probably the view held by most of us here today. But I feel no need to make value judgments about other people's relationships, and I feel even less need to have that enshrined in legislation. One point is well made, and I shall repeat it briefly; namely, our desire to protect pupils in the classroom. This provision is actually about young people, young children, the pupils. It is not about their parents. We should be remember that. How would children feel if they are in a classroom where the teacher is having to teach that marriage is the only stable relationship and their parents happen not to be married? We may regret this, and personally I do, but it is a fact that last year more children were born outside marriage than inside marriage. How will those children feel when they are in school and they are made to feel that in some way their parents' relationship and their home-life is of less value and a worse bet for a successful life than others? I now turn to the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. In doing so, I pay tribute to the enormous amount of hard work that I know he has had to do in this Chamber, but I suspect much more outside, in reaching this position. We will support his amendment. It is in terms that are not judgmental. His words are positive without any negative implications and they make a valued and important point without a value judgment. On these Benches we will support that amendment, and I am pleased to hear tonight that that is what the Government intend to do. We shall support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate, but we cannot support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the reasons which have been stated so eloquently by other Members of your Lordships' House this evening.My Lords, this has been a long debate and I do not want to take up too much time of the House now. I intend to respond to some of the points which have been raised and to try to clarify the Government's position.
I was a little disappointed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It seemed to me that she was simply repeating many of the things that she said on an earlier occasion without taking any cognisance of the fact that the Government are responding to many of the concerns which she and others have expressed on a number of occasions. She repeated remarks which she has made about unsuitable materials without, again, any reference to the fact that the Government's amendment is determined to make sure that pupils in our schools will not be put under pressure to receive material that is totally unacceptable. I was also rather surprised by a number of references by noble Lords opposite to the guidance and to a suggestion from, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others that our guidance would not be adequate as a basis for reinforcing what the Government and many other people who have been consulted about this, including both the Anglican and Catholic Church, want to see. Our guidance is very clear. The head teacher and governors are responsible for making judgments in the last instance about what is appropriate. But that must be in line with that guidance, and within the PSHE framework and the law. Exactly the same considerations apply to many other aspects of the national curriculum. We cannot write a national curriculum for sex education or, indeed, for anything else and put that on the face of legislation. We must rely on the good judgment of head teachers and governors in implementing what is desirable and acceptable and what is the intention of the Government and many others who have considered those complex issues. However, I can tell the House that there are both sanctions and safeguards available if governing bodies do not have regard to that guidance. First, parents must be consulted about the governors' policy on sex education. Secondly, Ofsted has a statutory responsibility to inspect PSHE. Parents can complain. They can complain to the local education authority and, in the last resort, to the Secretary of State. Ultimately, they can take the school to judicial review. There has been a misunderstanding on behalf of noble Lords opposite.My Lords—
My Lords, it would be helpful if I were allowed to complete my speech in order that we can have the Division.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, and to her explanation of Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C. I was also very grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said in opposing the amendments. She spoke wisely from her own very deep experience of these matters. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that providing advice and training to teachers and governors is an important role which local education authorities play in supporting schools. The Government have undertaken a number of measures to underpin the rigour and quality of that role. As well as the Ofsted inspections of LEAs, we have issued a draft code of practice setting out the standards to be expected of those providing training and have asked Ofsted to carry out inspections of training provision. We expect that the general teaching council will also play a key role in supporting the quality of teacher training when it is established in September this year. The Teacher Training Agency has written to all providers of initial teacher training to draw their attention to the Secretary of State's sex and relationship education guidance. So teachers in training will also have to be fully aware of what is in the guidance. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his support in relation to the guidance and its coverage. He mentioned that there are one or two areas in which he might like to have seen changes. But I am grateful for his general support for it on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I should mention at this point, since the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned it, that we are including health service materials. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I mentioned that in my opening remarks but she apparently did not hear me make that point. We believe that it is right that local education authorities should have regard to the principles which we have set out when providing training and advice to schools. We have already sent copies of our guidance to all LEAs to encourage them to do so. We recognise that the noble Baroness has identified an important issue but we believe that the government Amendment No. 180A is a much more effective response to the issue which the noble Baroness identified. I turn now to Amendment No. 182. She does not think that marriage is mentioned often enough in our guidance. Perhaps I may quote from the Catholic Education Service's recent release which states that,Clearly, the Catholic Education Service and, indeed, from the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, the Anglican Church take a rather different view from that taken by the noble Baroness. In response to the claims made by the party opposite, I make absolutely plain the fact that not once did the previous government ever mention marriage in sex education guidance. This Government introduced marriage into sex and relationship education guidance for the first time. Circular 5/94, which our guidance replaces, contains no mention of marriage whatever. So it is a bit rich for the noble Baroness to complain that marriage is not mentioned often enough in our guidance. The noble Baroness spoke at length about her amendment. We must recognise that that amendment carries the same risk as the noble Baroness's previous amendment; namely, stigmatisation and possible bullying for many children at school. Sex education has a serious purpose, not least to help to reverse the alarmingly high trend of teenage pregnancies. We cannot achieve that unless we take young people seriously and avoid denigrating the circumstances in which many of them live. Our guidance makes it clear, as does the Supporting Families document which is quoted in the guidance and the noble Baroness's amendment, that we recognise that there are other stable relationships in society. We should not allow homophobic bullying to take place. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tope, expressed particular concern about that during the Third Reading of the Bill. He and others referred to it again in this debate. We have strengthened our guidance to make it crystal clear that schools need to be able to deal with homophobic bullying. My noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Warner have rightly said that no child should be stigmatised because of his or her home circumstances. Again, that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn for explaining his amendment. By drawing on the PSHE framework and the Government's sex and relationship education guidance, the wording of the amendment which he has tabled allows a true balance to be struck while giving clear support for the importance of marriage. We have worked hard over the past few months to agree principles and build consensus across society. By contrast, I am afraid that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness threatens to undo what we have achieved. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I was disappointed by her remarks. I thought she was being unduly cynical in her suggestion that the Government are bringing forward these amendments simply in order that Section 28 of the Local Government Act should be repealed. The Government are bringing forward these amendments because, unlike the previous government, they believe that it is right that pupils in our schools should get the best possible sex education, for all the reasons I have set out. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Baroness that we shall make it clear that if parents wish to withdraw their children from sex education, they may do so. There is a simple choice before this House this evening. If we are to have effective sex and relationship education, noble Lords must oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments Nos. 180B and 180C, and support the government amendment, Amendment No. 180A. If we are to have guidance built on the consensus that we have sought to achieve, this House must support Amendment No. 182A tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and must reject Amendment No. 182B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I commend the amendment to the House. On Question, Motion agreed to."The guidance … is unambiguous in its insistence on children being taught the importance of marriage".
7.30 p.m.
As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 180
180B Line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (7) below").
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 180B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180.
Moved, That Amendment No. 180B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, be agreed to.—(Baroness Young.) On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 180B), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, shall be agreed to?Their Lordships divided:—
Division No. 2
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Ackner, L. | Cranborne, V. |
| Ahmed, L. | Crathorne, L. |
| Alexander of Weedon, L. | Cuckney, L. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Cumberlege, B. |
| Ampthill, L. | Dean of Harptree, L. |
| Anelay of St Johns, B. | Denham, L. |
| Arran, E. | Dixon, L. |
| Astor, V. | Dixon-Smith, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Donaldson of Lymington, L. |
| Attlee, E. | Eden of Winton, L. |
| Baker of Dorking, L. | Elles, B. |
| Barber, L. | Elliott of Morpeth, L. |
| Bell, L. | Elton, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Erroll, E. |
| Blackwell, L. | Evans of Parkside, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Feldman, L. |
| Boardman, L. | Ferrers, E. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Fitt, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Flather, B. |
| Bridges, L. | Fookes, B. |
| Brigstocke, B. | Forsyth of Drumlean, L. |
| Brittan of Spennithorne, L. | Fraser of Carmyllie, L. |
| Brookeborough, V. | Freeman, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Gardner of Parkes, B. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller] | Geddes, L. |
| Buscombe, B. | Glentoran, L. |
| Butterworth, L. | Goschen, V. |
| Buxton of Alsa, L. | Gray of Contin, L. |
| Byford, B. | Greenway, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Hanham, B. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Hanningfield, L. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Hanson, L. |
| Carlisle of Bucklow, L. | Harris of High Cross, L. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Haslam, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Hayhoe, L. |
| Carr of Hadley, L. | Henley, L. [Teller] |
| Carrington, L. | Higgins, L. |
| Cavendish of Furness, L. | Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L |
| Chadlington, L. | Hogg, B. |
| Chalfont, L. | Holderness, L. |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | Home, E. |
| Chilver, L. | Hooper, B. |
| Clark of Kempston, L. | Howe, E. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Howe of Aberavon, L. |
| Coe, L. | Howell of Guildford, L. |
| Colwyn, L. | Hunt of Wirral, L. |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. | Hussey of North Bradley, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Hylton, L. |
| Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L. | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Cox, B. | Islwyn, L. |
| Craig of Radley, L. | James of Holland Park, B. |
| Jellicoe, E. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Jenkin of Roding, L. | Peel, E. |
| Jopling, L. | Peyton of Yeovil, L. |
| Kelvedon, L. | Pilkington of Oxenford, L. |
| Kimball, L. | Platt of Writtle, B. |
| King of Wartnaby, L. | Plumb, L. |
| Kingsland, L. | Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. |
| Kirkham, L. | Powell of Bayswater, L. |
| Knight of Collingtree, B. | Prior, L. |
| Laing of Dunphail, L. | Pym, L. |
| Laird, L. | Rawlinson of Ewell, L. |
| Lamont of Lerwick, L. | Reay, L. |
| Lane of Horsell, L. | Rees, L. |
| Lang of Monkton, L. | Renton, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Renton of Mount Harry, L. |
| Listowel, E. | Roberts of Conwy, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | Rogan, L. |
| Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Longford, E. | Saatchi, L. |
| Lucas, L. | Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly. |
| Luke, L. | Sanderson of Bowden, L. |
| Lyell, L. | Seccombe, B. |
| McColl of Dulwich, L. | Selkirk of Douglas, L. |
| McConnell, L. | Selsdon, L. |
| Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. | Sharples, B. |
| McFarlane of Llandaff, B. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. | Sheppard of Didgemere, L. |
| Mancroft, L. | Simon of Glaisdale, L. |
| Marlesford, L. | Slim, V. |
| Masham of Ilton, B. | Stallard, L. |
| Mason of Barnsley, L. | Stevens of Ludgate, L. |
| Mayhew of Twysden, L. | Stewartby, L. |
| Miller of Hendon, B. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Molyneaux of Killead, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Monson, L. | Strange, B. |
| Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Montrose, D. | Swinfen, L. |
| Moore of Lower Marsh, L. | Taylor of Warwick, L. |
| Moran, L. | Tebbit, L. |
| Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Tenby, V. |
| Moynihan, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Murton of Lindisfarne, L. | Tombs, L. |
| Naseby, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Neill of Bladen, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Noakes, B. | Tugendhat, L. |
| Norfolk, D. | Vivian, L. |
| Northbrook, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Northesk, E. | Wade of Chorlton, L. |
| O'Cathain, B. | Wakeham, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Waldegrave of North Hill, L. |
| Onslow of Woking, L. | Weatherill, L. |
| Oppenheim-Barnes, B. | Wilberforce, L. |
| Orme, L. | Wilcox, B. |
| Oxfuird, V. | Williamson of Horton, L. |
| Palmer, L. | Windlesham, L. |
| Palumbo, L. | Wolfson, L. |
| Park of Monmouth, B. | Wolfson of Sunningdale, L. |
| Parkinson, L. | Young, B. |
| Patten, L. | Young of Graffham, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Bassam of Brighton, L. |
| Addington, L. | Bath and Wells, Bp. |
| Alderdice, L. | Beaumont of Whitley, L. |
| Alli, L. | Berkeley, L. |
| Amos, B. | Bernstein of Craigweil, L. |
| Andrews, B. | Billingham, B. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Birt, L. |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Blackburn, Bp. |
| Ashton of Upholland, B. | Blackstone, B. |
| Attenborough, L. | Bledisloe, V. |
| Avebury, L. | Borrie, L. |
| Bach, L. | Bradford, Bp. |
| Barker, B. | Bradshaw, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Bragg, L. |
| Brennan, L. | Hunt of Chesterton, L. |
| Brett, L. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Bristol, Bp. | Hutchinson of Lullington, L. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor) |
| Brookman, L. | Jacobs, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Janner of Braunstone, L. |
| Carlile of Berriew, L. | Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal) |
| Carter, L. [Teller] | |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Jenkins of Hillhead, L. |
| Chandos, V. | Joffe, L. |
| Christopher, L. | Judd, L. |
| Clement-Jones, L. | King of West Bromwich, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Kirkhill, L. |
| Cohen of Pimlico, B. | Laming, L. |
| Craigavon, V. | Layard, L. |
| Crawley, B. | Lea of Crondall, L. |
| Dahrendorf, L. | Lester of Herne Hill, L. |
| Darcy de Knayth, B. | Linklater of Butterstone, B. |
| David, B. | Lipsey, L. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B | Ludford, B. |
| Dearing, L. | McCarthy, L. |
| Derby, Bp. | McCluskey, L. |
| Desai, L. | Macdonald of Tradeston, L. |
| Dholakia, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller] |
| Diamond, L. | McIntosh of Hudnall, B. |
| Donoughue, L. | MacKenzie of Culkein, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L |
| Dubs, L. | Mackie of Benshie, L. |
| Durham, Bp. | McNally, L. |
| Eatwell, L. | Maddock, B. |
| Elder, L. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Evans of Temple Guiting, L. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Ezra, L. | Marsh, L. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Massey of Darwen, B. |
| Falkland, V. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Methuen, L. |
| Faulkner of Worcester, L. | Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B |
| Filkin, L. | Mitchell, L. |
| Fyfe of Fairfield, L. | Molloy, L. |
| Gale, B. | Morgan, L. |
| Gavron, L. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Geraint, L. | Morris of Manchester, L. |
| Gibson of Market Rasen, B. | Murray of Epping Forest, L. |
| Gilbert, L. | Newby, L. |
| Gladwin of Clee, L. | Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. |
| Goodhart, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Gordon of Strathblane, L. | Northover, B. |
| Goudie, B. | Norton of Louth, L. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. |
| Grabiner, L. | Oxford, Bp. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | |
| Greaves, L. | Parekh, L. |
| Greengross, B. | Patel of Blackburn, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Paul, L. |
| Grenfell, L. | Peston, L. |
| Hamwee, B. | Phillips of Sudbury, L. |
| Hardy of Wath, L. | Pitkeathley, B. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Plant of Highfield, L. |
| Harris of Haringey, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Harris of Richmond, B. | Portsmouth, Bp. |
| Harrison, L. | Prashar, B. |
| Haskel, L. | Puttnam, L. |
| Haskins, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Hattersley, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Hayman, B. | Razzall, L. |
| Healey, L. | Rea, L. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | |
| Hollick, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Holme of Cheltenham, L. | Rennard, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Renwick of Clifton, L. |
| Howells of St. Davids, B. | Richard, L. |
| Hoyle, L. | Richardson of Calow, B. |
| Hughes of Woodside, L. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Rogers of Riverside, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Roper, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Russell, E. | Thornton, B. |
| Russell-Johnston, L. | Tomlinson, L. |
| Sainsbury of Turville, L. | Tope, L. |
| Salisbury, Bp. | Tordoff, L. |
| Sawyer, L. | Turnberg, L. |
| Scotland of Asthal, B. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Scott of Needham Market, B. | Varley, L. |
| Sewel, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Sharman, L. | Wallace of Saltaire, L. |
| Sharp of Guildford, B. | Walmsley, B. |
| Shepherd, L. | Walpole, L. |
| Shore of Stepney, L. | Warner, L. |
| Shutt of Greetland, L. | Warnock, B. |
| Simon of Highbury, L. | Warwick of Undercliffe, B. |
| Simpson of Dunkeld, L. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Smith of Clifton, L. | Watson of Richmond, L. |
| Smith of Gilmorehill, B. | Wedderburn of Charlton, L |
| Smith of Leigh, L. | Whitaker, B. |
| Stern, B. | Whitty, L. |
| Stone of Blackheath, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Strabolgi, L. | Wilkins, B. |
| Williams of Crosby, B. | |
| Symons of Vernham Dean, B. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Taverne, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Taylor of Blackburn, L. | Winston, L. |
| Thomas of Gresford, L. | Woolmer of Leeds, L. |
| Thomas of Macdesfield, L. | Young of Old Scone, B. |
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 220; Not-Contents, 234.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.43 p.m.
[ Amendment No. 180C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 180, as amended, agreed to.
Commons Amendment
181 Clause 117, page 55, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("omit "local education authority,".")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181.—(Baroness Blackstone.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
182 Clause 117, page 55, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 on page 56 and insert—
("(3) After subsection (1) of that section insert—
(4) In subsection (2) of that section—
(5) In section 404 (sex education: statements of policy) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) A statement under subsection (1) must include a statement of the effect of section 405."").
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 182.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 182.—(Baroness Blackstone.)As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 182
182A Line 6, after ("schools") insert—
("(a) they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, and
(b)")
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 182A.
Moved, That Amendment No. 182A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 182, be agreed to.—(The Lord Bishop of Blackburn.) On Question, Amendment No. 182A agreed to. [Amendment No. 182B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 182, not moved.]As An Amendment To Commons Amendment No 182
182C Line 15, at beginning insert ("While adhering to the principles set out in subsection (1A),")
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 182C as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 182.
This amendment comes as an anti-climax. It has nothing to do with the emotional subjects which have been recently canvassed. It concerns a simple drafting amendment which is designed to ensure that, although the Secretary of State under subsection (1D) may at any time revise his guidance under subsection (1A), he must do so while adhering to the principles set out in subsection (1A). When I drafted this amendment, I thought the answer might well be that the Secretary of State was limited by subsection (1D) in whatever new amendments he wished to make. But I was not sure. I felt the matter would be easily cleared up by adding the simple 10 words in front of subsection (1D),and that would deal with the matter. The noble Baroness, with characteristic courtesy only matched by her charm, kindly sent me a photostat letter on 18th July in fact telling me the answer was precisely that; that is, that subsection (1A) conditioned and limited what the Minister could do. I accept that that is arguable. But I wish to move my amendment purely on the basis that the whole of this ambiguity can be dealt with by using the less than 12 words which my amendment proposes; that is, the addition of the words,"While adhering to the principles set out in subsection (1A)",
and then there is no further problem. Moved, That Amendment No. 182B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 182, be agreed to.—(Lord Ackner.)"While adhering to the principles set out in subsection (1A)",
My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not speak to his amendment when we discussed all the amendments in this group. However, I shall be very happy to respond to it now.
My Lords, one of the arts of advocacy is to know when to remain silent. If I had got up when everyone was clamouring for the Minister to respond and said that I had a dull drafting amendment to put forward, I do not think that I would have been the flavour of the month.
My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord is right in that respect. I have to say that I am a little daunted in the face of his expertise and experience in such matters when embarking on the explanation of what I believe to be the legal effect of the amendment. However, I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I try to clarify the position.
The new subsection (1A) sets out the requirement as to what the guidance issued by the Secretary of State must secure. Whenever the Secretary of State issues further guidance or amends it in any way, subsection (1A) is still the basis for the guidance. Therefore, it must still meet the requirements of subsection (1A). I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that the objective of his amendment has already been secured and that he will feel able to withdraw it.My Lords, I do not look upon my amendment as being an earth-shattering one. I have the well-known case, in which I was one of the Law Lords involved, of Pepper v Hart on my side. As the Minister has said in terms that that which I was worried about is amply covered by the Bill, that seems to me to be all that I desired to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 182C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 182, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.Commons Amendment
183 Before Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
Wales
(" .—(1) Where this Part of this Act confers a function on the Secretary of State (whether by amendment of another Act or otherwise)—
(2) Where—
the Order shall be treated for the purposes of any varying or revoking Order as having transferred to the National Assembly the function mentioned in paragraph (a).
(3) Subsection (1)(a) has effect subject to any Order in Council made by virtue of subsection (2).
(4) This section shall not apply in relation to—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 183. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187 to 194.
The only new points of substance in this group are Amendments Nos. 183 and 191. The other amendments are consequential on those new clauses or on other territorially related amendments debated when we discussed earlier groups. I am happy to provide further detail on any of those amendments should any noble Lord require me to do so. The two new clauses that Amendments Nos. 183 and 191 insert relate to devolution and commencement of provisions of the Bill. As they need to reflect the totality of the Bill, noble Lords will, I hope, understand that work on these two new clauses could only be finalised once all the other amendments to the Bill had been prepared. Amendment No. 183 inserts a new clause that deals with devolution of provisions in Part V. Noble Lords will recall that the earlier parts of the Bill relate clearly and simply to England or Wales only. But Part V is rather more complex. The new clause therefore makes clear that, where non-reserved provisions in Part V confer functions upon the Secretary of State, those functions are exercisable in relation to Wales by the National Assembly for Wales. It covers both the new functions set to out in the Bill and the amendments by the Bill to existing legislation underpinning functions that were devolved to the National Assembly under the Government of Wales Act 1998. Amendment No. 191 inserts a new clause covering commencement of the provisions of the Bill and, in particular, makes provision for the National Assembly to commence provisions that relate to Wales. Noble Lords will know that Bills, or parts of Bill, normally come into force in accordance with one or more commencement orders made by the relevant Secretary of State. The commencement clause of the Bill as it left this House—Clause 122—provided for the National Assembly to commence the Welsh Parts II and IV and for the Secretary of State, on top of the English Parts I and III, to commence the English-and-Welsh Part V. However, it is an agreed principle of the devolution arrangements that the National Assembly should commence legislation as far as it relates to Wales. In the context of this Bill, that has required an extremely complex analysis of Part V in relation to commencement. The new clause fully achieves that separation. Therefore, I commend it the House. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 183. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
184 Clause 119, page 57, line 2, leave out ("Schedule 9 contains") and insert ("Parts I and II of Schedule 9 contain")
185 Page 57, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Part III of Schedule 9 contains transitional provision relating to the establishment of the Adult Learning Inspectorate.")
186 Page 57, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Part IV of Schedule 9 contains transitional provision relating to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990.")
187 Clause 120, page 57, line 12, leave out ("122(1)") and insert
"(Commencement)(1) or (3)")
188 Page 57, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) A statutory instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament if the instrument contains regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 96.
(2B) The power of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland) or (Grants: Northern Ireland) shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979; and any such regulations shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if they were statutory instruments within the meaning of that Act.")
189 Page 57, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("thinks") in line 19 and insert ("person making the order or regulations")
190 Clause 122, Leave out Clause 22.
191 After Clause 122, insert the following new clause—
Commencement
(" . —(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order—
(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the National Assembly for Wales by order—
(3) If and in so far as a provision of this Part relates to England, the Secretary of State may (subject to subsection (5)) make provision by order about its commencement.
(4) If and in so far as a provision of this Part relates to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may (subject to subsection (5)) make provision by order about its commencement.
(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply to—
(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(7) The National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision in relation to Wales in consequence of either of the matters mentioned in subsection (6)(a) and (b).
(8) An order under subsection (6) or (7) may, in particular, disapply or modify the application of provision made by or under this or any other Act.")
192 Clause 123, page 57, line 26, leave out ("122") and insert ("(Commencement)")
193 Page 57, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Section (Qualifying arrangements: further provision) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
( ) Sections (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland), (Grants: Northern Ireland) and (Financial support for students: Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.")
194 Clause 124, page 57, leave out lines 32 to 35
195 Schedule 1, page 58, line 23, after ("member") insert ("or chairman or chief executive")page 57, leave out lines 32 to 35
196 Page 58, line 25, after ("chairman") insert ("or chief executive")
197 Schedule 2, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
("Director
A1.—(1) The Council must appoint one of its employees as the director of a local council.
(2) The Council must seek the advice of the chairman of a local council before appointing a director.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the appointment of the first director of a local council.
(4) If a person to be appointed as a director of a local council is not already a member of that local council, the Council must appoint him as a member of the local council for the same term as the term of his appointment as director.
(5) If a person to be appointed as a director of a local council is already a member of that local council but his term of appointment as such ends before the term of his appointment as director ends, the Council must extend his term of appointment as a member so that it ends when the term of his appointment as director ends.")
198 Page 61, line 24, after ("member") insert ("or chairman")
199 Page 61, leave out lines 42 and 43
200 Page 62, line 1, leave out ("other")
201 Schedule 3, page 62, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) The committee must also consider, and advise the Council on, what education and training would be appropriate for young persons of different abilities and aptitudes in order to prepare them for those opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life which are not connected to employment.")
202 Schedule 4, page 64, line 37, after ("member") insert ("or chairman or chief executive")
203 Page 64, line 39, after ("chairman") insert ("or chief executive")
204 Schedule 5, page 68, line 22, after ("member") insert ("or chairman")
205 Schedule 6, page 69, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is not already a member of the Inspectorate, the Secretary of State must appoint him as a member for the same term as his appointment as chairman or chief officer.
( ) If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is already a member of the Inspectorate but his term of appointment as such would end before his term of appointment as chairman or chief officer ends, the Secretary of State must extend his term of appointment as a member so that it ends when his appointment as chairman or chief officer ends.")
206 Page 69, line 8, after ("member") insert (", chairman or chief officer")
207 Page 69, line 10, after ("chairman") insert ("or chief officer")
208 Page 70, line 31, after ("company") insert (", or otherwise become a member of a company,")
209 Page 72, line 18. at end insert—
("Financial Year Of The Inspectorate
A financial year of the Inspectorate is—
210 Schedule 7, page 73, line 4, leave out from ("80") to ("forms") in line 5 and insert (the Chief Inspector")
211 Page 73, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("The Chief Inspector")
212 Page 74, line 35, leave out from ("80") to ("forms") in line 36 and insert ("the Chief Inspector")
213 Page 74, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("The Chief Inspector")
214 Page 78, line 34, leave out ("35(5)") and insert ("35(6)")
215 Page 79, leave out line 10
216 Page 79, line 12, at end insert ("; and if the event does not occur by the specified time, the proposals shall be treated as being rejected at that time.")
217Page 79, line 36, after ("may") insert ("(before the arrival of the specified time)")
218 Page 79, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) A school organisation committee may act under subparagraph (2)(a) or (b) only in response to a request by the Council.")
219 Page 79, line 41, leave out from ("only") to ("is") in line 43 and insert ("in response to a proposal of the Council which")
220 Page 79, line 45, at end insert—
("; and where a determination is made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) in relation to proposals they shall be treated as rejected.")
221Page 79, line 48, leave out from ("36(2),") to end of line 2 on page 80.
222 Page 80, line 4, leave out ("a question of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)") and insert ("the question mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)")
223 Page 81, leave out line 5
224 Page 81, line 7, at end insert ("; and if the event does not occur by the specified time, the proposals shall be treated as being rejected at that time.")
225 Page 81, line 16, after ("may") insert ("(before the arrival of the specified time)")
226 Page 81, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The National Assembly may act under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) only in response to a request by the Council.")
227 Page 81, line 21, leave out from ("only") to ("is") in line 23 and insert ("in response to a proposal of the Council which")
228 Page 81, line 25, at end insert—
("; and where a determination is made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) in relation to proposals they shall be treated as rejected.")
229 After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("Schedule City Academies: Land
Transfer Schemes
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme in relation to land if these requirements are met—
(2) These requirements must be met as regards a scheme—
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) the reference to a right or liability—
(4) A scheme may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
(5) A scheme must be so expressed that it does not come into force while the land concerned is used as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b).
(6) A scheme comes into force—
(7) When a scheme comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the interests, rights and liabilities to which it applies.
(8) A transfer made by virtue of a scheme is binding on all persons (as well as on the authority and the transferee) even if, apart from this sub-paragraph, it would have required the consent or concurrence of any person.
Restriction On Disposal
2.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
(2) Unless the Secretary of State consents, the authority must not make the disposal or enter into the contract or grant the option.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to a disposal made in pursuance of a contract made, or option granted, before the coming into force of this paragraph.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to—
(5) A disposal or contract or grant is not invalid by reason only that it is made in contravention of sub-paragraph (2).
(6) A person acquiring an interest in land or entering into a contract to acquire it is not to be concerned to enquire whether consent required by sub-paragraph (2) has been given.
3.—(1) This paragraph applies if an authority makes a disposal or enters into a contract or grants an option in contravention of paragraph 2(2).
(2) In the case of a grant of an option, the Secretary of State may by notice served on the option holder repudiate the option at any time before it is exercised.
(3) In the case of a contract to make a disposal in respect of an interest, the Secretary of State may by notice served on the other party to the contract repudiate it at any time before a conveyance of the interest concerned is executed.
(4) A repudiation under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) has effect—
(5) In the case of a disposal in respect of an interest (whether or not in pursuance of an option or contract falling within subparagraph (2) or (3)) the Secretary of State may purchase the interest concerned compulsorily.
(6) The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is to apply in relation to the compulsory purchase of an interest under sub-paragraph (5).
(7) On completion of a compulsory purchase of an interest under sub-paragraph (5) the Secretary of State must transfer it to a person concerned with the running of a city academy.
(8) If the Secretary of State acquires an interest by compulsory purchase under sub-paragraph (5) he is entitled to recover from the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—
(9) The authority must provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require it to provide in connection with a compulsory purchase under sub-paragraph (5).
4.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3—
(2) If the disposal referred to in paragraph 3(3) or (5) is a disposal of a lesser interest, the reference there to the interest concerned is to the lesser interest.
Restriction On Appropriation
5.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
(2) Unless the Secretary of State consents, the authority must not make the appropriation.
6.—(1) This paragraph applies if an authority makes an appropriation in contravention of paragraph 5(2).
(2) The Secretary of State may purchase the interest concerned compulsorily.
(3) Paragraph 3(6) to (9) apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under sub-paragraph (2) above as they apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under paragraph 3(5).
Duty To Inform
7.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
(2) The authority must inform the Secretary of State of the proposal.
Former City Academies
8.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
(2) The first condition is that—
(3) The second condition is that, although the school concerned continues to be a city academy, the interest ceases to be held for the purposes of the city academy.
(4) This paragraph applies whether or not the transfer is made by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 1.
(5) Sub-paragraph (2) applies whether or not, on the school ceasing to be a city academy, it simultaneously ceases to function as a school.
(6) The Secretary of State may make a scheme providing for the transfer of the interest—
(7) A scheme may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate.
(8) A scheme comes into force on the day it specifies for it to come into force.
(9) When a scheme comes into force it has effect to transfer (in accordance with its provisions) the interest to which it applies.
(10) A transfer made by virtue of a scheme is binding on all persons (as well as on the authority and the transferee) even if, apart from this sub-paragraph, it would have required the consent or concurrence of any person.
Other Acts
9.—(1) Section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (disposal for consideration less than the best reasonably obtainable) does not apply to a disposal to a person for the purposes of a city academy.
(2) Section 123(2A) of that Act (disposal of open space requires certain procedures) does not apply to a disposal which is made—
(3) Section 77(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (restriction on disposal of playing fields) does not apply to a disposal which is made—
Regulations
10. The Secretary of State may make regulations containing such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions as he thinks are appropriate in consequence of this Schedule or for giving it full effect; and in particular the regulations may include provision described below.
11.—(1) The regulations may include—
(2) The regulations may include—
12. The regulations may include—
General
13. A dwelling-house used by an authority for occupation by a person employed to work at a school is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as used for the purposes of the school.
14. For the purposes of this Schedule—
230 Schedule 8, page 82, line 4, at end insert—
("Public Records Act 1958 (c.51)
1A. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3, insert at the appropriate places—
"Adult Learning Inspectorate.",
"Learning and Skills Council for England."
Superannuation Act 1972 (C11)
1B. In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (kinds of employment to which schemes may apply) in the list of "Other Bodies", insert at the appropriate places—
"Adult Learning Inspectorate.",
"Learning and Skills Council for England.",
"National Council for Education and Training for Wales."
House Of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (C24)
1C. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for membership) insert at the appropriate places—
"Any member of the Learning and Skills Council for England in receipt of remuneration.",
"Any member of the National Council for Education and Training for Wales in receipt of remuneration."
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (C65)
1D. In section 23A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (discrimination by further education and higher education funding councils)—
1E. After section 25 of that Act insert—
"General Duty: Post-16 Education And Training Etc
25A.—(1) The Learning and Skills Council for England and the National Council for Education and Training for Wales shall be under a general duty to secure that the facilities falling within subsection (2) and any ancillary benefits or services are provided without sex discrimination.
(2) Facilities falling within this subsection are facilities for—
the provision of which is secured by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
(3) The provisions of sections 25 and 45 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 shall be the only sanction for breach of the general duty in subsection (1), but without prejudice to the enforcement of section 23A under section 66 or otherwise (where the breach is also a contravention of that section)."
1F.—(1) Section 26 of that Act (exception for single-sex establishments) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (1) and (2) for "and 25" in each place where the words occur substitute ", 25 and 25A".
(3) In subsection (3) after "section 25" insert "or 25A".
1G. In section 28 of that Act (exception for physical training) for "and 25" substitute ", 25 and 25A".
Race Relations Act 1976 (C74)
1H. In section 18A of the Race Relations Act 1976 (discrimination by further education and higher education funding councils)—
11. After section 19 of that Act insert—
"General Duty: Post-16 Education And Training Etc
19ZA.—(1) The Learning and Skills Council for England and the National Council for Education and Training for Wales shall be under a general duty to secure that the facilities falling within subsection (2) and any ancillary benefits or services are provided without racial discrimination.
(2) Facilities falling within this subsection are facilities for—
the provision of which is secured by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
(3) The provisions of sections 25 and 45 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 shall be the only sanction for breach of the general duty in subsection (1), but without prejudice to the enforcement of section 18A under section 57 or otherwise (where the breach is also a contravention of that section)."").
231Page 82, line 11, at end insert—
(""(g) any institution which receives funding from the National Council for Education and Training for Wales (whatever proportion that funding represents of the institution's total funding) and which is specified in, or is of a class or description specified in, the regulations."
Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation And Representation) Act 1986 (C33)
2A. In section 5(9) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (disabled persons leaving special education) in the definition of "the responsible authority", in paragraph (c) for "a further education funding council" substitute "the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales".
Local Government Act 1988 (C9)
2B. In paragraph 8(3)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1988 (competition: excluded activities) for "section 15" substitute "section 15A or 15B".
Employment Act 1988 (C19)
2C. In section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 (status of trainees etc) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that provision has been made under section 5(1)(c) or 34(1)(c) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for trainees to receive payments from the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales, the Secretary of Stale may by order provide—
and for the purposes of this subsection trainees are persons receiving or proposing to receive training."
Education Reform Act 1988 (C40)
2D. In section 124 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (powers of a higher education corporation)—
"(f) to subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities of a company for the purpose of carrying on any such activities;", and.
(c) at the end insert—
"(5) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) a person has a learning difficulty if—
(6) But a person is not to be taken to have a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of language) in which he is or will be taught is different from a language (or form of language) which has at any time been spoken in his home."
2E. In section 128(1)(b) of that Act (dissolution of higher education corporations) for sub-paragraph (v) substitute—
"(v) the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales."
2F. For section 161(1)(b) of that Act (interpretation: further or higher education functions) substitute—
"(b) references to the further or higher education functions of a local education authority are references to the functions of the authority (except in so far as they relate to secondary education) under sections 15A and 15B of the Education Act 1996 (post-16 education) and section 120 of this Act (higher education);".
2G. In section 218(2B) of that Act (school and further and higher education regulations)—
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (C43)
2H. In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions) in subsection (2)(e) for "or city college for the technology of the arts" substitute ", city college for the technology of the arts or city academy,".")
232 Page 82, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (3) omit "within the meaning of section 4(6) of this Act".")
233 Page 82, line 22, leave out ("form or take part in forming") and insert ("subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities of")
234 Page 82, line 25, leave out ("of providing education or")
235 Page 82, line 26, at end insert—
("(4B) The power conferred by subsection (4)(bb) above may not be exercised for the purpose of the provision of education if the provision is secured (wholly or partly) by financial resources provided by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
(4C) But subsection (4B) above shall not apply to the extent that the Council concerned consents to the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (4)(bb) above in a way which does not comply with the restriction in subsection (4B)."
( ) After subsection (5) insert—
"(6) A person has a learning difficulty if—
(7) But a person is not to be taken to have a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of language) in which he is or will be taught is different from a language (or form of language) which has at any time been spoken in his home."").
236 Page 83, line 11, at end insert—
("8A. In section 41(10) of that Act (control of contracts) after "This section does not apply" insert—
8B.—(1) Section 44 of that Act (collective worship) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
"(1) This section applies to any institution within the further education sector which is principally concerned with the provision of full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years.
(2) An institution is of voluntary origin for the purposes of this section if—
(2A) The governing body of an institution to which this section applies shall ensure that at an appropriate time on at least one day in each week during which the institution is open an act of collective worship is held at the institution which persons receiving education at the institution may attend."
(3) In subsection (3)(b) for "became a further education institution" substitute "joined the further education sector".
(4) In subsection (4) for "other further education institutions" substitute "other institutions to which this section applies".
(5) In subsection (5) for "a further education institution" substitute "an institution to which this section applies".
(6) Omit subsection (6).
(7) At the end of the section insert—
"(7) In the application of this section to an institution which is of voluntary origin by virtue of subsection (2)(d), subsection (3)(b) shall be taken as referring to the religious traditions and practices of the two institutions mentioned in subsection (2)(d)."
8C.—(1) Section 45 of that Act (religious education) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
"(1) This section applies to any institution to which section 44 of this Act applies.
(2) An institution is of voluntary origin for the purposes of this section if it is of voluntary origin for the purposes of section 44 of this Act.
(2A) The governing body of an institution to which this section applies shall ensure that religious education is provided at the institution for all persons attending the institution who wish to receive it."
(3) In subsection (3) for "a further education institution" substitute "an institution to which this section applies".
(4) In subsection (5)—
(5) Omit subsection (6),
(6) At the end of the section insert—
"(7) In the application of this section to an institution which is an institution of voluntary origin by virtue of section 44(2)(d), subsection (5)(a)(ii) shall be taken as referring to the religious traditions and practices of the two institutions mentioned in section 44(2)(d)."
8D. In section 52 of that Act (duty to provide for named individuals) in subsection (1) omit "full-time".")
237 Page 83, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
("9A. In section 54 of that Act (duty to give information) in subsection (1)(b) for "or city college for the technology of the arts" substitute ", city college for the technology of the arts or city academy".
9B. In section 55 of that Act (inspections etc of local authority institutions other than schools), subsections (1) to (3) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (7) shall cease to have effect.
9C. Section 56 of that Act (directions) shall cease to have effect.")
238 Page 83, line 29, leave out ("the Education Acts") and insert ("any Act")
239 Page 83, line 33, leave out ("the Education Acts") and insert ("any Act")
240 Page 84, line 40, at end insert—
("16A. In section 89(2) of that Act (orders and regulations)—
241 Page 85, line 19, at end insert—
("Welsh Language Act 1993 (c.38)
21A. In section 6(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 (meaning of "public body") for paragraph (j) substitute—
"(j) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales;".
Value Added Tax Act 1994 (C23)
21B.—(1) In Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (exemptions) Group 6 (education) is amended as follows.
(2) In item 3 (provision of examination services) in paragraph (b)(i) for "or 5" substitute ", 5 or 5A".
(3) After item 5 insert—
"5A. The provision of education or vocational training and the supply, by the person providing that education or training, of any goods or services essential to that provision, to the extent that the consideration payable is ultimately a charge to funds provided by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales under Part I or Part II of the Learning and Skills Act 2000."
(4) After Note (5) insert—
"(5A) For the purposes of item 5A a supply of any goods or services shall not be taken to be essential to the provision of education or vocational training unless—
Education Act 1994 (C30)
21C. In section 9(2) of the Education Act 1994 (joint exercise of functions) for "a further education funding council" substitute "the Learning and Skills Council for England, the National Council for Education and Training for Wales".
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (C50)
21D. In section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services) in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—
242 Page 85, line 24, at end insert—
("22A. In section 1 of the Education Act 1996 (the stages of education) in subsection (3) for the words from "confers functions" to the end substitute "makes provision with respect to further education."")
243 Page 85, line 25, leave out ("the Education Act 1996") and insert ("that Act")
244 Page 85, leave out line 39 and insert—
("( ) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) The power under subsection (1) to secure the provision of education includes power to secure the provision—
( ) In subsection (2) after "functions under this section" insert, "in respect of secondary education".
( ) After subsection (2) insert—
"( ) In exercising their functions under this section in respect of further education a local education authority shall in particular have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 13(3) and (4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000).").
245 Page 85, line 47, at end insert—
("(1A) The power under subsection (1) to secure the provision of education includes power to secure the provision—
(1B) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority shall in particular have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 13(3) and (4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000).").
246 Page 86, line 4, at end insert—
("(3) This section does not apply to higher education."
26A. In section 312(2) of that Act (meaning of learning difficulty") for "section 15(5)" substitute "section 15A or 15B".")
247 Page 86, line 12, at end insert—
("27A.—(1) Section 490 of that Act (grants in respect of special provision for ethnic minorities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) for "or a city college for the technology of the arts" substitute ", a city college for the technology of the arts or a city academy".
(3) In subsection (2) for "or college" substitute ", college or academy".
27B.—(1) Section 509 of that Act (provision of transport etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
(4) In subsection (2) after "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)".
(5) In subsection (3)—
(6) In subsection (4)—
(7) In subsection (5)—
(8) In subsection (6)(a) for "or (d)" substitute "or (1A)".
| "city academy | section 482(3)". |
27G. In Schedule 1 to that Act (pupil referral units) in paragraph 8 for "county schools" substitute "community schools".")
248 Page 86, line 25, leave out ("In")
249 Page 86, line 26, after ("inspectors)") insert ("is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) after paragraph (g) insert—
"(gg) city academies; and".
(3) At the end of subsection (4B)(a) insert "or approved under Schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000".
(4) In subsection (4B)(d) for "or city college for the technology of the arts" substitute ", city college for the technology of the arts or city academy".
( )")
250 Page 86, line 43, at end insert—
("31A. In section 25 of the Education Act 1997 (other functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) The Authority may supply any person designated by the Secretary of State with such information as the Authority thinks fit about any matter in relation to which it has a function."
31B. In section 31 of that Act (other functions of the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales) after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) The Authority may supply any person designated by the National Assembly for Wales with such information as the Authority thinks fit about any matter in relation to which it has a function."
31C. In section 43 of that Act (provision of careers education in schools) in subsection (2)(d) for "and city colleges for the technology of the arts" substitute ", city colleges for the technology of the arts and city academies"")
251 Page 86, line 44, leave out ("the Education Act 1997") and insert ("that Act")
252 Page 86, line 45, at end insert—
("Audit Commission Act 1998 (c.18)
32A.—(1) Section 36 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (studies at request of educational bodies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in the Table, after the entry relating to the governing body of an institution receiving funding under Part I of the Education Act 1994 insert—
"The Learning and Skills Council for England.
| The council. |
| The National Council for Education and Training for Wales. | The council." |
(3) In that Table, in the entry relating to the governing body of an institution within the further education sector, in the second column for "or the appropriate further education funding council" substitute ", the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales".
(4) In subsection (2) omit "or a further education funding council".
Teaching And Higher Education Act 1998 (C30)
32B.—(1) Section 26 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1) and (2).
(3) In each of subsections (6), (7), (10)(a) and (11)(b) for "subsection (2) or (4)" substitute "subsection (4)".
(4) In subsection (9)—
(5) In subsection (11) for "subsection (1) or (3)", in both places where the words occur, substitute "subsection (3)".
32C. In section 28(1) of that Act (interpretation) in the definition of "publicly-funded institution", in paragraph (a)—
32D. Section 34 of that Act (inspection of vocational training in Wales) shall cease to have effect.
32E. In section 35 of that Act (inspection of careers services in Wales), for subsection (6) substitute—
"(6) Any inspection under this section shall be conducted by one or more of the following—
but such an inspector or inspectors may be assisted by such other persons (whether or not members of the Chief Inspector's staff) as the Chief Inspector thinks fit.
(6A) In conducting an inspection under this section, the inspector or inspectors shall act in accordance with any instruction or guidelines given from time to time by the National Assembly for Wales.
(6B) Where an inspection under this section has been completed, the inspector or inspectors shall make a written report on the inspection and shall send the report to the National Assembly for Wales.
(6C) The National Assembly for Wales may arrange for any report of an inspection under this section to be published in such manner as the National Assembly for Wales considers appropriate; and section 42A(2) to (4) of the School Inspections Act 1996 shall apply in relation to the publication of any such report by the National Assembly for Wales as they apply to the publication of a report by the Chief Inspector under any of the provisions mentioned in section 42A(2)." ").
253 Page 87, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) in paragraph (a) for "primary and secondary education" substitute "primary education, and secondary education suitable to the requirements of pupils of compulsory school age,";")
254 Page 87, line 39, at end insert—
"Plans Of National Council
26B.—(1) In preparing a school organisation plan a local education authority in Wales shall have regard to the plans of the National Council for Education and Training for Wales published under section ( Plans) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if a school organisation plan prepared by a local education authority in Wales is being considered by the school organisation committee or by the adjudicator.
(3) The committee or the adjudicator shall have regard to the plans of the National Council for Education and Training for Wales published under section (Plans) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
(4) In this section references to the school organization committee are to the committee established by the authority under regulations made under section 27.
(5) In this section references to the adjudicator are to—
255 Page 87, line 46, at end insert—
("37A. In section 30(3) of that Act (notice by governing body to discontinue foundation or voluntary school) for "the appropriate further education funding council" substitute "the Learning and Skills Council for England (if the school is in England) or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales (if the school is in Wales)".")
256 Page 87, line 49, at end insert—
("38A. In section 110 of that Act (home-school arrangements) in subsection (1)(b) for "or a city college for the technology of the arts" substitute ", a city college for the technology of the arts or a city academy"")
257 Page 88, line 2, at end insert—
("39A.—(1) Section 137 of that Act (Education Transfer Council: alteration and dissolution) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(c) for "or under the Education Reform Act 1988" substitute ", under the Education Reform Act 1988 or under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992".
(3) At the end of subsection (4)(a) insert "or section 34 or 36 of, or Schedule 5 or 7 to, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992".
39B. In section 142(1) of that Act (general interpretation) omit the definition of "the appropriate further education funding council".")
258 Page 88, line 21, leave out ("or implement")
259 Page 88, line 29, leave out ("or implement")
260 Page 88, line 37, leave out ("or implement")
261 Page 88, line 45, leave out (", and are to be implemented,")
262 Page 88, line 47, at end insert—
("Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38)
42A.—(1) Section 104 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (funding of the Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), omit the words from "; and in determining" to the end.
(3) After subsection (4), insert—
"(4A) The Assembly shall—
(4B) But before it gives its approval under subsection (4A)(a), the Assembly may require the Chief Inspector to modify the plan."
42B. In section 118(2) of that Act (meaning of "Welsh public records") after paragraph (h) insert—
"(ha) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales,".
42C. In Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act (public bodies subject to reform by Assembly) for the entry relating to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales substitute—
"5. The National Council for Education and Training for Wales."").
263 Schedule 9, page 91, line 38, at end insert—
("Part Iii Adult Learning Inspectorate
.—(1) During the interim period, section 50(2) has effect as if for "9" there were substituted "not less than 2 and not more than 9".
(2) The interim period begins on the day on which section 50 comes into force.
(3) The interim period ends on the first day on which there are 9 members of the Inspectorate.")
264 Page 91, line 38, at end insert—
("Part Iv Student Loans
.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) has effect in relation to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 to the extent that it continues in force by virtue of any savings made, in connection with its repeal by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, by an order under section 46(4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.
(2) Section 1(3) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 shall have effect as if the definition of "institutions receiving support from public funds" included a reference to institutions which receive financial resources under section 5 or 34 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.")
265 Schedule 10, page 91, line 41, at end insert—
("1972 c. 11.
| Superannuation Act 1972. | In Schedule 1, in the list of "Other Bodies", the words "Further Education Funding Council for England in receipt of remuneration." and "Further Education Funding Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.". |
| 1975 c. 24. | House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. | In Schedule 1, in Part III the words "Any member of the Further Education Funding Council for England in receipt of remuneration." and "Any member of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.". |
| 1975 c. 65. | Sex Discrimination Act 1975. | Section 25(6)(d). |
| 1976 c. 74. | Race Relations Act 1976. | Section 19(6)(d). |
| 1988 c. 40. | Education Reform Act 1988. | In section 124(2)(b), the words ", as defined by section 15(6) and (7) of the Education Act 1996".") |
266 Page 91, line 45, at end insert—
| ("Section 44(6). | ||
| Section 45(6). | ||
| In section 52(1), the word "full-time". | ||
| In section 55, subsections (1) to (3) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (7). | ||
| Section 56.") |
267 Page 92, line 7, column 3, at beginning insert—
| ("Section 19(6)(e) and (f).") |
268 Page 92, line 9, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In section 403(1) the words "local education authority,". | ||
| In section 482, in subsection (2)(c) the word "either" and in subsection (3) the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (b). | ||
| In section 509(1), paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph.") |
269 Page 92, line 10, column 3, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 70, 112 and")
270 Page 92, line 11, at end insert—
("1996 c. 57.
| School Inspections Act 1996. | In section 10(3) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g).") |
271 Page 92, line 19, at end insert—
("1998 c. 18.
| Audit Commission Act 1998. | In section 36(1), in the Table, the entry relating to a further education funding council. |
| In section 36(2), the words "or a further education funding council".") |
272 Page 92, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In section 22(2)(h) and (7) the words "attendance on". | ||
| Section 26(1) and (2). | ||
| In section 28(1), in the definition of "publicly-funded institution", in paragraph (a) the words "5 or" and the words from "from a further" to "its costs". | ||
| Section 34.") |
273 Page 92, line 29, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 32
274 Page 92, line 33, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In section 142(1), the definition of "the appropriate further education funding council".") |
275 Page 93, line 4, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In Schedule 30, paragraphs 41 and 42.") |
276 Page 93, line 4, at end insert—
("1998 c. 38.
| Government of Wales Act 1998. | In section 104(4), the words from "; and in determining" to the end.") |
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.184 to 276.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.184 to 276.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to. An amendment (privilege) made. Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.Football (Disorder) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Comprehensive Spending Review
7.55 p.m.
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows: "The public spending allocations for 2001 to 2004 that I am announcing today are possible because, having eliminated the £28 billion deficit that we inherited and having reduced the national debt, the state of our public finances is strong.
"In the economic cycles of the past 30 years, the current budget deficits averaged £109 billion, the national debt doubled and rose to 44 per cent of national income in 1997 and stop-go in the economy meant stop-go in the public finances. "So our first task was to create stability and sustainable public finances. Having set clear fiscal rules over the economic cycle—a current budget in balance, borrowing only to invest within prudent and cautious limits—today we not only have low inflation and stable growth but year-on-year current budget surpluses and debt falling below 40 per cent of national income; indeed, debt being repaid this year and next. "And it is this sustained and sustainable improvement in our public finances that makes possible a sustained and sustainable improvement in our public services. "Our second task was to encourage the work ethic and secure rising employment. Today, with the assistance of the New Deal, unemployment is at its lowest for 20 years and almost 28 million people, more people than ever before, are in work in our country today. "Now, building on the foundation of stability and strengthened economic fundamentals, we can move to the next stage in creating a better future: to make good the damage done by the legacy of decades of under-investment across our public services; and to realise long-term national goals that we have set for a decade, to close the productivity gap with our competitors, to deliver and sustain full employment, to secure higher education for a majority of our young people, to halve and then abolish child poverty and to build strong public services as we create a Britain where there is security and opportunity not just for a few but for everyone. "The first conclusion of this year's spending review is that prudent targeted long-term investment is not only a social good, but also, in a changing and often insecure world, an economic necessity. "It is only by investment in education, in science and in the future of our children that we can equip ourselves for future economic success and ensure that there is opportunity for all. It is only by investing in health, transport, the environment and in law and order that we can ensure a more productive economy and security for all. "And just as stability and economic strength make possible investment, so, too, new investment reinforces stability and creates longer-term economic strength. So, while we will raise current expenditure only in line with our neutral view of trend growth—by 2.5 per cent a year we propose to tackle the long-term neglect of investment in our country with a step change in capital investment for education, science, health, policing and in our transport and infrastructure. "As I announced in the Budget, net capital investment will more than double, rising from £7 billion this year to £19 billion by 2004, within a ceiling for public investment of 1.8 per cent of national income, as we renew our public services. "The second conclusion of our spending review is that it is by tying new resources to reform and results, and by locking in incentives, penalties, inspection and information that we ensure new investment goes to front line services: in secondary as well as in primary schools, new targets for literacy and numeracy and IT; in hospitals, new systems of inspection; in law and order, reforms to criminal justice; in defence, implementing the next stage of the Strategic Defence Review; with local government, new public service agreements; and in transport, a new partnership between private and public sectors. At every stage money will be tied to output and performance. "Let me give full details of the financial background. In the Budget I confirmed the current surpluses from 2000 onwards would be £14 billion, 16, 13, 8 and £8 billion. My Budget also confirmed net borrowing will be minus 6.5, minus 5, plus 3, plus 11, plus £13 billion, lower borrowing in every year than in any year of the previous Parliament. "I said that, as a share of national income, debt will be 35 per cent, 34, 33, 33, 33 and thus even with our programme of public investment we meet both our fiscal rules and do so even on the most cautious case and a cautious view of trend growth at 2.25 per cent. "In accordance with the code of fiscal stability, I will publish the second fiscal forecasts of the year in the autumn. But I can already report that since the Budget the fiscal position has further strengthened. For the year ending March 2000, the current surplus is healthier than originally forecast at the time of the Budget—not £17.1 billion, but £20.4 billion. "Debt as a share of GDP has been reduced even more, from 37.1 to 36.8 per cent. Indeed, I will use a further underspend of £2.5 billion in annually managed expenditure to repay debt. Two billion pounds in departmental expenditure can be carried forward. However, on grounds of prudence, I have decided to allow a carry forward of only £1.5 billion and to allow spending of only half of that this year and half next year—and to allocate the remaining sum to repay more debt. "It is only because we have put the public finances on a sustainable footing that I can raise spending today. It is this same discipline that allows me to inform the House that this year we have repaid £6.2 billion more debt than the £11.9 billion originally planned—in total, a debt repayment of £18.1 billion, the largest repayment of debt in any year since the war. "We have not and will not relax our discipline. So I have three policy announcements to underpin the strength of the public finances. Further limited sales of spectrum will take place by the end of 2001. We shall not repeat the mistakes of the North Sea oil windfall and of the privatisation sales where receipts were immediately used up in current spending. I can confirm that all the capital proceeds will—as with the £22 billion from the first sale—go to further reduce the burden of debt. "As debt is reduced, so, too, are debt interest payments. The first spectrum sale alone will reduce the bill for debt interest by a further £1 billion a year by 2003–4, money that—as I shall confirm later this afternoon—will, year after year, go directly to improving public services. "Secondly, departments and authorities will make asset and property sales of £4 billion a year over the next three years—4 billion a year released by realising unproductive assets we do not need to fund service improvements we do need. Because money is tied to modernisation, the new public service agreements signed with departments—and for the first time with local government—will not only specify agreed outcomes but precise timetables for making necessary reforms. "I can tell the House, as a result of the fall in the share of administration costs in total government spending, new money makes possible a substantial shift in spending to the front line services—to recruit more nurses, doctors, teachers, classroom assistants, and police, more staff in our front line services. "With the success of the New Deal, the bills for social and economic failure are now £3.5 billion lower, enabling us to transfer £3.5 billion each year from paying unemployment benefits to funding public services. "With this improvement comes a radical shift in the composition of public spending. Our promise was to reduce the costs of failure—the bills for unemployment and debt interest—in order to reallocate money to the key public services. "In the two decades from 1979 until 1997, rising debt interest and unemployment and social security accounted for 42 per cent of all extra public spending and that meant that 42 pence in every additional pound spent was not available to the key public services. "In the coming three years, unemployment, social security and debt interest payments will account for not 42 per cent but now only 17 per cent of extra public spending, even as we direct more money to child benefit and the minimum income guarantee. That leaves around 80 per cent of new money for health, education, transport, policing and other public services—extra resources now available to us, not at the expense of our prudence, but because of our prudence. "So within our fiscal rules and within the envelope I set in the Budget and have strictly adhered to, I can announce that spending on public services—what is called the departmental expenditure limit—is able to rise from £195 billion this year and our previously planned £203 billion next year to £212.1 billion and then to £229 billion in 2002–3 to £246 billion in 2003–4. By 2004 an extra £43 billion a year will be allocated to front line services. Sustained improvements in public services are now made possible because with stability and strengthened economic fundamentals, and lower debt interest and lower unemployment, we have sustained improvements in our public finances. I now turn to the departmental allocations. In recent years, in addition to their conventional responsibilities, Britain's defence forces have taken on a new and valued role in international peacekeeping and in conflict prevention, promoting human rights and peace throughout the world, including in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. "To complete the restructuring agreed in the Strategic Defence Review—to fund new equipment and to increase the mobility and efficiency of our front line forces—defence spending, which has been failing in real terms every year since the end of the Cold War, will now increase in real terms. The allocations are £23.6 billion next year rising to £25 billion in 2003–4. "The rise in the Foreign Office budget from £1.2 billion next year to £1.32 billion in 2003–4 will not only finance the proper representation and promotion of Britain abroad but also the Foreign Secretary is announcing today that the British Council will receive extra funds and the budget for the BBC World Service will rise substantially from £174 million this year to £180 million next year, to £210 million by the end of the period to achieve our new target of 153 million World Service listeners by 2002. "Because we take seriously our international responsibilities to the environment, the Government are announcing today a special £85 million fund to assist nuclear clean up at Chernobyl. The international community's clearest duty and greatest challenge is to halve world poverty by 2015 and make primary education universal for every child. "Our international aid budget will rise from £2.8 billion this year to £3.1 billion next year, then £3.3 billion and £3.6 billion by 2004, a real terms rise of 6.2 per cent a year, in contrast to the falling share of national income devoted to overseas aid from 1979 to 1997. There is a rising share of national income today and in the future, as we honour in full our commitment to debt relief and our obligation to the poorest countries of the world. "I turn to our second set of decisions, new investment to build stronger communities. The Home Office budget will rise from £8.2 billion this year to £9.6 billion next year, to £10.3 billion the year after, to £10.6 billion in 2003–4, an annual rise in real terms averaging 6.4 per cent a year. Tomorrow the Home Secretary will set out both his targets and how this allocation will be spent. "To implement fully the Good Friday agreement, an extra £316 million over three years will help fund the modernisation of policing and criminal justice in Northern Ireland, and in this way help underpin peace and future prosperity. "Every community in the land is weakened by the evil of drugs. In return for challenging new targets to cut drug related reoffending by 50 per cent over the decade and to treat twice as many addicts through the new National Treatment Agency, the new anti-drugs budget will be set at £870 million in 2001–2 and then rise to £931 million and £996 million by 2004, an average annual real growth rate of 10 per cent. "Strengthening our local communities involves a new partnership with local government based on increased investment and new targets. The three year settlement for local government—an annual real terms rise of 3 per cent over and above inflation—will he set out in full by the Minister for Local Government. Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will make related announcements. "Local and national government need to work even more closely in a new partnership for reform and improvement in our poorest areas. For decades our whole country has been scarred by deep and persistent deprivation and under-achievement in high unemployment communities. "While much previous spending has been directed to dealing with the consequences of economic and social failure, it is time now to invest in tackling the causes of failure—poor school results, poorer standards of public health and low levels of economic activity. Today our poorest council estates suffer unemployment four times and burglary rates three times the national average, with mortality rates 30 per cent higher. These unjustifiable and divisive inequalities cannot be tolerated. Both government and communities must raise their sights, with a new target to raise the poorest areas up and thereby narrow the gap between these areas and the rest of the country. "So we will not only extend the New Deal for communities but strengthen the institutions—from our schools to our health centres—on which communities depend. In return for local public service agreements that require new minimum standards in school attainment, public health, law and order and job creation, a new neighbourhood renewal fund will provide, by 2004, new resources worth £400 million a year. "In this spending round, housing—and our objective of decent affordable housing for all—will receive the priority it deserves and resources it needs—an additional £1.6 billion of new investment by 2004, a real terms rise averaging 12 per cent a year. "Across the social sector, we will ensure that half a million more houses will be modernised or repaired, part of a 10-year plan to eliminate all substandard housing. And as we implement key recommendations of the Rogers report, reclaimed brownfield sites will account for 60 per cent of all new housing, creating thousands of new construction jobs. "Investment in the future must mean investment in a cleaner environment. To meet our climate change commitments the Environment Minister will announce how new resources will promote emissions trading and energy efficiency in Britain's homes, and there will be further announcements on the use of renewable energy and recycling by local authorities. "In rural communities the new rural transport fund has extended the rural network with 2000 new or improved bus services. And the rural transport fund will be increased from an annual allocation of £60 million to £95 million. And there will be an announcement of new finance available for maintaining the Post Office network in both rural and urban areas. "And as farming restructures and deals with BSE and meets challenging targets to move from the old farm production subsidies to the new environmental improvement payments, the agriculture budget, including the Intervention Board, will increase from £1 billion this year to £1.35 billion by 2004, an average annual real terms rise of 6 per cent. And the Food Standards Agency will see its budget rise from £87 million this year to £111 million by 2004. "Extending access, particularly for our young people, to the arts and to sport will strength every community. With a 4.3 per cent annual real terms rise in the budget of the Department of Culture, there will be significant improved funding for the arts, and the Secretary of State will give details of new funding to encourage children to use our libraries, museums and arts and to encourage sports in schools and in our communities. "Strengthening communities must involve strengthening our social services and our health service. Our NHS plans will be announced next week. There will also be a major package of investment in services for elderly people—including the Government's response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. The Health Secretary will announce the detail of this and other allocations from the health and social services budget next week. "I can also confirm that in the autumn the Government will publish their proposed plans for a new pensioner credit with a view to further announcements on a Budget timetable. "The strong civic society we seek is built not by rights alone but by rights and responsibilities. So we will match our Budget tax reliefs to encourage the giving of money with new measures today to encourage the giving of time, extra resources of £60 million by 2003–2004, with a clear aim—to encourage 1 million more of our citizens as volunteers in community service in our country. "I turn now to the investment we must make in our economic future. Britain has great strengths—the best place in Europe to do business, with world class companies in science and technology—but to build for the future we must put in place the long-term investment which is the precondition of a strong economy and of bridging the productivity gap with our competitors and avoid the short-termism of the past. "Working with business, the role of modern government is not to subsidise loss-makers or to attempt to pick winners. The new role of government is to invest in science and innovation, to promote competition, small business development and enterprise for all, to encourage balanced regional development and meet the pressing needs of transport and infrastructure and most of all to invest in the greatest driver of prosperity—education and skills. "First, investment in science. With our investment in a £1 billion public private partnership with Wellcome to re-equip university science and extra resources to support pioneering medical research, we will raise the science budget by 5.4 per cent a year in real terms. "And to ensure invention in Britain leads to manufacturing in Britain and jobs in Britain, the Secretary of Industry will announce new resources for the University Challenge fund that commercialises inventions and for university-based regional enterprise centres. "Britain's small businesses are the backbone of our local economies. And to offer new services businesses have themselves requested, the budget of the new Small Business Service will rise substantially from £197 million this year to £277 million by 2004. This will include a national Internet service offering comprehensive business advice and a consultancy service for start-ups, worth up to £2,000 for start-ups in high unemployment areas. So the numbers of small businesses who employ people, and which have already risen from 1.2 million in 1997 to 1.3 million, can expand in every area of the country. "The newest and most decisive challenge in the new century demanding higher levels of investment is to master and lead in the new information technologies. To make Britain best for electronic training and to bridge the growing digital divide, the review has agreed a three-year programme of rapidly rising investment in our schools and our communities and a new fund that the Prime Minister will announce to ensure that by 2005 Britain will have all government services offered on line. "Investment in innovation, infrastructure and skills is essential in every region if there are to be high levels of productivity in Britain and full employment throughout our country. "To secure balanced regional development, regional development agencies will receive new resources, their budgets increased by £500 million a year by 2003–2004. These will not only be new funds but new flexibilities they have themselves identified: in the North West promoting innovation and research; in the North East, increasing entrepreneurship; in Yorkshire and Humberside, small business development; in the East Midlands, information and communications technology; in the West Midlands, modern manufacturing; in the South East and South West, as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with their devolved decision-making, the promotion of clusters of growth; in every region, new support for skills, employment and for schools and colleges to promote enterprise open to all. "The overall settlement for Scotland provides for an increase of £3.4 billion a year by 2003–2004, an annual real terms rise of 4.4 per cent. A separate announcement will be made by the Scottish Executive. "For the Objective 1 areas in the United Kingdom—in Wales, Cornwall, Merseyside, south Yorkshire—and for Objective 2 and 3 areas, I am announcing a new approach that will raise their levels of investment. Within our departmental allocations we are making today the Government will ensure funding for the European share of Objective 1, 2 and 3 projects. For EU structural funds this is estimated to total £4.2 billion over three years, including an estimated total of £600 million for new Objective 1 programmes in English regions. "The settlement increases funding for Wales by a total of 5.4 per cent a year in real terms and allows for match funding—and includes a special allocation to ensure funding of the European share of Wales' Objective 1 needs, an allocation to Wales of £80 million, £90 million, £102 million over the next three years. I am also transferring management of the European Social Fund allocations for Wales of £149 million over the next three years to the Welsh Assembly. "It is because of the importance to all regions of modern transport and infrastructure that we will now make a step change in investment in public transport. In the Budget we removed the automatic fuel escalator and extra money was allocated to roads and public transport this year. Now we are able to raise spending on roads and public transport by significant extra sums to meet the needs of business and the public, from £4.9 billion this year to £6 billion next year, then to £7.4 billion and £9.1 billion in 2003–2004, a real terms rise of 20 per cent a year to 2004. "Details of the targets to improve rail and bus services and to cut road congestion and of the allocation of funds will be set out in the ten-year plan to be published by the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday. "The modern economy can succeed only when it uses all the talent of all its people. Any potential squandered is a resource denied to the country's future. In this review we allocate new funds to advance our goal of full employment. For 70,000 employers, nearly 500,000 young people and for Britain, which has seen long-term youth unemployment fall by 70 per cent, the New Deal has been succeeding, a central building block for our policy of full employment. So long-term youth unemployment, which rose to 500,000 in the 1980s, is 50,000 today. "The windfall levy raised over £5 billion, with £1.6 billion allocated to schools and £3.5 billion to employment creation. Because the New Deal has been even more successful than forecast, with more getting back to work more quickly, there is an underspend, enabling us to fund the New Deal well into the next Parliament and to transform what started as the New Deal for the young unemployed into a permanent deal for all long-term unemployed. "Having helped 500,000 on the New Deal, we now set plans to help the next 500,000. Next year and until 2003, I expect £1.7 billion to be available from the windfall levy to do more to coach the hard-to-employ young unemployed and systematically to create new opportunities for our long-term unemployed, nearly 1 million single parents and thousands of disabled men and women who want to work. "To bring both childcare and employment within the reach of more parents, childcare investment will rise from £66 million this year to £200 million by 2003–04, as we deliver our national childcare strategy. "Because of our success in cutting unemployment, social security spending, which grew by 4 per cent a year in the previous Parliament, is growing by 1.5 per cent a year over the next three years and the budget for unemployment-related benefits is falling. To make further social security savings by tackling fraud and error, we are announcing new investment in staff and technology. Having cut errors in income support claims by half, we now plan to cut fraud and error in the job seeker's allowance and income support payments, first, by 25 per cent by 2004 and then 50 per cent. "I turn now to investment to ensure that all children have the best start in life. Today's children will be tomorrow's doctors, scientists, engineers and nurses—our future workforce. By investing in children, we are investing in our country's future. Having invested £7 billion a year more in families—raising child benefit by 35 per cent, guaranteeing a minimum family income under the working families' tax credit and from next April the new children's tax credit, giving the typical family £442 a year—it is time to take further steps. "The war against child poverty requires not only additional cash but the support and encouragement of all forces of care and compassion in every community. It can be won only by the combined efforts of parents and private, voluntary, charitable and public sectors working together. So in a unique initiative, and after consultations with charities and voluntary organisations, we will create a national children's fund with a budget over three years totalling £450 million to help children and young people at risk. The children's fund will work with national children's charities and local community organisations—secular and faith based—and support those dedicated staff and committed volunteers who offer one-to-one help to young people, and parents, at risk. Seventy million pounds will be allocated to a network of 50 local and regional children's funds. "I turn to investment in education. With the funds the Secretary of State for Education allocated from the first spending review he has made reforms in education, ensuring nursery education for every four year-old, cut class sizes for five to seven year-olds, raised literary and numeracy standards for 11 year-olds by six and 10 percentage points and reformed and expanded higher and further education. Education qualifications are, in the modern world, the surest route to opportunity and security for all. "All children should be ready to learn when they reach school. From the first spending review came Sure Start, now lifting 50,000 children and their parents out of poverty. In this second review, and tied to targets for improving child development and parental responsibility, we will, by 2004, and with a budget of £500 million, expand the number of children helped to 345,000. And with nursery places already increasing from 200,000 in 1997 to 400,000 in 2002, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will announce funds for the next stage in the expansion of nursery education. "Having improved standards in our primary schools, the next task is now to raise standards as decisively in the secondary schools. The expansion of resources which the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will announce for all schools is designed to back up reform and to bring about radical improvement within the comprehensive system to ensure opportunity for all means the highest standards for all. We will now consult on and fund a new target for our secondary schools. By 2007, not today's 60 per cent but 85 per cent of 14 year-olds must meet literacy, numeracy and computer standards. "To raise Britain's appallingly low school staying-on rate, we are setting aside £150 million a year for education maintenance allowances worth up to £40 a week. Our new and challenging target is by 2004, 80,000 more young 16 to 18 year-olds in education and by age 21 nearly 60 per cent of young people having left school or college with A-levels or their equivalent. "Under the New Deal for Schools, 17,000 of our schools will have had some improvement, modernisation or renovation by 2002, and every one of our 32,000 schools will be linked to the Internet, with the objective of, by 2004, 500,000 more computers in our schools. By 2010 we want the majority of young people to go on to higher education. The Secretary of State is today allocating £100 million extra to higher education in 2001–02, making a 4.6 per cent real terms increase in total. The review provides further finance that will raise the numbers in part-time and full-time higher and further education towards our goal of 50 per cent. "State school pupils secure two-thirds of the top A-level qualifications but only half the places in some of our leading universities. To bridge this gap the Secretary of State for Education is today setting a new objective to improve access. The Higher Education Funding Council will provide financial help for universities submitting plans for year-on-year improvements in widening access. Two million adults have a reading age of seven or less. Adult illiteracy is not just a failure of our society but, as business leaders round the country have told me, an economic inefficiency that cannot any longer be tolerated. In the coming weeks, the Secretary of State for Education will announce the new resources provided to tackle these barriers to opportunity and earnings. "The best education for all, from early learning to lifetime learning, is not only a time-honoured social ideal but in today's world an absolute economic necessity. That is why we have decided to make increased investment in education the priority of this year's review and to back sustained long-term reform with a sustained increase in resources. In the Budget I was able to allocate new resources to the NHS, amounting to a rise of 6.1 per cent a year in real terms over four years to 2004. I was also able to allocate an additional £1 billion to UK education this year. Today, in return for new targets for improved standards, we can allocate further resources for UK education for the next three years. "Under the previous government, UK education spending rose by an average of only 1.5 per cent a year in real terms. Over the next three years, UK education spending will rise by 5.4 per cent a year in real terms. Spending will rise from last year's £40.6 billion and this year's £45.8 billion to £49.5 billion next year, £53.4 billion the year after and then £57.7 billion. The money I announced in the Budget and now today will deliver, over the four years up to 2004, an average annual increase of 6.6 per cent in real terms, an annual rate of growth far in excess of the 1.5 per cent achieved from 1979 to 1997. "I have one further announcement. In March the Secretary of State for Education made special payments direct to headteachers for books and equipment ranging from £3,000 to £9,000 for primary schools and from £30,000 to £50,000 for secondary schools—£290 million in total that went direct to the headteacher, to be spent by the school for use in the classroom. The Government have decided to continue this innovation. But next April the Education Secretary will allocate to our headteachers not £290 million but £540 million. As a result, head teachers in every one of our smaller primary schools will next year receive not £3,000, but a payment of £6,000; the larger primary schools, not £9,000, but a payment of £20,000. For the smaller secondary schools, there will now be payments of £50,000, rising, for the larger secondary schools, to payments of £70,000. These payments will now be made not only for one year, but for every year until 2004. "So we have made our choice. It is now for those who oppose our spending plans to state clearly where their cuts would fall. The Government have been prudent for a purpose. Our choice is stability, employment and sustained long-term investment now and into the next Parliament to create a Britain of security and opportunity for all. I commend the Statement to the House". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.8.30 p.m.
My Lords, wow! That was £43 billion of extra spending. So many billions, so many noughts; is it not marvellous? However, perhaps a question then arises: if it is so marvellous, why is not a grateful nation falling at the Government's feet in gratitude? Why do people appear not to be happy? Why does Gallup's "feelgood factor" stand at minus 15? Why has the Government's lead in the polls halved? Why is the Prime Minister's satisfaction rating now negative? Where is the gratitude?
There appear to be three possible reasons for the mysterious lack of gratitude. I should like to consider them. First, it may be that people just do not believe the figures. Could it be that, as was stated in The Times:Or is it that they believe what was said in the Daily Mail, that the Government were "bending the truth"? How shocking; how can people be so cynical? Is it because the Government, in their last Budget report, claimed that,"When people discover they have been deceived, they are apt to become angry"?
Only later did people find out that the Government's calculation included only direct taxes—which the Chancellor had cut by £30 billion a year—and excluded indirect taxes—which the Chancellor had quietly raised by £70 billion a year? Or is it because the Government claimed last year that they were increasing spending on health and education by £40 billion? It then turned out that the increases had been triple counted and that the actual increase was only half that figure? Could it be because the Government said that they would raise petrol tax and pensions by the rate of inflation? Only later did people find out that the Government had used the historic rate of inflation for pensions—up 1.1 per cent—but the forecast rate for petrol tax—up 3.3 per cent. We should not be so cynical. Let us take the figures at face value. That could bring us to a second possible solution to the case of the missing gratitude. Could it be that, even if people do believe the figures, they may be sophisticated enough to ask themselves: where is all this money coming from? Is it the strong economy? It is not that, because our economy is now growing more slowly than that of either France or Germany. On the plans announced today, government spending will grow by 3.3 per cent per annum, but the UK economy will grow by only around 2 per cent per annum. Thus, on today's spending plans, the Government are opening up a dangerous gap between government expenditure and national income. Noble Lords will recall the dictum: annual income £20, annual expenditure £19–19s–6d, result—happiness; annual income £20, annual expenditure £20–6d, result—misery. Could people have worked out that, to fill the "misery gap", taxes are rising by the equivalent of 5.3p on the basic rate of income tax? Of course the Government do not put it that way. They rely instead on so-called "fiscal drag", a delightfully invisible aspect—from the Treasury's point of view—of our complex tax system, whereby tax allowances rise more slowly than earnings. Tax receipts to the Government rise faster than the growth of GDP. This year, as was the case last year, the Government's tax receipts are rising by 9 per cent, three times faster than the growth in GDP and three times faster than earnings. That is how the miracle to which the Minister referred—that of the allegedly "strong public finances"—is in fact being delivered. This Comprehensive Spending Review is ill named. It should be called the "Comprehensive Taxing Review". However, let us once again be generous. Let us say that one does believe the figures and understand that the additional money has to come from tax. Because one is a public-spirited soul in a post-materialist age, one accepts that. Then a third question arises: what are they actually doing with all this money? Surely people can see that the money is not creating shorter hospital waiting lists, better cancer survival rates, more policemen and fewer violent crimes. What are the Government doing with the money? One clue might be found in the Guardian newspaper which, each Wednesday, produces a supplement called "Society". It details job vacancies in the public sector. We have been monitoring this publication over the past month. Taking this week's issue—a typical issue—we find that the Government are advertising 394 jobs at salaries which will cost the Government £9.7 million a year. I can assure noble Lords that a similar number of positions at similar salaries are advertised every week. This year alone, taxes will have to rise by £500 million just to pay for the Government's jobs being advertised in that newspaper alone. For the first time since 1979, employment in the public sector is on the increase. According to new figures I have today received from the Office for National Statistics, the number of state jobs rose by 44,000 in 1999. As I have said, that represents the first increase since 1979. How marvellous that would be if those jobs all represented more policemen, doctors or nurses? However, we see that they are instead, "dignity at work consultants" at salaries of £28,000 a year, or "training zone trainer administrators" at £22,000 a year, or "multi-agency facilitator team leaders" at £24,000 a year. The reason why people are not falling on the floor with gratitude is because they do not believe the spending figures, they are not inclined to pay more in taxes for them and even if they were, they cannot accept more tax with results that are imperceptible to the naked eye. That is a triple whammy from which I cannot see how the Government will recover. Is there any way in which Members of your Lordships' House could help the Minister in his plight? Well, there is one body in the land that could help to restore some credibility to the presentation of the Government's finances, but sadly, that body is excluded from the process. I refer, of course, to your Lordships' House. I am told that this short debate will last for around 40 minutes, or perhaps a little longer. On that basis, that means that your Lordships' House will be passing judgment at a rate of £1 billion a minute. Because of the expertise and experience represented on all sides of your Lordships' House, this House is one of the bodies in our constitution best equipped to deal with the details of financial matters. However, it is not called upon to do so. Our debate today will probably last for less than an hour. The 572 pages contained in two volumes of the Finance Bill 2000 will be dealt with in this House in two hours or so at 11 a.m. on the last Friday of this Session. Why is that? Is it not because the Parliament Act 1911 deprived your Lordships' House of the right to scrutinise money Bills? The then government's express argument for that Act was that the House of Lords was undemocratic and illegitimate, because it was packed with hereditary Peers. Did not the House of Lords Act 1999 remove that impediment? Does not the Leader of your Lordships' House say that our new House is more democratic, more legitimate and more authoritative? In the light of that, is it not perhaps time to revisit the relevance of the Parliament Act 1911 to today's House of Lords? There are many ways in which your Lordships' House could exercise its scrutinising skills—which are undoubted and visible on all sides of the House—to improve the details of all financial legislation. I hope that the Minister will allow us to debate these matters along with the details of the Bill when we come to our all too brief discussion of the Finance Bill on 28 July."The tax burden on the average family will fall to its lowest level since 1972"?
8.40 p.m.
My Lords, one thing that is clear from the Minister's marathon Statement is that we should revise the procedures of the House. It should be possible for a Minister to say, "We have all read the Statement. Let's read it into the record. Any questions?" That would save an awful lot of time and would save the Minister an awful lot of breath.
It is fair to acknowledge that there are many good things about the Statement. Let us start with them. The increases in public expenditure are welcome. That should—not necessarily, but it should—make this country a more civilised society. Among the many particular items that we welcome, I wish to mention the increase in expenditure on the World Service, the increase in the science budget, the increase in overseas aid and the support given to the Good Friday Agreement. However, we have one fundamental criticism of the Statement and government policy. The Chancellor may have avoided stop-go in overall economic management but he has not avoided stop-go in the management of public expenditure. We have had stop-go in public expenditure in spades. Last year, public expenditure was 38.3 per cent of gross domestic product, which is a 35-year low. The record of the growth of public expenditure over the whole Parliament will not be particularly impressive. That low figure might please the Conservatives but it is reflected in the appalling state of many of our public services. Stop-go is the reason why the Government have failed to achieve smaller classes, with an average size of 25. It is the reason for the shortage of nurses and hospital beds and for longer waiting lists. It is also the reason for the Government's failure so far to realise their promise to increase the size of the police force. What has increased, of course, is the prison population, because the Home Secretary seems determined to follow the policy of his predecessor and lock up just about anyone in sight whom he can lay his hands on. That is not the right way to deal with crime and the causes of crime. Stop-go in the management of public services leads to havoc in public services. We hope that we are now going to see an increase in the number of policemen, but a number of experienced policemen will leave and we will have new recruits instead. The police force as a whole will suffer. The same applies to nurses. Perhaps the worst failure, which is not mentioned in the review, is on pensioners. For our relative wealth, our state pensioners are the worst-off in the European Union. My colleagues will return to that subject time after time. I do not wish to say anything else about the Statement at this stage. We have gone on long enough. Finally, I turn to one part of the Statement with which no one can quarrel. The Minister said:The Conservatives should state where they will find the £20 billion of cuts in these spending plans. If they do not, we can only infer that their programme will mean fewer nurses, fewer beds, fewer police and bigger classes. It is time to come clean."It is now for those who oppose our spending plans to state clearly where their cuts would fall".
My Lords—
8.44 p.m.
My Lords, surely the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, is not going to deprive me of the pleasure of responding to those contributions. I was described as being in a plight. Having read that Statement, I am a happy man. I am happy because all the things that I have worked for throughout my life in politics are starting to work out. I shall show that not only is the Statement in pursuit of our ideals and objectives; it is the right way to protect our economy and our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, asked why the population was not falling about. Apart from the obvious answer that we cannot afford the services of M&C Saatchi, I wonder whether he has looked at the opinion polls recently. I wonder whether he has noticed that, for the first time since polling began, three years into a Parliament, the government party is significantly ahead. Of course there is criticism of the Government's style. If the papers cannot get at the substance, they have to criticise the style. That is what they have been doing and good luck to them; it is their job. We do not have to take that very seriously in this House. The Government should not be deterred from pursuing their economic and social policies by the tittle-tattle that has been going around in the press for the past few weeks and months. If the question is why there is a lack of gratitude, I answer that the people of this country are more sensible than the people who provide them with their news and gossip. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has three solutions for his non-problem. First, he says that people do not believe the figures. He did not provide very much evidence for that. He looked at the difference between petrol tax and pensions and pointed out that, in September 1999, a forecast produced a lower increase for pensions than an actual figure produced for an increase in petrol tax. He did not look at 1998 or 1997 or observe that there has been an almost even balance during this Parliament, with the balance being in favour of higher rises for pensions. Unless the noble Lord has more evidence than that, we should not take too seriously his claim that people do not believe the figures. He rightly went on to say that we should not be cynical. The noble Lord's next point was about the gap between available income—that is, growth in the economy—and public spending. There is no gap between the projected growth in the economy and in public spending. The figure for public spending is 2.5 per cent, which is the same as a neutral view of growth. In any case, there is a margin of error so that the fiscal rules will still work even if growth is only 2.25 per cent. I ask him to look back at the Red Books of Conservative governments over the 1990s, when the forecasts for growth and income from taxes were grossly exaggerated year after year. The noble Lord described this as a comprehensive taxing review. We shall come on to taxing in due course. He did not notice that we have stopped using the word "comprehensive". The third question was what we were doing with the money. The noble Lord made a curious argument about the number of public sector jobs rising, citing in evidence the Wednesday Society supplement of the Guardian. He did not look in the Nursing Times, The Times Educational Supplement or any of the journals that advertise jobs for people in the front line of public services. If he looks at the real figures he will find, for example, that there are 5,000 more doctors than there were when we came to office and 10,000 more nurses. There are many more examples. If the party opposite seeks to make progress by revising the Parliament Act 1911, I do not think they can be taken seriously as economic critics. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, were even more interesting. He argued that, because we accepted the Conservative spending plans not only in the first year, about which had no choice, but also in the second, that somehow represents what he called "stop-go" in public expenditure. The noble Lord ought to look back at his own party's manifesto for the 1997 election. He ought to look at Liberal Democrat targets for public expenditure on education, health, policing and a whole series of public expenditure issues. What he will find, time after time, is that the Liberal Democratic Party is the party of low public spending. It ill becomes the Liberal Democratic Party now to complain when the prudent management of the economy shows that we can, within strict fiscal rules and without abandoning prudence in any way, surpass the objectives which the Liberal Democratic Party thought it proper to put before the people in May 1997.8.50 p.m.
My Lords, did my noble friend by any chance notice the opinion poll in the Economist, the Angus Reed poll, which indicated that voters in Britain, uniquely in the world, put higher public spending ahead of lower taxes in their list of priorities? Does he therefore agree that the Chancellor has today set out excellent terrain on which the Government can fight the next general election against an Opposition whose attitude to public services and public servants was so graphically displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi?
My Lords, it is not for me to go further than I have done in analysing the achievements and motives of noble Lords opposite. I respond to them only because they say these things and it is open to me to respond. I do not think that it is open to me to respond when my noble friend makes equally valid points. Certainly, the value of public service was allowed to decay very seriously over the past 20 years. We are seeking to restore it, and I believe that in these spending plans we have the means to do so.
My Lords, I must offer an apology to the Minister, first, for interrupting him, and secondly, for missing the beginning of the Statement. I can assure him that I had read the Statement and indeed listened to it in another place.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to elucidate a couple of points in this well-padded but in some ways uninformative document produced by the Treasury. Perhaps I may raise one point on which I gave the Minister notice. There is talk in the Statement, rightly, of increases in public expenditure. However, before turning to the statistical annex to the document and looking at what is actually happening as a result of this announcement in the year that is just beginning, I find that, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, charity seems to begin at home. The only department whose expenditure is increasingly significantly in this year as a result of the plans set out in the Statement is the Chancellor's department. Will the noble Lord explain why that is the case? A more general point on which I should be grateful for the noble Lord's explanation is the relative weight of the figures given today for real terms increases and for cash figures. We heard a great deal in the Statement about increases in real terms over a period of up to three years. In the document, however, figures are given in cash terms. Therefore, without wishing to labour the point, will the Minister say to which of those the Government are committed? This is particularly relevant, if I may give an example, when we look at the figures for defence. There is a great deal of talk in the Statement about the first real terms increase in defence spending. When we look in the document, we discover that the real terms increase averages 0.3 per cent over the next three years. If it is the cash numbers to which the Government are committed, it takes only a small variation in the rate of inflation over this period for this real terms increase to disappear. If on the other hand it is the real terms increase to which the Government are committed and they have moved away from a long period of cash budgeting, we should be told explicitly that these real terms increases are precisely what the Government are committed to. When we come to the measurement of inflation in relation to all the increases, perhaps I may ask the Minister one more question. It relates to an Answer that he gave me recently at Question Time on how inflation is measured. I asked him why it was the case the new statistics commission had had excluded from its remit a consideration of the measures of inflation collected in relation to the retail prices index. His response was that when the commission was set up, he was sure that it would be able to look at whatever it wanted. I wonder whether he can confirm that to me, because the Treasury tells me otherwise. Finally, I rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but he cast some aspersions on the attitude—My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I am sorry to interrupt her, but the convention is fairly clear. Comments and questions for no more than two or three minutes from each Back-Bencher is considered the norm—
If that.
"If that", my Lords, as my noble friend with much more experience than I tells me. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would mind winding up her questions now.
My Lords, I shall certainly do so, and I shall take up my point with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, later. I ask the Minister to have reference to the comment of the Secretary of State for Education on civil servants before casting aspersions elsewhere.
My Lords, the noble Baroness did indeed, in the corridor a few minutes before I entered the Chamber and before I had a chance to check any figures, draw my attention to the figures for the Treasury. As she well knows, the Treasury is a very small organisation with well under 1,000 staff and very few capital assets. The expenditure under that heading is largely for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. The test for that is surely how much it costs to collect each £1 or each £1 million of taxation or excise duty. I shall gladly write to the noble Baroness on the subject, but I think she will find that the cost of collection in those terms is not rising.
The noble Baroness asked whether the figures that I quoted are indeed real terms figures. Yes, they are. Every time that I said they were real terms figures, I referred to "real terms" in the light of forecast inflation. As the noble Baroness well knows, although her party does seem to be willing to admit it, inflation has been exceptionally stable over the past three years. While not giving any absolute assurance that it will continue to be stable, the policies of price stability appear to be working. So far as concerns the changeover from cash to resource accounting, we are still in the middle of it. These figures are presented in resource account terms. The noble Baroness will observe that resource expenditure and capital expenditure are separated out in the White Paper for each department. But there are still elements which it has not been possible to allocate as between capital and revenue, and those will fall into annually managed expenditure rather than departmental expenditure limits. It is the custom of this House that I should reply to only two questions, and I have done so.My Lords, accordingly, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Lord. First, I was amazed at his remark on the Liberal Democrat approach to public expenditure. I have spent a number of years in this House and throughout that period I have pressed very hard for increased expenditure on infrastructure. A basic theme of our thinking has been affordable increases in public expenditure. Perhaps the Minister will comment.
Secondly, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the difficulties that manufacturing industry presently faces, on which we shall have a short debate later. Will the noble Lord indicate what proportion of the extra expenditure announced today will be of direct benefit to manufacturing industry?9 p.m.
My Lords, I do not claim to be an expert on the expenditure plans of the Liberal Democrats. If any noble Lords on those Benches look at their manifesto for May 1997, they will find that their expenditure targets fall below the plans which the Government have announced today. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is a doughty defender of tax and spend, and I admire him for that. He should look at his own publications first.
As regards manufacturing industry, a very useful and sensible question has been raised which will be answered by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in a following debate. I say to the noble Lord that there is direct support for manufacturing industry in the White Paper. I gave the example of the promotion of the Small Business Service as evidence of that. Most of the things that we are doing for manufacturing industry do not occur here, but in the Budget which is concerned with taxes. The fact that we have among the lowest rates of corporation tax and 100 per cent capital allowance for investment in information technology, and so on, is evidence of that although those provisions do not appear in this Statement. A whole range of government expenditure on education, health, transport and other things is for the benefit of manufacturing industry. If people are to be available to work in manufacturing industry and if the industries are to be successful, they have to have investment, particularly in education and training, provided for in the spending plans.My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing such good news to the House tonight. Part of that good news was investment in education and in our children's future and the continuing crusade by the Government to lift children out of poverty. Those factors are very good news. I especially thank the Minister for bringing to the people of Wales the good news of the biggest increase in public spending in Wales. I was particularly pleased to hear about Objective 1 funding for Wales. Does the Minister agree that that funding will go to parts of North Wales, west Wales and in the Valley areas, in which I am particularly interested as I live in the Valleys? Does he agree that that is one of the most deprived areas in the country? Objective 1 money will be of great assistance. I am sure that this settlement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Wales. When they hear of it tonight and of Objective 1, there will be "Songs of Praise" to the Government from the people of the Valleys of Wales.
My Lords, I should have liked to hear that. It could not have come from anywhere better. My noble friend is right to draw attention to Objective 1 funding. We do not ourselves determine that funding any more than we have determined Objectives 2 and 3 other than by putting forward a good case. The really significant point about the Statement—this is the first time that it has ever happened—is that we have guaranteed that we shall provide the matching funding from public funds to ensure that we do not lose any European funding. We shall cover the full forecast increase in structural fund receipts. That has been a bone of contention in the more deprived regions of our country for many years. Quite a change is being made here and I am glad that my noble friend recognises how important that is.
My Lords, I find it difficult to comment on the quality of spend because, understandably, there are so many things still to come. I hope that the transport strategy to be announced on Thursday has some numbers attached to it. Even more important than numbers, I hope that there is some action in the strategy. We have had a great number of words in the past three years. I do not know what it is like in Wales, but the economy of London is really suffering. The business economy is suffering. The business community has stated quite clearly what we need. A great deal of the money can come from the private sector. Shall we hear fewer words on Thursday and have some action on solving some of our transport problems?
My Lords, the distinguished service of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in promoting business in London is well known. It is outstanding. The whole country is grateful to him and his colleagues for it. I have not seen the transport plans. I do not know what the balance will be between words and figures. Taking this White Paper as an indicator of what is going to happen at inter-departmental level, I believe the prospects for a sensible, action-based, realistic series of transport plans to be announced on Thursday are rather good. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and I will both have to wait and see.
My Lords, at £1 billion a minute, perhaps I may ask my questions quickly. I join many others in welcoming the increase in DfID's expenditure. I welcome the fact that the Government have now met the target of 0.3 per cent of GDP for foreign aid. Can my noble friend assure me that that figure will be sustained for the future? In addition, I welcome the cross-departmental initiative in helping conflict resolution. Can my noble friend assure me that the Government will keep to that innovation?
My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was going to ask more than two questions. I should have had to deny him as I denied the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. He was very restrained and I am grateful to him. We have announced today public expenditure figures for the years 2001 to 2004. There can never be any indication of what will happen after that. Even announcing the figures three years in advance is a very considerable improvement on what has been the habit of governments of all parties—this is not a party point—over many years.
My noble friend points out that we have achieved the first target that we set ourselves for international development and aid as a percentage of gross domestic product. I am sure that he and others will press for that to continue beyond the year 2004. I am sure that Clare Short will be very sympathetic towards that. I can confirm that in both cases the amounts of money which are to be allocated to international aid and conflict resolution will continue throughout the period of the spending review. That is as far as any government can ever go about future expenditure.My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the characteristic feature of the proposals is the emphasis on investment? Is my noble friend aware of the contrast between that and the circumstances 20 years ago when the government were also well funded through increased oil revenues but used them to reduce taxation and not invest in the necessary services of the country?
My Lords, in a sense what is proposed for investment expenditure is an understatement rather than the reverse. What we now propose, and flagged up in the 1998 comprehensive spending review, is a doubling of public expenditure on investment as opposed to revenue. The changeover from cash to resource accounting makes it possible for the first time to identify investment and for investment expenditure to be amortised over the life of the assets created by investment. Beyond that, our success in encouraging the private finance initiative, and the only two large private/public partnerships for the London Underground and National Air Traffic Services, indicates that the total amount of investment in public projects, including public and private investment, will increase beyond the figures given in the White Paper.
My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, I understand that the Government have projected economic growth at 3 per cent this year and 2.5 per cent next year. Is that not high by historic standards, particularly in view of the slow-down in the US economy? Secondly, unemployment, social security and debt interest account for only 17 per cent of additional spending. The assumption is that spending in these fields will increase by only 1.5 per cent each year compared with 2.5 per cent in previous plans. The Government's assumption is that they can keep social security spending from rising faster than the rate of inflation. Is that not risky in the longer term?
My Lords, I do not believe that any of these assumptions is risky, except in the sense that none of us can be certain about anything in the future. The noble Lord's comments are rather surprising in the light of the fact that a few minutes ago his own Front Bench appeared to doubt our growth projections from the opposite direction. These are very prudent figures which take into account the possibilities of lower growth than our realistic median trend projection and lower receipts from taxation. If the noble Lord's greatest concern is social security expenditure, the fact that we have created 1 million jobs since we came into office will not be reversed in the timescale with which this review is concerned.
Care Standards Bill Hl
9.11 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
[The page and line refer to Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons.]
Commons Amendments
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("This section has") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (6) have")
2 Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("or by a foster parent")
3 Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 6
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3. I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with these three amendments. The first group of amendments are minor amendments that clarify the definition of children's homes and tidy up definitions used in the part of the Bill which covers the welfare inspections of boarding schools.
I should like to deal first with Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 7, 192, 194, 240, 241, 244, 245, 258, 259 and 284. At present, the Children Act 1989 exempts from regulation children's homes which accommodate three or less children. This is a loophole that we are closing through this Bill. However, as a result it became necessary to ensure that foster carers were not inappropriately caught by the widened definition and required to be registered by the national care standards commission as children's homes. That is certainly not our intention. Amendment No. 2 clarifies this position in relation to foster carers generally and Amendment No. 7 defines a foster carer. Amendment No. 245 slightly amends the definition of "private foster" care in the Children Act. This is needed to prevent loopholes which could allow unscrupulous people to avoid registering as a children's home by pretending to be private foster carers. Amendments Nos. 192 and 194 insert the definitions of "private fostering" and "local authority foster parents" which are in the Children Act into the Bill. Amendments Nos. 241 and 258 ensure that the provisions in the Children Act which set out the circumstances in which a person may foster more than three children without being treated as a children's home also apply to this Bill. Amendments Nos. 1, 240, 259 and 284 are consequential to the changes we are making here. I turn to Amendment No. 6. We believe it is important that any child who is accommodated in a boarding school for more than 295 days in a year should have the extra protection provided by that school also having to register as a children's home. However, during the Committee stage in this place, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised the concern that any boarding school which provided holiday camps during the school holidays would be required to be registered as a children's homes as it would be accommodating children for more than the 295 days specified. The noble Lord was quite right to point that out and I can assure noble Lords that that was certainly not our intention. Amendment No. 6 clarifies this position and puts beyond doubt that an individual child has to be accommodated for more than 295 days before the boarding school is required to be registered as a children's home. In the other place there was concern about why only children in an independent boarding school should benefit from the extra protection provided by having the boarding school registered as a children's home if children were accommodated for more than 295 days. This is anomalous and there is no good reason why children in voluntary or state sector homes should not benefit from this protection. Amendment No. 5 therefore extends this requirement to all boarding schools. I turn to Section 82(5). In the other place a number of honourable Members were concerned that homes established under this section of the Children Act would be exempt from regulation as children's homes. Section 82(5) allows the Secretary of State to establish homes to meet the needs of children for particular services or facilities which are not provided in community homes. These homes are currently inspected by the social services inspectorate. We originally decided to exempt them from regulation because it had been decided that the department should no longer continue to run such childcare facilities, as we believe that these services are best provided by local authorities, the health service and specialist facilities in the private sector. It is worth reminding your Lordships that the only remaining home of this kind, Glenthorne, closed last week. However, while there is no current intention to use Section 82(5) to establish any more of these homes, its use cannot be ruled out for some point in the future. In those circumstances, we decided that these homes should be regulated as children's homes by the national care standards commission and Amendment No. 3 amends Clause 1 accordingly. Amendments Nos. 212, 231, 232 and 235 to 238, and amendments 262 and 263 are consequential to bringing these homes within the regulatory framework. I turn to community homes. The Bill extends regulation to services not previously regulated, and none is more important than ensuring that looked-after children are properly protected. Therefore, community homes will be regulated for the first time. Amendment No. 199 brings the rather complicated management arrangements which apply to community homes provided by voluntary organisations within the new registration provisions. When these homes are required to register, the question arises as to who should be treated as "carrying on" the home, and "managing" the home, to use the terminology of Part II of the Bill. Amendment No. 199 enables arrangements to be made, if necessary on a home-by-home basis, for designating who should be treated as requiring to register. This provision enables the registration system to work effectively without unduly disturbing the management and governance systems that apply to community homes. Amendment No. 15 removes from Clause 4 the definition of what is meant by the term "carrying on" a fostering or voluntary adoption agency. It also removes the provision that carrying on an establishment or agency includes carrying it on otherwise than for profit. Subsection (3)(a) and (3)(b) in Amendment No. 199 would see these provisions reappear word for word in the general interpretation clause, while Amendment No. 190 simply introduces into the Bill the definition of community home used in the Children Act. Finally, I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 174 to 178, 180, 181, 243 and 254. These are all tidying-up measures. At present, if a boarding school is a children's home or care home, then there is no need for the provisions in Section 87 of the Children Act in relation to welfare in boarding schools to apply. This is because the welfare requirements in relation to registration as a children's home or care home are more stringent than those for boarding schools, so meeting them would mean that it would be unnecessary also to satisfy the Section 87 requirements. With this Bill, we are extending the Section 87 welfare requirements to further education colleges as well as to all boarding schools. We need, therefore, to exempt colleges as well as boarding schools from Section 87 requirements if they are registered as children's homes or care homes, and this is the intention behind Amendment No. 174. Section 62 of the Children Act imposes functions on local authorities with regard to children accommodated by voluntary organisations. Clause 85(5) amends Section 62 by disapplying it to schools which are voluntary organisations. Amendment No. 178 does the same for colleges. I turn to Amendments Nos. 175, 243 and 254. We are introducing a new definition of "appropriate authority" for Section 87 of the Children Act as a result of the national care standards commission carrying out welfare inspections of boarding schools and colleges. Amendment No. 175 defines the "appropriate authority" as meaning the commission in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. Initially, we intended the definition of "appropriate authority" to be used throughout the Children Act, but we now realise that we need to keep the current definition in Section 68 of the Act in relation to persons who are disqualified from acting as private foster carers. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 243 and 254 make clear that the new definition applies, in addition to Section 87, to Sections 65 and 65A, but not elsewhere in the Act. Finally, Amendments Nos. 176, 177, 180 and 181 are purely technical amendments which amend and correct the definition of "further education corporations". I well understand that this is a large group of amendments. However, in the main they are responses to concerns raised in this House and in the other place and are tidying up measures. I hope that noble Lords will agree to support them.My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for speaking so fully to these amendments. There is nothing in them that I would regard as contentious; indeed, a number, such as those which relate to boarding schools, are decidedly welcome.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me last Friday with a comprehensive explanation of all the government amendments that we are considering today. I take this opportunity to thank him for the trouble that he took in doing so. It assisted me enormously in preparing for today's debates but, perhaps more to the point, it will have saved us a good deal of detailed and perhaps unnecessary discussion across the House—something which I am sure we are all keen to minimise. Having said that, I am unlikely to be alone in the dismay that I felt when confronted with today's list of amendments. No fewer than 289 government amendments to this Bill have been passed in another place, including 20 new clauses and one new schedule. The Bill is now approximately 20 per cent longer than when it left us in the spring. I am the first to recognise that a good number of the amendments represent the Government's response to concerns raised in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. We shall all be grateful for that and, to that extent, I do not wish to sound in the least churlish. However, by any standards, 289 amendments in a Bill of this length is a large mouthful to swallow at one go. Of course, that figure excludes the 185 government amendments inserted during the Lords stages, if I have counted them correctly. There was a respectable case to be made for having the Bill re-committed. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat often as we progress through the groupings that a substantial proportion of the amendments are technical in nature. Of course, there will always be amendments of that kind. However, I am sure that some of us long for the day when the majority of technical anomalies are ironed out before Bills are laid before Parliament in the first place. We seem to be moving into a rut in which wholesale amendments to Bills during their passage through Parliament is becoming more and more the norm. On an exceptional basis, it may be unavoidable and possibly even desirable. However, on a routine basis I suggest that it is neither of those things. I am sure that we shall all pay close attention to the Minister's words today and, at the end, come to our own view as to how strongly the Government are to be congratulated on their overall handling of the Bill.My Lords, even at this late hour it is good to be back at another meeting of the "balance club" which has been through this Bill several times before. After much of the high-flown oratory, it is good to be back doing work which really will make a difference to people who need protection in institutional settings.
I greatly welcome what the Minister said with regard to the work that has been done on the Bill since it left this House. I welcome in particular the work done on the definition of community homes and the work done in the light of many comments made in this House about the position of independent boarding schools. I too regret the list of bingo numbers in front of us this evening. However, I understand that they reflect what has happened throughout the Bill's passage in this House; namely, that the Government are prepared to listen to what many of us had to say based on our own practical experience in these fields. I welcome that very much. I have one particular point on this group of amendments and that relates to Amendment No. 6. Your Lordships will recall the point which was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, during our discussions about the fact that some boarding schools, particularly those which raise income by letting their premises during school holidays for the purposes of holding activity holidays for children, may be caught under that definition. I understand that Amendment No. 6 is an attempt to clarify that. My point is: people who are teachers in independent boarding schools may well themselves either adopt or foster children, and they may well live on the premises. In that case, it is entirely possible that a fostered or adopted child may live in such premises for more than 295 days a year. I seek clarification from the Minister that a school in that position would not be caught. I know that that is not the intention of this amendment. The last thing that any of us want is for an independent school to be caught for that one single reason. That is the only point of substance I raise on this group of amendments.My Lords, I too do not want to raise any objections to any of these amendments, although like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I suspect that with better parliamentary drafting many of these amendments could have been avoided.
On Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, I noticed that when the noble Lord the Minister spoke to these items he referred to "foster carers" and not to "foster parents". I believe that he was correct to do so. Why do these amendments refer to "foster parents" rather than to "foster carers" which is the correct term nowadays?My Lords, I certainly recognise that 289 amendments comprise a somewhat daunting agenda for your Lordships at this rather late hour. I recognise that we are having to focus our minds on many different matters of detail.
In relation to the nature of the debates we have had, it is worth recalling that it was in mid-December, which seems a long time ago, that this Bill had its Second Reading. It has had rather slow progress through your Lordships' House and then into another place. I believe there has been one benefit from that: we have been able to take account of many of the comments and concerns that have been raised. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in a sense anticipated my response to his strictures about the question of whether the drafting could have been better to start with. No doubt some things could have been done better. But the record indicates that the Government have listened very carefully to the many comments made in your Lordships' House and, indeed, during the passage of the Bill in another place. Although later we shall come to debate a matter on which there has been disagreement in your Lordships' House right from the start, overall there has been a consensus approach to the main provisions of the Bill because we are all concerned about improving regulation in the care arrangements and in relation to the establishment of a general social council. Therefore, while the challenge for us this evening is to reflect on a considerable number of amendments, the final outcome is a better Bill which has emerged as a result of extremely informed debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked whether the 295 day rule applies to a child who is a student at the school but who lives at the school during the holidays. I am happy to give her the assurance that the provision would not apply in those circumstances. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I am advised that while it is right to refer to foster carers, the term "foster parent" is used in this legislation because that is the term used in the Children Act. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert ("or by a foster parent")
3 Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 6
9.30 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
4 Clause 1, page 2, line 8, after ("is") insert ("of a description")
My Lords, I beg to move that the house do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This is another large group of amendments. They are on the whole changes that were made in order to clarify what was already intended and make no changes of substance. They all deal with the provisions under Part II that set out the detailed processes, systems and requirements operated by the national care standards commission.
Amendments Nos. 4, 12 and 14 respond to concerns raised by Philip Hammond in Committee in another place and seek to clarify the intention that powers to exempt from regulation will not be used to exempt individual establishments or agencies from registration requirements. The amendments use the term "of a description", which is already present in Clause 2(8). Amendment No. 25 relates to reports following inquiries established by the Secretary of State under Clause 9. We debated this point at some length in the House. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and in moving an amendment I said that the onus will be on the Government to publish inquiry reports and the clear expectation is that they would normally publish those reports except in exceptional circumstances. However, in response to concerns expressed during Commons Committee stage we made a further amendment to make the position even clearer on the face of the Bill that in all but exceptional circumstances the report would be published. Amendment No. 26 makes clear that a registered manager of an establishment or agency must be a person. The person carrying on an establishment or agency—essentially the owner—can be an organisation or company, but we wanted to make clear that the role of manager, which is so important to the day-to-day running of the care service, is one that must be undertaken by a named person, although this amendment does not preclude job-sharing arrangements. Linked to that is Amendment No. 35 which clarifies that regulations can be made requiring managers of specified establishments or agencies to be registered with the general social care council. That will enable the national care standards commission and the general social care council, with their separate but related responsibilities, to be brought together for the greater enhancement of quality to service users. Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 to 34 all make a minor clarifying change to ensure that conditions on an establishment or agency can be removed as well as varied. That change was made in response to concern expressed by in Committee in another place by Philip Hammond. Amendments Nos. 28 and 46 respond to a problem with the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Children Act 1989 that has recently come to light as a result of a number of cases before the courts or Registered Homes Tribunal. Essentially, the wording of the legislation allows home owners to avoid the consequences of cancellation if they closed the home before a formal cancellation decision was taken, because in such a case there was no home in respect of which to cancel, and cancellation was invalid. The effect of that would be that such a person could open another home elsewhere without having the cancellation on their record. Amendment No. 28 ensures that the wording of the Bill avoids that loophole. Amendment No. 46 makes the appropriate change to the Children Act so that in the period before the establishment of the national care standards commission, the loophole is fixed in respect of children's homes. Amendments Nos. 36, 43, 44, 50 and 51 are also technical clarifying changes that simply make sure that "documents" as well as records can be inspected by inspectors. Amendment No. 37 is specifically in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in our discussions at Report stage. Clause 21(6)(k) of the Bill allows regulations to be made to ensure that arrangements are in place in independent hospitals and clinics to ensure that any medical or psychiatric treatment they provide is of appropriate quality and meets appropriate standards. The noble Lord's concern was that this power really ought to extend to the nursing provided by care homes. We considered that issue carefully and tabled this amendment in Commons Committee to take account of that point. Amendments Nos. 38, 52 and 179 are all about consultation. Amendment No. 38 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult before making or significantly amending regulations under Clause 21 of the Bill. That was in response to concerns raised during Committee stage in another place. Amendment No. 52 is an amendment tabled in Committee which the Government were happy to accept in another place. The effect of the amendment is to require consultation on the national minimum standards to apply under Part III to local authority services to match the consultation requirement set out in Clause 22 applying to Part II services. Amendment No. 179 has the same effect in respect of standards for welfare inspections of boarding schools. Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 relate to offences under Part II of the Bill. Amendment No. 39 ensures that the "holding out" offence properly covers all eventualities. The drafting of the original clause was not sophisticated enough to catch people who, for example, advertise their home as being a nursing home if it is not registered to provide nursing care. Amendment No. 40 introduces a new offence of knowingly making a false or misleading statement in any application to the national care standards commission. That plugs an important gap in the provisions to ensure that there is no incentive for applicants to falsify details. Amendment No. 41 allows for proceedings for an offence to be brought more than six months after they are committed. For summary offences such as those under Part II, the six-month time limit applies automatically unless otherwise specified. But in many cases, offences only come to light when problems are uncovered following inspection or whistle blowing. The amendment provides for a six-month time limit from when the offence comes to light with an overall time limit of three years from the commission of the offence. Amendment No. 42 simply places local authorities in the same position as other bodies registered under Part II such as companies or voluntary organisations. It allows for local authority members, as well as officers, to be prosecuted if the offence is proved to have been committed with their consent or connivance, or if it is attributable to neglect on their part. Finally, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 extend the provisions of Clause 39, which is the clause under which regulations may be made to extend the provisions of Part II to other services. That would mean the introduction of regulation under the national care standards commission for services not covered on the face of the Bill. The original drafting of the clause did not allow for extension to agencies, only to local authority social services or NHS services. Amendment No. 47 therefore extends it to cover agencies supplying people who provide such services. Amendment No. 48 ensures that local authority services themselves are properly within the scope of the power. We felt that the original wording left that in some doubt. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)My Lords, as this is the first amendment to which I wish to speak, I too take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy in writing to me in advance of the debate setting out the Government's rationale to the amendments that were moved in the other place. However, I should like to place on record the fact that I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in regretting the lateness of the hour at which we are debating these amendments—all 289 of them—tonight.
This Bill has had an extraordinary passage. We started in December. We had Third Reading in April and now, in July, we are faced with the Commons amendments at quarter past nine in the evening. That puts us all in a difficult position in terms of our wanting to consider the amendments in the same way as they were made; that is, over a long period of months. After all, the Minister will recall that there were 18 or 19 Committee sessions and Report stage was also pretty lengthy. On the other hand, it is always difficult to find a balance between wishing to be helpful as the Bill moves through the House; to respond to criticisms made by opposition parties, but not to overload Members of either House with too many government amendments. So I recognise that there is an issue here. But I acknowledge that the Bill is much improved as a result of the government amendments being brought forward. In Part II, which deals with establishments and agencies, can the Minister say whether or not my analysis is correct? That is to say, between the Bill leaving this House and coming back, we have introduced a separate system of registration as to ownership—that is, carrying on the business of a care home or other establishment—and that of a manager in a personal capacity. So, effectively, we have in fact got a dual registration system. I do not complain about that. It puts an added burden on those establishments. But there is a big difference in the way the registration will now be administered. That is of considerable significance and has been largely underplayed by Ministers both in the other place and by the Minister tonight in his exposition, clear though that was. I welcome Amendment No. 37—I would say that, wouldn't I? It was originally suggested to me by the BMA and I felt it was the right avenue to take. But I am curious as to why the suggestion we made that it should relate to clinical care and not just to nursing care was not followed and the more narrow route was taken by the Government. I also generally welcome from these Benches Amendments Nos. 38 and 52, one of which emanated from the official Opposition and one of which emanated from one of my honourable friends in the other place. Consultation is clearly vital, both with the private sector and with local authorities. That relates to Clause 21. I am curious—perhaps this should have struck us earlier, certainly on listening to the commentaries now being made on the Bill by law firms and others—about Clause 22. In a sense it is the counterpart to Clause 21, which sets out the national minimum standards. It is not quite equivalent. Although it relates to national minimum standards, it seems that regulations will not be made. They are simply standards and it is not obvious what is the legal status of those national minimum standards under Clause 22. Perhaps I can be rather unfair to the Minister and ask whether he is able to comment on that. Finally, I welcome Amendment No. 25. I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to comment on whether or not his original intentions have been fulfilled. However, the way the Government have put it in terms of publishing in all but exceptional circumstances seems to be the right way forward. I am pleased that they chose that course.9.45 p.m.
My Lords, I take a lead from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and say how grateful I am for Amendment No. 25 which relates to the publication of inquiry reports. However, I add the hope that exceptional circumstances will apply only very exceptionally.
My Lords, I refer to just two of the amendments in the group. I understand from the Minister's helpful briefing that Amendment No. 26 sets out the role of a manager. It requires a manager of an establishment to be named. I understand that; it is rather like the licensee of a licensed premises being named. However, I want to make sure that the Bill is consistent with the tenets of charity law. If an agency was run by a voluntary organisation or a charity, ultimately the trustees would be responsible for it in law. Does the Bill make it clear that although the actions of individuals—which are proven to be the actions of individual managers—may be subject to criminal prosecution, the responsibility for policies which affect the operation of an agency, which may be or have been approved by a board of trustees, are the responsibility of that board in law? I seek an assurance from the Minister that the amendment clarifies rather than confuses that issue.
I turn to Amendment No. 41. I understand from the Minister's helpful briefing that it is entirely reasonable that actions should be commenced within six months of notification of the commission of the offence. However, I am concerned at the limitation of three years since an offence was committed. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I hesitate to make my next point. However, many inquiries which are now taking place are examining events that took place decades ago but have only just come to light. I do not believe that it was ever the intention behind the Bill that wrongs from the past could not be put right. I hope that the Minister can prove me wrong.My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the interesting points that they have raised.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I accept that it is not ideal to debate so many amendments at this hour of the night. I do not think that he would want me to repeat what I said to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. However, I believe that we have had a most constructive series of discussions and debates. I am convinced that the Bill is improved as a result and, what is more to the point, that the new regulatory regime that will be introduced and the new arrangements for the regulation of social workers and other social care workers will be much enhanced. I am sure that is how we would want our work to be judged. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me about the distinction between the person who carries on an establishment and the person who manages it. I do not accept that there has been movement on that during the passage of the Bill. The distinction has always existed as between the owner and the manager. I understand that that approach was adopted in the Registered Homes Act, which the Bill succeeds. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked me whether the trustees of a voluntary organisation who provide and equip a community home could be prosecuted for offences under the Bill. The answer is "possibly". I am happy to write to the noble Baroness in more detail. In general terms, the Bill provides for penalties against persons carrying on a children's home. This would of course include a community home. Amendment No. 199 seeks to establish that, for the purposes of the Bill, a community home provided by a voluntary organisation is taken to be carried on by the person who equips and maintains it and, if the Minister so designates, the body of managers provided for in the home's instrument of management. I should add that some community homes are equipped by local authorities; others by voluntary organisations. A voluntary organisation may be an incorporated body and, as I have said, the Bill makes provision in Clause 28 for offences by bodies corporate. I am not sure whether that is entirely clear to the noble Baroness and I shall be happy to write to her with fuller details. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of national minimum standards and how they relate to the regulations. We have, of course, debated this question at length. The important point is this: the national minimum standards stand or fall by the regulations. In terms of what the commission will do with those national minimum standards, it will have to take into account the degree of compliance or otherwise with the standards when making decisions about how a particular establishment is complying with the regulations. They are not free-standing; they stand within the context of the regulations in the preceding clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the three-year period. We consider that to be a reasonable period. There are various precedents in other legislation in that regard. When we were debating the order for the GMC, a three-year term was also considered appropriate. I am sorry. I think it was perhaps in the Health Service Commissioners Bill where a three-year period came into play. But there are plenty of precedents and we think that it is a reasonable length of time to embrace.My Lords, the Minister probably will not have noticed but under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act the time period has been extended to 21 years. It very much depends on the legislation involved.
My Lords, I do not think there is a scientific law which states exactly how long the period should be. The Government have taken the view that three years is a reasonable period. Perhaps after that time it may be very difficult to establish the facts. It is simply a reasonable length of time.
So far as concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in relation to the publication of reports following inquiries, we believe that it would be only in very exceptional circumstances that the reports would not be published.My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have an answer to the point about nursing care versus clinical care?
My Lords, the point is that clinical care was very much seen as a core issue in relation to private hospitals. The amendment that was brought forward in another place relates to nursing homes. Clearly in that context nursing care is crucial to the overall quality of the service being provided.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
5 Clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out ("An independent") and insert ("A")
6 Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("But accommodation shall not for the purposes of paragraph (a) be regarded as provided to children for a number of days unless there is at least one child to whom it is provided for that number of days; and paragraph (b) shall be construed accordingly.")
7 Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section a person is a foster parent in relation to a child if—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
8 Clause 2, page 2, line 27, after ("illness") insert ("or mental disorder").
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 193 and 197.
This is a minor change to the Bill but an important one. It was identified during the Committee stage in another place that the Bill's definitions had a slightly odd way of covering people with learning disability. In Clause 100, the definitions worked together in such a way that a learning disabled person was included within the overall definition of "illness". As was pointed out during the Committee stage in another place, learning disabled people are not ill and to describe them as such was not only inaccurate but might be taken to be offensive. It is quite right that "illness" is defined in Clause 100 in such a way as to include mental disorder and that "mental disorder" is defined as including,which would be taken to cover learning disabilities. On reflection, we felt that it was an important point to tackle and that even though the effect of the legislation was not in question, the terms in which it had that effect were not satisfactory. Amendment No. 193 therefore removes mental disorder from the definition of illness in Clause 100. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are simply consequential on that change. The amendments have the effect of separating out mental disorder from illness and listing it separately in its own right. Amendment No. 197 has the effect of including mental disorder in the definition of disability in Clause 100. Since we were looking again at the definitions, my right honourable friend Mr John Hutton gave a commitment on the last day of the Committee stage in another place to look more widely at the definition of disability to see whether the wording could be improved while retaining the same meaning. The definition in Clause 100(2)(a) is the one used for all social care legislation since the National Assistance Act 1948. But the language shows its age, and Amendment No. 197 represents an updated form of the same definition. It is drawn from the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and is, I believe, an improved version of the wording without affecting the meaning of the definition. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)"arrested or incomplete development of mind",
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is not present, I wish to thank the Minister on the noble Lord's behalf. The noble Lord drew the point to our attention and I am glad that it has been taken on board. I want to ask a question about Amendment No. 197. The Minister referred to mental disorder. Does that include conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer's? There is a crucial distinction. People living in care homes suffer from many forms of mental disorder. It is important that we make a distinction between different people who may be at different stages of their lives and suffering from different conditions.
My Lords, my understanding is that the term "mental disorder" comes from Section 1 of the Mental Health Act and includes mental impairment, which is the term usually used for learning disability. My assumption is that it embraces the area raised by the noble Baroness. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to her.
My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister an alternative. Clause 100(2), taken with Amendment No. 197, deletes paragraph (a) but keeps paragraph (b). It may be that that is where the relationship with dementia and Alzheimer's is found. It is extremely important that Alzheimer's and dementia are covered as so many of those who occupy care homes are—and the number will increase—sufferers from Alzheimer's and dementia.
My Lords, my assumption is that the terms will fall within the definition of "mental illness" and thus will be appropriately covered. However, as I have said, if further clarification is needed here, I shall be happy to give it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.10 p.m.
Commons Amendments
9 Clause 2, page 2, line 27, after ("illness") insert ("or palliative care").
10 Page 3, leave out line 11.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 45 and 287.
This is a small group of amendments which tidy up the definitions of independent hospital and nurses agencies and the definition of dental services under general anaesthesia which we are inserting into the Registered Homes Act 1984 for the purpose of regulation. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 were brought forward as a result of concerns from those involved about the definition of "independent hospital". As originally drafted, Clause 2 of the Bill brings within the definition of "independent hospital" any establishment which provides any of the listed services in Clause 2(7). Those listed services include palliative care. However, there was concern that because a care home might provide some palliative care to patients who are terminally ill, as drafted the Bill would require such a care home to be registered as an independent hospital. We recognise that that would be totally inappropriate. The two amendments clarify the distinction. Amendment No. 10 removes palliative care from the "listed services" in Clause 2, while Amendment No. 9 inserts it into the main definition of independent hospital to ensure that, as far as concerns palliative care, only those establishments, the main purpose of which is to provide palliative care, will be required to register as independent hospitals. As I have said, the amendments have been tabled in response to concerns raised with us by those involved. They seek simply to ensure that establishments that specialise in providing palliative care, such as hospitals, will be regarded and registered as such and will be seen as distinct from care homes that provide care for terminally ill residents as a normal and appropriate part of their overall services. At Third Reading I accepted an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, which required nurses agencies to be regulated by the national care standards commission. At the time I said that the amendment as drafted was defective and that it would need to be amended in the other place. This is what is achieved by Amendment No. 13. The amendment ensures that the regulation of agencies for the supply of nurses, midwives or health visitors will cover employment agencies, as defined in the Employment Agencies Act 1973. This may, for example, include staff recruitment agencies or agencies providing an introduction service. The amendment also ensures that employment businesses are covered, again, as defined in the 1973 Act, and which typically employ nurses to be supplied to the NHS, to private hospitals and to nursing homes, as well as directly to patients in their own homes. This change has been widely welcomed and we shall, of course, be developing the necessary regulatory requirements and standards under which the commission will regulate nurses' agencies. At Third Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether we needed to amend the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the regulation of nurses agencies. She was absolutely right. Amendment No. 287 adds nurses agencies to the Long Title. Amendment No. 16 is an amendment that was accepted in the other place to correct a misplaced apostrophe. Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 45. Noble Lords will know that a number of tragedies have occurred recently of young people who have died under general anaesthesia during the course of dental treatment outside hospitals. When the commission is established, it will regulate private dentists who provide dental treatment under general anaesthesia. However, the commission will not be established until 2002 and we do not believe that we can allow the practice to go unregulated until then. The Bill therefore provides for the regulation of dental treatment under general anaesthesia under the existing Registered Homes Act 1984. This requires any dentist who performs such treatment to be regulated by the local health authority inspection units. However, it is intended that only private dentists who provide treatment under general anaesthesia should be regulated under the 1984 Act. Amendment No. 45 makes this clear. That is not to say that dentists who treat NHS patients using general anaesthesia will not be regulated. We have no intention of creating such a loophole. We intend to amend NHS regulations to require dentists who provide treatment under general anaesthesia to NHS patients to be regulated under NHS arrangements. All the amendments tidy up definitions used in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will find them acceptable. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)My Lords, I was particularly grateful when the Minister accepted my amendment at Third Reading to include nurses agencies within the remit of the commission. However, the issue of healthcare workers supplied by such an agency to NHS trusts or other areas of the health service was left in the air. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify how agencies supplying healthcare workers who are not domiciliary care workers are regulated under the Bill.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could say something more about medical agencies. The question arose in another place that, although an independent medical agency is defined in Clause 2(5) as an undertaking that consists of or includes the provision of services by medical practitioners, there appears to be nothing in the Bill covering the direct supply of a nurse-led clinical service in the home. Will the Minister comment on that? Health services provided in the home by nurses unsupervised by a doctor can be far from straightforward, as I am sure that he knows. The examples of blood transfusions and chemotherapy were given in another place. The same lacuna, if I can call it that, appears to apply to services provided in the home by physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Am I correct in believing that those services are not covered by the Bill?My Lords, I generally welcome the amendments. However, I should like to ask about what appears to be a change of status for hospices. Have the hospices made any response to their change of status resulting from Amendments Nos. 9 and 10? What consultation was carried out with them about it? They are now to be treated as independent hospitals, which I had understood was not previously the case.
I welcome Amendment No. 13, which requires nursing, midwifery and health visitor agencies to register. I do not want to reopen a debate on whether all dentists, not just those who administer anaesthetics, should be covered, but I welcome the interim provisions in Amendment No. 45 on private dentists, bringing them under the 1984 Act, and the fact that NHS dentists in the same position will also be subject to regulation.My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister. I repeat the question of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about nurse assistants. Thousands of them, many coming from abroad, are used in people's homes. Many of them come from the same agencies as nurses. It seems wrong for them to be left out.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about hospitals. I am happy to provide further details about the nature of the consultation, although I do not have the information here. There was extensive discussion and consultation with all the establishments that were likely to be covered by the Bill. I believe that the outcome of those discussions was that it is right to draw a distinction between hospices—which in many senses can be regarded as hospitals—and the normal process of providing care for residents of nursing homes who may be dying. I hope that helps to clarify the position.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, again raised the issue of nurse-led services and mentioned domiciliary physiotherapy services. There are two points to be made. Many such services will be covered one way or another, either through domiciliary care agencies or nursing agencies. An outreach service from a private hospital would certainly be covered. The main comfort that I give to the noble Earl is the provision in Clause 39 which allows the power to extend the application of Part II. This is an important part of the Bill. The criticism that was always made of the Registered Homes Act was that it was inflexible and did not allow us to change the nature of regulation as the nature of healthcare changed. A good example is that of private hospitals; clearly, the Registered Homes Act 1984 was not up to the task of regulating those hospitals. The answer is that many of the services will be covered in one way or another. If in the future we identify gaps in the regulatory mechanisms, clearly the Government will need to consider whether it is necessary to bring Clause 39 into play. So far as concerns the regulation of healthcare assistants, a number of messages of comfort can be given. First, many healthcare assistants would be employed through nursing agencies. As those agencies are covered by the scope of the legislation, that in itself provides a safeguard. Secondly, agencies outwith that situation will still be covered by the Employment Agencies Act. Although noble Lords have expressed scepticism as to whether that is sufficient, and that was reason noble Lords wanted nursing agencies to be covered in this way, it does represent some safeguards. The third point is that the Department of Health has commissioned De Montfort University to examine the whole issue of the regulation of healthcare assistants. I am not in a position to say when its report will be published, but we need to keep the matter under review. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
11 Clause 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) persons who have or have had a mental disorder;")
12 Page 3, line 30, after ("is") insert ("of a description")
13 Clause 4, page 4. line 10, leave out from ("agency") to end of line 11 and insert ("or employment business, being (in either case) a business which consists of or includes supplying, or providing services for the purpose of supplying, registered nurses, registered midwives or registered health visitors")
14 Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("description of")
15 Page 4, line 18, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
16 Page 4, line 34, leave out ("nurses"') and insert ("nurses")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 16.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
17 Clause 6, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The powers of the Secretary of State under this Part to give directions include power to give directions as to matters connected with the structure and organisation of the Commission, for example—
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 49, 204, 205 and 206.
Amendment No. 17 enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the national care standards commission about organisational and structural matters. Clause 6(2) provides powers of direction relating to the commission's functions. These might be used, for instance, to require the commission to deal with applications for registration and representations against its proposals within strict time limits or to set up a complaints procedure for people to use if they are unhappy with how the commission has carried out its responsibilities. We may also need to give directions to the commission about its structure and organisation. We hope that in practice those directions will not be necessary, but we consider it important to make it clear that powers of direction over the commission extend to giving directions about its structure and organisation. Amendments Nos. 18, 49 and 204 are minor changes Amendment No. 18 corrects a typographical error. Amendment No. 49 reproduces in Part III the commission's power to advise the Secretary of State about the standards that exist for Part II services in Clause 7. Amendment No. 204 clarifies the wording of the Schedule 1 provision that allows for the National Care Standards Commission, the General Social Care Council and the Care Council for Wales to contract with individuals not on their own staff to undertake work. That might include engaging expert advisers to assist with inspection work rather than having to employ them full time. Finally, Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 205 and 206 are minor changes to ensure that the Bill properly and accurately reflects the position in Wales. Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23 and 24 give the Welsh Assembly the same powers as the Bill already provides for the National Care Standards Commission in respect of general functions and inquiries. Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 tidy up a duplicating reference. Under Section 144 of the Government of Wales Act, provision is made for the Secretary of State for Wales to have powers to make provision for accounts, auditing and so on for Welsh public bodies, which would include the Care Council for Wales. As specific provision is already made for these matters in Schedule 1, these amendments disapply Section 144 in respect of the Care Council for Wales. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 19.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
20 Clause 7, page 5, line 37, leave out subsections (B) to (11)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22.
We come back to a favourite topic of your Lordships, which we seem to have debated not only in relation to this Bill but also in the passage of the 1999 NHS legislation. As regards the consensus approach which I have detected throughout the debate on this Bill, there is a common purpose here to ensure, first, the proper regulation of private and voluntary healthcare and to ensure that these services are provided to proper standards. There can be no doubt that the present regulatory system which regulates independent hospitals as care homes, is totally inappropriate and outdated. Through this Bill, private and voluntary healthcare will for the first time be properly regulated, with independent hospitals being regulated as independent hospitals and having to meet national minimum standards developed to reflect the nature of the service provided. We are putting in place a system where the private and voluntary healthcare sector will be regulated by the independent national care standards commission. Within the commission there will be a separate division dealing with private healthcare. That division will be headed by a director of private and voluntary healthcare, who will be a senior member of staff. By putting in place a system that recognises the specific nature of private healthcare, we will ensure that proper quality of care is provided. We will do this through the regulations and national minimum standards which we are developing. But, importantly, and for the first time, we have a regulation-making power to ensure that private healthcare establishments provide quality care. I assure the House again that this will cover clinical care. The amendment inserted by your Lordships during Report stage required the commission to contract all its inspections of independent hospitals to the Commission for Health Improvement. This amendment was removed in the other place but—and I stress this—our discussions in your Lordships' House served a very important role. They highlighted the need for the commission and the Commission for Health Improvement to work closely together. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 22 to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to explain the difficulties that the Government found with the amendment inserted by your Lordships. The commission and Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) were designed for different purposes. That is a point widely recognised within the National Health Service. CHI has been specifically designed and developed to help the NHS improve the quality of clinical care. Its primary interests are with NHS patients and the arrangements that NHS bodies have in place to ensure high quality healthcare for those patients. CHI is a very important part of our 10-year modernisation programme for the NHS. It is there to help drive up standards in the NHS by providing an independent, external check of NHS processes for monitoring and assuring the quality of clinical care. Any system for monitoring and assessing the performance of a service sends very powerful messages about what that service is expected to deliver. CHI will play an important role which will complement NHS accountability arrangements and ensure that both quality and efficiency are central to the way the NHS is held to account. It will also provide organisations with access to the skills and expertise necessary to help tackle problems where local efforts have been unable to make a difference. I am absolutely convinced that, with the wider quality agenda, CHI's work will mean that fewer problems occur in future, and, where they do arise, they will be spotted and addressed earlier. It is the responsibility of the regional offices of the NHS or the health authority concerned to ensure that CHI's recommendations are acted on, with agreed plans for addressing identified shortfalls. In some cases the commission may have a role in following up specific recommendations or may be invited to review progress where the need for significant further work has been identified. That is a very different role from that of the national care standards commission. That body is to be established to regulate, provide safeguards and apply national minimum standards for patients in independent healthcare. It is not responsible for private hospitals and clinics beyond that point, nor for advising the Government about the sector or nurturing the private sector generally. The key principle of how the national care standards commission and CHI will achieve their respective responsibilities is the second main area of difference between the two bodies. The national care standards commission will be a regulatory body. It will, therefore, register independent healthcare providers and inspect them against regulations and set standards. If an independent sector provider does not comply with the regulations and standards the commission will be able to apply sanctions. CHI, on the other hand, is not a registration-holding, sanction-imposing, regulatory body. It will review the clinical governance arrangements in NHS bodies and provide advice as to how those arrangements may be improved. It will be vigorous but will also provide support to help NHS organisations with problems to tackle them effectively themselves. The third key area of distinction between the commission and CHI is as to how they will operate in practice when undertaking their rolling programmes. For example, CHI will be concerned with the arrangements and systems that an NHS body has in place to ensure and improve quality. Where an NHS body has a contract with the independent sector to provide healthcare services to NHS patients, CHI will review the quality of services that those patients receive as part of the bigger picture of the clinical governance arrangements of that NHS body. That will be undertaken under a three to four-year rolling programme of clinical governance reviews in the NHS. In contrast, the national care standards commission will be responsible for inspecting at least once a year every independent healthcare provider that it regulates. It will concentrate and specialise on the specific safeguards and quality assurances that each of those individual providers has in place for all patients. It will have a remit that goes beyond looking at arrangements to provide quality in clinical care. There are also concerns in the field about how the amendment inserted by your Lordships may affect the successful establishment of the national care standards commission. The April edition of Registered Homes and Services reflected those views in commenting on the subsections introduced into Clause 7:The Royal College of Nursing was also concerned about the polarisation of the regulation of healthcare services. However, our thinking on the relationship between the commission and CHI has moved on considerably since the Bill was introduced. The Bill now allows the commission and CHI to second staff to each other, and that will help skills development in both bodies. They will also be able to share information with each other. Another example of this co-operation is the development of the national minimum standards to be used by the commission. In that context, CHI has a representative on the consultation group that is developing those standards. I believe that we have two separate bodies with two separate functions. I believe it logical that we should merge such situations in relation to the regulation of the care establishments and private health hospitals within the terms of the Bill and the way in which the NHS effectively manages its performance. We have seriously taken on board the suggestion that we must ensure that CHI and the commission work closely together. I believe that the amendments which the Commons considered enable that to happen and I ask for your Lordships' support. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)"At a practical level there are clear benefits in a broad-based national care standards commission. With private and voluntary healthcare outside its remit, the skills and experience which will be developed within its healthcare division will suffer".
Motion Moved On Consideration Of Commons Amendment No 20
20A
rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20A. I make no apology for moving the amendment. It goes to the heart of our debate during earlier stages about the regulation of acute private hospitals.
When the House last debated what is now Amendment No. 20 the argument advanced for it was as follows. There is a welcome and necessary agenda on both the NHS and the private sector to drive up standards and the quality of clinical treatment. The part of the Bill that we are now considering addresses the structures to be put in place to ensure that the private acute sector will be subject to a much more systematic and rigorous set of standards in terms of both regulation and enforcement than has been the case hitherto. No one, least of all the private sector, has any wish to stand in the way of those changes.
However, for the patient the issue is somewhat broader. The patient wants to be assured that wherever he or she happens to be treated—whether in an NHS ward or in a private clinic—the standards of care and clinical treatment delivered will be of a consistently high quality. The operative word is "consistently".
In many areas of medicine and surgery the NHS and the private sector are becoming increasingly interdependent. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of mental health where the NHS subcontracts a high percentage of treatment to private establishments. But in recent weeks we have heard an explicit and welcome statement from the Government which made it clear that NHS trusts should, where appropriate, subcontract treatment to the private sector. The Government themselves are breaking down the barriers between the two healthcare sectors.
However, alongside the cross-migration of patients between the NHS and the private sector there is also the cross-migration of clinicians and doctors. Few senior hospital doctors work exclusively for the NHS or exclusively for the private sector; they work for both. In policy terms, that means that when it comes to the setting and enforcement of standards there is less sense in having two separate governing regimes: one for the public sector and one for the private sector. However, that is exactly what the Government say they want. The private sector will be regulated on a national basis by the national care standards commission. On the other hand, the NHS will continue to be a managed service in which clinical governance, backed up by inspections from the Commission for Health Improvement will, it is hoped, deliver the quality agenda.
However, a dual structure of that kind is a recipe for inconsistency. Under those arrangements, how can anyone be certain that the standards of care being delivered in either sector are in any way equivalent? How will it be possible to promulgate best practice from one sector to the other and vice versa? The ideal answer, which the Government have explicitly ruled out on their pronouncements on the issue, is to have a single independent regulator of healthcare responsible for both the NHS and the private sector. There would then be a unified structure of regulation across all types of hospital, both public and private.
That, ironically, is exactly the regulatory structure that the Government are now putting in place in respect of care homes. Under this Bill the Government are perfectly happy for there to be a single overarching regulatory framework for both publicly and privately-owned care homes. The same applies to boarding schools, both publicly and privately-owned. But when it comes to acute hospitals, the arguments apparently do not apply.
However, if this is a bridge too far for the Government—and clearly it is—then the question is: how else can the desired consistency of standards be achieved? The amendment which your Lordships inserted on Report was designed with that end in view. The Commission for Health Improvement is the body whose remit it is to spread good practice and identify substandard practice throughout the NHS. If CHI were additionally to perform the same function for the private sector, inspecting private hospitals on behalf of the commission for care standards as regulator, in theory at least we would be one step nearer to a more consistent inspection regime. There is no suggestion that CHI should usurp the position of the commission as regulator.
Since the Bill left this House, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have excised your Lordships' amendment and replaced it with an amendment of their own—Amendment No. 22. That amendment would enable CHI and the commission for care standards to delegate to each other the performance of their respective functions. I have no objection to that idea so far as it goes, although when the Minister replies I should be interested to hear how and in what circumstances he sees that cross-delegation working.
Of course, its most obvious benefit is to get round the completely absurd situation where, in a ward of a particular private hospital, CHI has responsibility for overseeing NHS patients in beds numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7 and the commission for care standards is responsible for beds 2, 4, 6 and 8. That was a consequence of the Bill as it stood previously. Therefore, the amendment at least represents progress. If I were to be mean about it, it is certainly an admission by the Government that they had not thought through the implications of what they proposed initially.
As for addressing the central concern raised by your Lordships, the Government's amendment does not even begin to qualify. A permissive power for CHI and the commission to cross-delegate on an ad hoc basis is nowhere near the same as saying that there is a comprehensive uniform inspection regime across the public and private healthcare sectors.
I am prepared to concede, as no doubt is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the amendment inserted into the Bill by your Lordships is capable of improvement and refinement. What I had hoped to obtain from the Government was an acknowledgement of the central issue. We have not achieved that and I am sad about it. However, I shall listen to the Minister with the greatest care before deciding whether to press the amendment to a vote.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—( Earl Howe.)
10.30 p.m.
My Lords, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the question of standards of regulation and inspection in the independent healthcare sector has been a long-running issue in this House. As he recalled, we debated this matter during the passage of the Health Act last year and in Committee and on Report on this Bill. As we know, the other place has debated the issue extensively. However, that does not mean that the debate is over—far from it.
In the course of our debates in this House, there was a shift in the Government's position, as evidenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said on Report. Of course, the new clause which effectively is contained in Amendment No. 22 is the product of that assurance made on Report. With regard to the state of play, the amendment and what it means, the Secretary of State, Mr Milburn, said recently:Indeed, the Minister said very similar things when he introduced his Amendments Nos. 20 and 22. That is an entirely circular argument. The two bodies have been given different inspection functions because that is what Ministers have decided, not because there is any logic in doing so. While we welcome the shift of position by Ministers introducing a degree of flexibility as between CHI and the commission in the discharge of their functions, the new clause after Clause 8 neither guarantees the same level of quality between the NHS and the independent healthcare sector, nor a seamless system of inspection between them. As we have all acknowledged, the cross-referral of patients between the two sectors is very frequent. The provision of private or independent healthcare has been debated on many previous occasions. Healthcare is provided in NHS private beds and paid for privately. Healthcare is provided in independent acute hospitals and paid for by the NHS. Healthcare is provided in independent acute hospitals and paid for privately. What is so very different between clinical governance and patient management and treatment in the NHS and the independent healthcare centre? Why cannot one single body be responsible for their quality? After all, the commission, as the noble Earl pointed out, will be acting as a single inspection system for social care. What makes healthcare so different? Why cannot that be dealt with in a single body? Indeed, one of the results of the amendments being made today, which have already been agreed to, is that private and NHS dentists providing treatment under general anaesthetics will have a common system of inspection. For 0that reason, on these Benches we strongly support the Motion to insist on the original clause before us today, where, indeed, that original amendment was proposed from these Benches. The case against the Government's new clause is that a wholly different set of standards and methods of inspection could apply between the two sectors as a result of it. It is as if the GMC's regime applied only to the NHS, and independent healthcare had a wholly different body. Where is the logic in that? The Government have now shifted their position back to that taken by the original consultation paper, Regulating Private and Voluntary Health Care, which was published in June 1999, that a regulator might wish to contract with another body, such as the Commission for Health Improvement, in order to carry out local inspections. Yet progress back to that position in the form of the new clause has been painfully slow. As I emphasised in all our debates last year and this year, on these Benches we have no particular axe to grind for private healthcare. However, we believe that every patient should have the right to common minimum standards of quality, care and safety, irrespective of the sector in which they are treated. My noble friend, Lady Nicholson, as is well known, has campaigned strongly on the issue. All Ministers, including the Secretary of State, quoted earlier, have consistently recited the reason for not supporting the common system of inspection as being due to the difference between the regulation of the independent sector and the management of the NHS. Yet they have accepted that contracting can take place between the two bodies. If the new clause is a genuine concession by Government, perhaps the Minister can say when it would not be possible or appropriate to have CHI carry out inspections of independent acute hospitals. The original formulation of Clause 7 as it left this House had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The new clause has neither and could lead, as the noble Earl pointed out, to complete confusion about which body is charged with what. Patients might well fall foul of this confusion with a lack of accountability and responsibility. Clause 7 as it currently stands would enable CHI to monitor and ensure the quality of the services provided in both healthcare sectors and to identify and promote best practice wherever it may be found. Common standards between the NHS and the independent health sector could then be ensured. CHI would be in a position to use the expertise gained from inspecting NHS services and facilities, and the same limited pool of expertise could be used in the independent healthcare sector. The NHS and the independent healthcare sectors should be inspected by the national institution best suited to do the job, and to do it well. That institution is the Commission for Health Improvement. In its unamended form, that is what the Bill achieves. Co-operation is not enough; integration is what we seek."The Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission have very different functions. The Commission for Health Improvement is intended to act as an independent inspectorate for the National Health Service as a managed care system, which is what it is. The National Care Standards Commission has a quite different function. However, the honourable gentleman is aware, as my honourable friends are aware, that we introduced an amendment during the passage of the Care Standards Bill through the House to ensure that there is much closer co-operation and flexibility between the two commissions".
My Lords, I believe that there should be minimum standards in all hospitals, be they NHS or private, and that they should be inspected by the same body. There should be standards of infection control in all hospitals. I am sure the Minister knows that many bank and agency nurses and doctors work between NHS and private hospitals. Therefore, infection control standards should be the same. Good standards must be laid down.
I am sorry to say that I have first-hand experience of a private hospital in Leeds in which my husband had to be treated as the local NHS hospital did not have an endocrinologist at that time. After six days in the private hospital, I discovered that my husband had not had a wash. When I inquired why, a representative of BUPA told me that it would hold an inquiry. The answer came back that he had not asked for one. When patients are ill and disorientated, they do not ask. I had taken for granted that ensuring that patients were washed was part of good nursing procedure and care. At the same private hospital, my husband was discharged on a Friday with a painful thrombosis in his leg. The nurses had taken no notice when he told them about it. The consultant whose care he was under was attending a conference. My husband was then admitted to the local NHS hospital as an emergency on the following Monday. In your Lordships' House, we have a Minister who understands the need for good care standards, and there are noble Lords on all sides of the House who use private hospitals. NHS patients are sent to private hospitals for various reasons. Patients are patients, wherever they go. All patients should be protected by standards of care enshrined in legislation. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.My Lords, the Minister has worked extremely hard on this Bill. I am very grateful that in the Queen's Speech in November of last year, the regulation of private hospitals was included in the package of legislation which this Government were willing to tackle. I thank him most sincerely for that.
But the gravest weakness of this Bill, as other noble Lords and I perceive it both this evening and before, is that despite the Minister's clear and accurate statement that he seeks proper regulation and standards for private healthcare, there is nothing at all on the face of the Bill about clinical or administrative standards of healthcare. Not even the most minor point is deemed worth while to place on the face of this important piece of legislation dealing with healthcare. For example, there is no demand that internal complaints procedures in private hospitals should be triggered by patients as of right. Many of us have had experience that this does not happen in private healthcare. There is no statement that there should be enough staff to perform particular procedures or to staff particular wards. There is no demand that the staff should be qualified appropriately for the tasks which they are being asked to carry out. Nor even is there a statement saying that advertising for private hospitals should be screened and monitored; or that inaccurate advertising, which is often the case now, should not be allowed. In addition, there is the irony that we are talking about taxpayers' money. Many of these private hospitals are registered charities. A handful are even under royal charter. No standards of care are on the face of the Bill. The Minister told us this evening that the consultation body will take care of that. I wonder why, therefore, he has assembled a consultation group to advise on the drafting of the rules and regulations of a Bill which is dominated by private hospital groups and medical bodies, many of which are responsible for the series of tragedies which led to the Bill coming about in the first place. I remind the Minister that there is no representation from genuine patients and victims' groups; those who like many of us here tonight, have personal experience of the effects of iatrogenic injury. Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, for example, could and should be invited to form part of the consultation group. There are a few representative groups on this consultation body. Patients are represented by, for example, the National Health Service Confederation; the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales; the Patients Forum; the Council and Care Group and the Consumers' Association. However, these are not patient groups in the way that APROP and AVMA are. AVMA has a patient helpline and deals directly with patients who have been victims of iatrogenic injury in all the areas which the Care Standards Bill addresses. Tonight, the Minister said—I think I heard him correctly—that because the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is included as part of the consultative group, he has covered the ground to which I refer. But what we need are the real patients. Indeed, the consultation group will consult for 12 months. In other words, without anything on the face of the Bill, we are being asked to buy the Bill blind. I do not think that this is good enough. Many of us on this side of the House and, I believe, on the other side of the House, do not think that is good enough. That is why, in March of this year, we tabled the amendment which took the last resort of requesting the Minister to have at least a single body to monitor standards and to drive up standards of care in all our healthcare providers, public or private. That was a last resort. The Government will not do that either. I cannot understand this ministerial anathema to improving the standards of healthcare in the private sector. It is not like private education. In private education, which the Government do not much like either, children go to different schools, fee-paying or state. It is not the same in the medical world. The patients are the same people. We have learnt bitterly that they are the same people. They go to the ITU unit in the National Health Service just the same. For part of their treatment they use public health and, for part, to private hospitals. The consultants are the same people; they just happen to work in the private sector after hours. The nurses are the same people. They move from one health sector to the other. The training is the same. The National Health Service has been providing the training for everybody. The machinery and equipment are the same; except that in the public health sector there is probably more of it, just as in the public health sector there are teams of medical people, not just one, two or three. It is extraordinarily difficult to see why the Government maintain this ideological division, as healthcare knows no boundaries, save those drawn by money. Why is it, therefore, that the Government are so deeply unwilling to grasp the obvious, to move forward and to provide a proper standard of excellence for all patients throughout the United Kingdom and all sectors of health, irrespective of whether the patient pays at point of need for their treatment or it is paid for through the taxpayer? It is sad to see that a recent survey showed that three-quarters of the people of the United Kingdom had no confidence that the Government could adequately run the National Health Service. I have the greatest confidence that the National Health Service will continue to provide the healthcare for all our people for most of the time that they have medical need. But inevitably private healthcare will come into play, if only because many people in the private healthcare sector wish to make a lot of money out of healthcare provision. I urge the Government to take the decision not to move ahead with this amendment tonight; but to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and go with the flow that this House offered the Government last time we debated this issue and to allow patients at least a common standard of excellence through a common body.My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with all the previous speakers on this subject. It was well captured by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she said that patients are patients wherever they are treated. Because all the points have been made so well, I shall be brief, save to say that, because the Government adopted the stance that they have over CHI, they have now brought forward what seems to be a pragmatic solution. However, I regret that I do not believe it will serve the best interests of patients or their carers.
We have spent a long time in this House talking about the difference between the skills and expertise which are necessary to monitor the quality of healthcare services wherever they are delivered and those experiences and qualities that are necessary to inspect social care. Mention has already been made of the fact that the Government said that they have no objection to a greater use of the private sector, though for myself I prefer the NHS not to need that. However, it makes the point that nowadays patients move so easily between the different sectors that there needs to be a single organisation which is responsible for setting the standards and monitoring them across the whole of the healthcare services, wherever they are delivered. Amendment No. 22 blurs the distinction between the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission. Of course it is right that those two organisations should collaborate and co-operate in the carrying out of their different activities. It may be that their interests coincide at some points; but they do not overlap. Encouraging co-operation should not be seen as meaning that those two activities can be regarded as being interchangeable. I believe that we are in danger of confusing the lines of responsibility; of blurring accountability and, at the end of the day, it will be the patients who will suffer. I hope that, even at this late stage and at this late hour, the Government will pause for further consideration and think again before pressing these amendments.My Lords, this has been a good debate. I listened with great care to what noble Lords had to say. But I am not persuaded. I believe that the Government's case throughout our debates has been absolutely clear and logical.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as he repeated the words of the Secretary of State, Alan Milburn, and found myself wholly in agreement with what he said. The specific and clear point that we are making is this. First, we want effective regulation of the private and voluntary healthcare sectors. I accept the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicholson and Lady Masham, about issues in relation to the private sector. But the provisions in this Bill will undoubtedly allow for a much more effective regulation of the private healthcare sector than we have ever had before. It will be consistent. Instead of 100 different health authorities doing the same job, in many cases in a rather inadequate way, we shall have consistency throughout the country. Secondly, the Bill is so drafted as to allow much more focused regulation in relation to private hospitals than the existing legislation has ever allowed. Existing legislation has been very much built around nursing homes rather than the specific needs of private hospitals. I believe that the regulation will be improved by the much greater emphasis in these new arrangements that will be given to the quality of what is provided in those establishments. I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, that, although she is disappointed as regards what appears on the face of the Bill, I believe that Clause 21 (which sets out the regulations that, in themselves, will set the context for national minimum standards) allows for the issues she has raised relating to quality and staffing to be very effectively addressed. I should refer her, in particular, to Clause 21(6)(j), which relates to the establishment of the complaints process within establishments, and to paragraph (k), which clearly sets out issues in relation to ensuring that the appropriate quality and standards are met. In addition, I believe that the great benefit that we see in this Bill is flexibility. The whole problem with previous legislation in relation to registered homes is that it has been inflexible and has not kept pace with developments. This Bill will allow us to keep pace with those developments. Above all, I believe that we shall have a much higher quality of inspections, with inspection officers given the right degree of support and training. I well understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. She is right to refer to the external consultation group, which, as she said, includes five people representing patients' interests and five people representing providers. I believe that the mix is carefully balanced. I have taken very careful note of what the noble Baroness said about the two organisations that she mentioned. I can assure her that they will be invited to become involved in the consultation around regulation of acute hospitals, which, of course, is their special interest. I have talked about the regulation of private hospitals. The situation with the NHS is different. We want to ensure high quality and consistent services for the service. That is why we introduced national service frameworks and clinical governance. Indeed, that is why we formed the Commission for Health Improvement. However, CHI is designed to work within the context of a managed system, which is what the NHS is: it is a system that is accountable to Parliament through Ministers. That is very different from the situation relating to independent operators within the private sectors. The whole function of CHI is related to performance management within the NHS in the context of a public, managed healthcare system. I do not believe that it is the right body to deal with the regulation—which is very different from the regulation of the private and voluntary sectors. However, CHI and the commission will not operate in isolation from each another. In establishing minimum standards, CHI is bound to be informed by good practice within the NHS. We have listened most carefully to the debates in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was a little churlish in his remarks on that matter, because we have listened most carefully. I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. In a sense, he accused us of pragmatism. I do not believe that that is the response we are giving. We are saying that there are very different roles for CHI and the commission. However, there is equally a role for ensuring that they are enabled to work together. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me how that might happen. The national care standards commission could delegate some inspection of private hospitals to the Commission for Health Improvement when CHI is due to review a particular institution as part of its three- or four-yearly rolling programmes of NHS reviews and there is a contractual relationship between the NHS institution it is reviewing and a particular private hospital. The national commission could be asked by CHI to do the same on its behalf. That seems to me to be the right way forward: sensible collaboration and sensible co-operation between two bodies which undertake different roles; the one regulating the independent, private healthcare sector, the other ensuring that issues in relation to quality in the NHS—a managed system accountable to Parliament—are dealt with effectively. The sensible outcome is to ensure that they are enabled to work and to collaborate together. I believe that that is the right outcome. I ask noble Lords to support it.11 p.m.
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I welcome the fact that he will invite APROP and AVMA to join the consultative body. I commend the Minister on offering substance, not spin. I commend the Bill for offering a system that is better than in the past and which is consistent countrywide. However, does he not agree that by choosing the words "contracts for national standards" he highlights the fact that this is a non-definitive, non-prescriptive set of statements? The regulations may make provision and may impose requirements. That lies at the heart of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and at the heart of the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, my colleagues and I proposed in March. We do not seek an open-ended commitment but actual standards and regulations which are prescriptive and definitive.
My Lords, experience with previous legislation in this area shows that, if one attempts to include all the measures the noble Baroness mentioned on the face of the Bill, it will simply not keep pace with fast moving developments in the healthcare sector. The Bill sets the clear parameters within which we expect regulations to be conducted and allows us to be flexible, to consult and to learn from experience. At the end of the day, I believe that it will be an extremely effective regulatory regime.
My Lords, will the Minister substitute "will" for "may"?
My Lords, this has been an important debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. The Minister's reply was not entirely unexpected. There is no disagreement between us that better regulation of the private sector is both necessary and desirable. There is no disagreement between us about the inadequacies of the Registered Homes Act. However, as he knows, that was not the point I sought to make.
It is disappointing that the Minister did not extend at least a nod in the direction of the arguments that I advanced earlier. It is also disappointing that he should have offered what I fear is a spurious argument in defence of his own position. There is no suggestion in the amendment carried by the House that CHI should usurp the role of the commission as the regulator. The Minister is right to say that CHI's functions are not regulatory, in the accepted sense at least. As far as I am aware, it has not been suggested by anyone—certainly not by me—that under Amendment No. 20 CHI should do more than carry out inspections and in so doing be accountable to the commission as regulator. The noble Lord admits implicitly in his own amendment that CHI is capable of performing the role I have suggested for it. He concedes that it is possible for the commission to delegate to CHI on a ad hoc basis. So why is there this hang up over a more permanent role along those lines? I see opposite me the massing ranks of government supporters; by contrast, few such ranks are on this side of the Chamber. But I believe that this is an issue on which the opinion of the House should be tested. I beg to move. 11.5 p.m. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20A) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 91.
Division No. 3
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Barker, B. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Clement-Jones, L. [Teller] | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Ezra, L. | Montrose, D. |
| Henley, L. [Teller] | Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. |
| Howe, E. | Roberts of Conwy, L. |
| Laming, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Acton, L. | Elder, L. |
| Alli, L. | Evans of Parkside, L. |
| Amos, B. | Falconer of Thoroton, L. |
| Andrews, B. | Farrington of Ribbleton, B. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Faulkner of Worcester, L. |
| Ashton of Upholland, B. | Fyfe of Fairfield, L. |
| Bach, L. | Gale, B. |
| Bassam of Brighton, L. | Gavron, L. |
| Bernstein of Craigweil, L. | Gibson of Market Rasen, B. |
| Billingham, B. | Gilbert, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Goldsmith, L. |
| Borrie, L. | Gordon of Strathblane, L. |
| Bragg, L. | Goudie, B. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Brookman, L. | Grenfell, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Hardy of Wath, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller] | Harris of Haringey, L. |
| Chandos, V. | Harrison, L. |
| Christopher, L. | Haskel, L. |
| Cohen of Pimlico, B. | Hayman, B. |
| Crawley, B. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Howells of St. Davids, B. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Hoyle, L. |
| Desai, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Islwyn, L. |
| Dubs, L. | |
| Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal) | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Judd, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Layard, L. | Sainsbury of Turville, L. |
| Lea of Crondall, L. | Sawyer, L. |
| Lipsey, L. | Scotland of Asthal, B. |
| McCarthy, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Macdonald of Tradeston, L. | Simon, V. |
| Smith of Leigh, L. | |
| McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller] | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Thornton, B. | |
| McIntosh of Hudnall, B. | Tomlinson, L. |
| MacKenzie of Culkein, L. | Turnberg, L. |
| Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. | Warner, L. |
| Massey of Darwen, B. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Mitchell, L. | Whitaker, B. |
| Morris of Castle Morris, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Nicol, B. | Wilkins, B. |
| Pitkeathley, B. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Woolmer of Leeds, L. |
| Puttnam, L. | Young of Old Scone, B. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.14 p.m.
Commons Amendments
21 Clause 8, page 6, line 6, at beginning insert—
22 After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Co-Operative Working
(" .—(1) The Commission for Health Improvement ("CHI") and the National Care Standards Commission ("NCSC") may, if authorised to do so by regulations, arrange—
and accordingly CHI and the NCSC each have power to exercise functions of the other in accordance with arrangements under this subsection.
(2) The Assembly and CHI may arrange for any functions of the Assembly mentioned in section 9(6) to be exercised by CHI on behalf of the Assembly; and accordingly CHI has power to exercise functions of the Assembly in accordance with arrangements under this subsection.
(3) The Assembly and CHI may, if authorised to do so by regulations, arrange for prescribed functions of CHI, so far as exercisable in relation to Wales, to be exercised by the Assembly on behalf of CHI; and accordingly the Assembly has power to exercise functions of CHI in accordance with arrangements under this subsection.
(4) References in this section to exercising functions include a reference to assisting with their exercise.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State; but the Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) without the agreement of the Assembly.")
23 Clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out ("the Assembly's registration functions") and insert—
24 Page 6, line 30, leave out subsection (7)
25 Page 6, line 34, leave out ("it would be") and insert ("there are exceptional circumstances which make it")
26 Clause 11, page 7, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) A person who applies for registration as the manager of an establishment or agency must be an individual.")
27 Clause 12, page 8, line 4, after ("vary") insert ("or remove")
28 Clause 13, page 8, line 13, after ("being") insert (", or has at any time been,")
29 Clause 14, page 8, line 30, after ("variation") insert ("or removal")
30 Page 9, line 3, after ("(stating") insert (", where applicable,")
31 Clause 16, page 9, line 35, after ("vary") insert ("or remove")
32 Clause 18, page 10, line 23, after ("varied") insert (", the condition which is removed")
33 Clause 19, page 10, line 39, after ("varying") insert ("or removing")
34 Page 10, line 44, after ("variation") insert (", removal")
35 Clause 21, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may, in particular, make provision for prohibiting persons from managing an establishment or agency unless they are registered in, or in a particular part of, one of the registers maintained under section 52(1).")
36 Page 12, line 46, after ("of") insert ("documents and")
37 Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) make provision requiring arrangements to be made by the person who carries on, or manages, a care home for securing that any nursing provided by the home is of appropriate quality and meets appropriate standards.")
38 Page 13, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Before making regulations under this section, except regulations which amend other regulations made under this section and do not, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, effect any substantial change in the provision made by those regulations, the appropriate Minister shall consult any persons he considers appropriate.")
39 Clause 25, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
("(3) No person shall, with intent to deceive any person, in any way describe or hold out an establishment or agency as able to provide any service or do any thing the provision or doing of which would contravene a condition for the time being in force by virtue of this Part in respect of the establishment or agency.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.")
40 After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
False Statements In Applications
(" .—(1) Any person who, in an application for registration under this Part or for the variation of any condition in force in relation to his registration, knowingly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.")
41 Clause 27, page 15, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Proceedings for an offence under this Part or regulations made under it may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the offence.")
42 Clause 28, page 15, line 19, after ("officer") insert ("or member")
43 Clause 29, page 15, line 34, after ("any") insert ("documents or")
44 Page 15, line 46, after ("any") insert ("documents or")
45 Clause 37, page 19, line 13, leave out from ("home)") to end of line 17 and insert—
46 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
Children's Homes: Temporary Provision About Cancellation Of Registration
(" .—(1) In paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act (voluntary homes and voluntary organisations)—
(2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule, after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) In relation to a home which has ceased to exist, the reference in sub-paragraph (4) to any person carrying on the home shall be taken to be a reference to each of the persons who carried it on."
(3) In paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 6 to the 1989 Act (registered children's homes), after "is being" there shall be inserted "and has been".
(4) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule—
"(5) In relation to a home which has ceased to exist, references in this paragraph and paragraph 5(4) to the person, or any person, carrying on the home include references to each of the persons who carried it on."").
47 Clause 39, page 19, line 23, leave out from ("persons") to ("by") in line 26 and insert ("to whom subsection (2) or (3) applies.
(2) This subsection applies to—
48 Page 19, line 27, at end insert—
("(3) This subsection applies to persons who carry on or manage an undertaking (other than an establishment or agency) which consists of or includes supplying, or providing services for the purpose of supplying, individuals mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) The individuals referred to in subsection (3) are those who provide services for the purpose of any of the services mentioned in subsection (2)")
49 After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
General Powers Of The Commission
(" . The Commission may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on—
50 Clause 41, page 20, line 13, after ("any") insert ("documents or")
51 Page 20, line 17, after ("any") insert ("documents or")
52 Clause 45, page 22, line 32, leave out ("and (2)") and insert (", (2) and (3)")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 52.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 52.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.11.15 p.m.
Commons Amendment
53 Clause 51, page 24, line 6, leave out ("or care home") and insert (", care home or residential family centre")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. This amendment comprises one of a group of 35 amendments that make minor changes to the provisions in Part IV, concerning the regulation of social care workers.
Amendments Nos. 53 to 61 all relate to the definitions set out in Clause 51. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 ensure that workers in residential family centres and relevant agency workers come within the definition of "social care worker". The remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 55 to 61, all concern the groups of workers who may be brought within the definition of "social care worker" at a later date by regulations. Amendment No. 55 reflects my earlier comments about the registration of managers of establishments and agencies. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 make general provision for extending the definition of "social care worker" which reflects the commitment I made following points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, during our earlier discussions in the House. Amendment No. 58 provides that the inspectors employed by the commission or Assembly may also be brought within the definition. Amendment No. 59 makes similar provision for social work students. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 amend the definition of "day centre". I should like to reassure noble Lords that this is a purely technical matter. It came to our attention that the existing definition used the word "establishment". As this is already defined in Part I of the Bill, it had the effect of rendering the current definition of "day centre" deficient. This new definition simply uses the word "place" instead. I can assure noble Lords that it is intended to cover exactly the same range of organisations. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 enable a person to be registered on two or more parts of the register. That is important because the field of social care is extremely wide. I know that we all wish to ensure that workers in any particular sector have all the right skills and competencies for that specialised area of work. This may mean that registration on two separate parts of the register may be necessary. Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 and 73 to 79 all relate to "post-qualifying" training for professional social workers. The councils already have powers to regulate the basic training of social workers through Clause 59. These amendments make additional provision in that clause so that the councils can also regulate training for social workers at the post-qualifying level. Amendments Nos. 68 to 72, 86 and 87 make minor changes to the fee-charging and rule-making provisions of this part. They consolidate the existing express fee-charging powers and bring them together in a more general provision. Amendment No. 68 makes a similar general provision about the rules, which will all be subject to approval by the appropriate Minister. Amendment No. 71 is a straightforward correction, altering a reference to the Secretary of State to "appropriate Minister". The last batch of amendments within this group amend Clause 63. Amendment No. 76 gives the appropriate Minister a number of functions relating to the training of the social care workforce which underpin the work of the councils. These functions underpin the duty of the councils to promote high standards in training. I should point out that in England it is intended that these functions should be delegated to an agency called TOPSS-England, the England arm of the UK national training organisation for personal social services. Amendments Nos. 80 to 85 simply make provision for the Assembly to delegate functions under this clause in a similar manner to the existing provisions for the Secretary of State for England. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
88 After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Children's Commissioner For Wales
(" .—(1) There shall be an office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales or Comisiynydd Plant Cymru.
(2) Schedule (The Children's Commissioner for Wales) shall have effect with respect to the Children's Commissioner for Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Commissioner").")
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 89 to 94, 184, 186, 202, 207, 277 and 288.
The Secretary of State for Wales announced on 2nd March the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment to the Bill to establish in Wales an independent children's commissioner on a statutory basis. The case for a children's commissioner was made in part by the Welsh social services White Paper, Building for the Future. There had also been calls for it by bodies such as Children in Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Welsh Affairs Committee of another place, as well as in evidence given in 1997 and 1998 to the North Wales child abuse tribunal. The establishment of the children's commissioner became an Assembly manifesto commitment of all the political parties in Wales except the Conservatives, who have subsequently supported the principle. Finally, Sir Ronald Waterhouse recommended in his report Lost in Care that an independent children's commissioner for Wales should be appointed. That was the context of the Secretary of State's announcement. Sir Ronald recommended that the commissioner's duties should include ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints and whistleblowing procedures and the arrangements for children's advocacy; examining the handling of individual cases brought to the commissioner's attention, including making recommendations on their merit when he or she considers it necessary or appropriate; and publishing reports, including an annual report to the Assembly. The amendments put those recommendations into effect for the full range of children's services within the scope of the Bill—not just children looked after by local authorities but domiciliary care, private hospitals and clinics, day care and childminding services and children living away from home in boarding schools. The National Assembly for Wales is committed to a children's commissioner to promote and safeguard the rights and interests of all children in Wales. Such a commissioner would be beyond the scope of the Bill. The Assembly is in discussion with the Secretary of State for Wales about an early legislative opportunity. In the meantime, Amendments Nos. 88 to 94 and 207 implement the first two recommendations of the Waterhouse report. Provision is made in Amendment No. 88 for the establishment of the office of the children's commissioner for Wales. Amendment No. 89 deals with the commissioner's functions in reviewing and monitoring arrangements made by providers of services in Wales or by the Assembly in respect of services for children regulated under the Bill to ascertain their effectiveness in safeguarding and promoting children's rights. There are three aspects, in line with the Waterhouse recommendations, covering complaints procedures, whistleblowing and advocacy arrangements. Under Amendment No. 90, the Assembly will also be able to confer power on the commissioner to examine particular cases and to make regulations governing their examination. It is not the Assembly's intention that the commissioner should routinely take the place of existing complaints procedures but that he or she should investigate situations in which a matter of principle is involved or in which there is evidence of a systematic breach of children's rights. Under subsection (3), regulations may confer power on the commissioner to require prescribed persons to supply information for the purposes of his examination functions. In that respect, the commissioner would have the same powers as the High Court. The sanctions that may apply if the commissioner is obstructed from receiving such information mirror the sanctions that apply if the High Court is so obstructed. They are dealt with in Amendment No. 91. Amendment No. 92 deals with the further functions that may be conferred on the commissioner by the Assembly. They include the power to assist a child in making a complaint or representation about any regulated children's services in Wales or in any prescribed proceedings. It is envisaged that the commissioner would use the power sparingly, usually in circumstances where there is a matter of principle at stake involving a "test" case. The commissioner may also give advice and information relating to his functions to any person under this clause. The Assembly may confer further functions on the commissioners in connection with the functions already set out. It particularly may want to make provision for the arrangements to apply where the commissioner has made recommendations in a report—for example, how the commissioner deals with responses and follow-up action, or the lack of it. Such procedures could include publication of non-compliance with recommendations. Finally, the clause sets out the restrictions in respect of naming people in a report but, for the purposes of defamation, the publication of any matter in a report will be absolutely privileged. Under Amendment No. 93, the commissioner will not be able to exercise functions in circumstances which are subject to, or have been determined by, legal proceedings in a court or tribunal; or where they duplicate functions exercised on a statutory basis by other, prescribed people. The commissioner's functions and powers will extend to children being provided with regulated services in Wales. Amendment No. 94 defines such services as services for children regulated under the Bill. By virtue of subsection (6), regulations may provide that the commissioner can exercise his functions in respect of a matter that occurred prior to the commencement of his functions; and that he can exercise his functions in respect of an adult who was a child receiving regulated services during a prescribed time. This is to ensure that the commissioner is able to "hit the ground running" and does not have to wait for new incidents to happen before he can investigate them. Amendment No. 277 introduces a general transitory provision to enable the Assembly to empower the commissioner to exercise jurisdiction in the period following enactment but before the rest of the Bill has been implemented. So the commissioner would, for example, be able to review complaints procedures in children's homes with fewer than four residents before the relevant commencement order is in force in Wales. Amendment No. 207 deals with a range of practical details. Amendments Nos. 184, 186, 202 and 288 are technical amendments relating to consequential and supplementary provision and the addition of the commissioner to the Long Title of the Bill. The establishment of the children's commissioner for Wales is a significant development in ensuring that the rights of children in Wales are safeguarded and promoted in line with the recommendations of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. I therefore strongly commend these provisions to your Lordships. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)11.30 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these important and lengthy amendments. They are of considerable significance for the supervision of children's services in Wales and will make that supervision safer and better.
In particular, the creation of a children's commissioner for Wales will contribute considerably towards the more effective protection of children in the care system. The appalling deficiencies and abuses in the treatment of significant numbers of children in Welsh residential homes were graphically described by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report, Lost in Care. No one reading the report could seriously argue for the status quo in the regulation and supervision of children's homes. These amendments are a useful and necessary first step in implementing Sir Ronald's recommendations and I welcome them. They do, however, give rise to a number of questions. We understand from the Government that the role, powers and remit of the children's commissioner will in due course be widened so as to encompass not simply the services for children regulated by the Bill but also the full range of activities to which Sir Ronald Waterhouse drew attention. Moreover, the commissioner will be an independent office holder. He will be independent of government and of the Welsh Assembly. Contrast that with the situation in England. The services for children regulated by this Bill will be overseen by the National Care Standards Commission and, specifically, by the children's rights director. In fact, I should have referred to some of the services because childminding will be the exclusive province of Ofsted. The children's rights director is not an independent office holder but an employee of the commission. Some of us argued in Committee—and I was one—that there should be an individual commissioner at board level and that he should not simply be an employee of the commission. He should be responsible for a wide range of children's issues including many of the functions now being assumed by the Welsh commissioner. Those arguments were batted away by the Minister. We were told that a children's rights director was all that was necessary to achieve what the Government had in mind. Therefore, the Bill introduces, in my judgment, an immediate mismatch between Wales and England. Not only do we have the contrast between an independent commissioner and an employee of the National Care Standards Commission, but we also have a contrast between their respective powers and duties. Furthermore, we have a mismatch between the future wider remit of the Welsh commissioner and the role of the children's rights director, which is necessarily limited and confined by the remit of the Commission. Opposition amendments to create an independent children's commissioner for England were rejected in another place. On these Benches, particularly in the light of Waterhouse, we see a role for such an individual on a much wider stage, if I may so put it, than that created by this Bill. He or she should have a remit to examine government policy and legislative proposals across the entire range of government departments and to represent the interests of children who will be affected by such proposals. Ideally, such an individual would have a UK-wide remit. That is only our idea. The Government may well have different ones. I do not understand why the Government, in the light of Waterhouse, have not taken the opportunity to break out of the confines of the Bill as originally drafted to set up a fully fledged independent children's commissioner for England or indeed for England and Wales combined. It is not as though the kinds of abuse highlighted in Lost in Care are confined simply to Wales. Only a few days ago we read of a very serious set of allegations being made in connection with children's homes in, I believe, Lancashire. Sir Ronald himself made it clear that the problems that he highlighted in Wales need not be thought of as being exclusively Welsh. That may sound like a statement of the obvious, but it needs saying. I should like to hear from the Minister, first, as to the differences in the respective functions of the children's commissioner on the one hand and the children's rights director on the other, as defined by this Bill; and, secondly, by what mechanisms in the longer term she sees the recommendations of Waterhouse being implemented on either side of the English/Welsh border.My Lords, the noble Earl has raised some very important points on this series of amendments. I do not need to go into much greater detail than he has already since they are precisely the questions that I wish the Minister to answer when she replies.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who tabled the original amendment about a children's commissioner. While one understands that the implementation of the Waterhouse recommendations should first take place in Wales, I cannot understand the logic for not extending the same provision to England. It may be that essentially the Government are saying that the powers of the commissioner are effectively the same as those of the children's rights director. Is this a rose by any other name? If that is the case we need an assurance from the Minister that the explicit powers provided to the commissioner will also be available to the children's rights director when the regulations are made. Can the Minister give an assurance that the regulations to be made will exactly reflect the provisions in the primary legislation as they apply to Wales? When will those draft regulations be made? Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I seek a considerable amount of further information about the whys and wherefores of treating the two jurisdictions so differently. My final point is probably one that should not be made at this time of night. In connection with Amendment No. 277, I noted that the Minister described the amendment as transitory rather than transitional. I wonder whether that is a new government description of the effect of certain clauses.My Lords, this part of the Bill which establishes a children's commissioner for Wales has been much heralded. It is primarily the outcome of the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse on child abuse in North Wales. He reported in February after this Bill had had its Second Reading. His very first recommendation was that,
He went on to outline the duties of the commissioner. The recommendation was accepted by the Government in their response to the report, which was a very important milestone. The recommendation was also considered in some depth by the National Assembly and at least two of its committees. It appeared that the Assembly wished the commissioner's remit to extend to all children in Wales. I agree with the Minister that that goes over the top. As the Bill stands, the commissioner's remit is confined to children in all care services regulated by the legislation, and I believe that to be a good place to start. I understand that discussions between the Assembly's Health and Social Services Secretary, Jane Hutt, and the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy, continue. However, I believe that they would be well advised to wait and see how they get on with the implementation of this part of the Bill before they seek to extend the role of the commissioner still further. I agree with the Minister that this Bill is not suitable for such an extension. In view of the past history of abuse in North Wales and what is coming to light elsewhere as a result of police inquiries—the example of Lancashire was referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe—I welcome the appointment of a commissioner as proposed in the Bill. I wish the office all success in the performance of the functions ascribed to it. However, two points concern me. The first is the curious provision in Clause 75(6) which prohibits the commissioner from identifying in a report anyone other than the person being investigated. It is the publication of the name of the person being investigated that concerns me. The investigation may arise as a result of a child's complaint. The case may or may not involve a criminal offence; the complaint may or may not be soundly based. In either case, the person who is being investigated may attract a great deal of adverse public attention and will have no remedy in the law of defamation, as is made clear in subsection (7). In my view, the commissioner will have to exercise the utmost care, as did Sir Ronald Waterhouse in the conduct of his inquiry, if the reputations of innocent people are not to be maliciously damaged. At this point, I shall say only that there is a lot of chequebook journalism about and that people who are involved and work with children in care must be protected. We must be careful that the work remains possible and that people are not scared off, leaving a shortage of those available to take care of children. My second concern arises from the retrospective aspect of Clause 77(6) and the power to make regulations which apply to childcare before this part of the Bill came into effect. We do not like retrospective legislation at best, but it is proposed in this context. Does it mean, for example, that the cases thoroughly examined by Sir Ronald could be reopened if the Assembly so provided? That would be reopening a can of worms which I thought Sir Ronald scoured most judiciously. I should be grateful for an explanation of what is meant by that subsection."An independent Children's Commissioner for Wales should be appointed".
My Lords, feeling slightly like an Alice in Wonderland character, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, when I say "transitory" I mean "transitional".
A range of issues has been raised. As all noble Lords recognise, this is an extremely important development and follows a harrowing account of years of suffering by children. The questions covered the children's rights director and the children's commissioner for Wales, and the similarities and differences between their posts. The key similarities between the two are that both will be able to investigate whistle blowers and the procedures set up for them, the effectiveness of complaints systems and the effectiveness of advocacy services. Potentially, both can examine individual cases and both can report to government—to the National Assembly and the Secretary of State for Health. Both are independent of government. Both posts will ensure that children's voices are listened to at the highest level, and both are senior appointments representing significant new safeguards for children. There are differences. The children's commissioner for Wales will be empowered to set up his own office and employ staff. The children's rights director, as a senior employee of the national care standards commission, will not need such powers. The children's commissioner for Wales will possess specific powers, including the right to demand the protection of information, the right to call witnesses and the right to certify an offence to the High Court if he is obstructed in the exercise of his powers. In England, the CRD will not have those specific powers but will rely instead on the powers prescribed to NCSC, which will be at least as strong. The functions of the children's rights director are limited to those of the NCSC. The commissioner in Wales is limited by the functions set out in this Bill, which are broadly the same. However, further primary legislation could extend the responsibilities for the Welsh commissioner in a way that would not be achievable for a post within the NCSC. A range of issues are concerned with the differences in the regulation of provision for children under the age of 8, with a different role in England where the services will be regulated separately by Ofsted and will not be in the remit of the NCRD. That is the one big difference between the two. The functions and powers under the Care Standards Bill will be very similar. The difference in structure derives primarily from the different constitutions of the regulatory bodies that will be set up in both places. I note the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that perhaps the Assembly should wait a while before it assesses how things progress. One of the elements of devolution is that ultimately that is a matter for judgment by the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, did me the courtesy of telling me the detailed points that he intended to raise. With regard to Amendment No. 92, the commissioner will have discretion to name individuals under subsection (6) if, after taking into account the public interest and that of the complainant and other people, he or she considers it necessary. We believe it is extremely important that it is recognised that the main role of the commissioner is to monitor the operations of systems rather than to attribute blame to individuals. Ultimately, the attribution of blame is a matter for the role of employers and, ultimately again, the criminal justice system. The retrospective provision which the noble Lord raised—that is, the issue of post-Waterhouse—will not mean that the commissioner will be able to re-open matters already dealt with by Sir Ronald Waterhouse's tribunal because, by virtue of Amendment No. 93 in Clause 76, he will not be authorised to look into matters which have been determined already by a court or tribunal. I believe that I have answered points raised by noble Lords. Should any matters be outstanding, I shall of course write to them. I commend Amendment No. 88 to the House. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
89 After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Review And Monitoring Of Arrangements
(" .—(1) The Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (2), (3) or (4) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies.
(2) The arrangements falling within this subsection are the arrangements made by the providers of regulated children's services in Wales, or by the Assembly, for dealing with complaints or representations in respect of such services made by or on behalf of children to whom this Part applies.
(3) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made by the providers of regulated children's services in Wales, or by the Assembly, for ensuring that proper action is taken in response to any disclosure of information which may tend to show—
in the course of or in connection with the provision of such services.
(4) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made (whether by providers of regulated children's services in Wales, by the Assembly or by any other person) for making persons available—
(5) Regulations may confer power on the Commissioner to require prescribed persons to provide any information which the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of his functions under this section.")
90 Insert the following new clause—
Examination Of Cases
(" .—(1) Regulations may make provision for the examination by the Commissioner of the cases of particular children to whom this Part applies.
(2) The regulations may include provision about—
(3) The regulations may make provision for—
for the purposes of an examination or for the purposes of determining whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with.
(4) For the purposes mentioned in subsection (3), the Commissioner shall have the same powers as the High Court in respect of—
(5) No person shall be compelled for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) to give any evidence or provide any information which he could not be compelled to give or provide in civil proceedings before the High Court.
(6) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Commissioner of sums in respect of expenses or allowances to persons who attend or provide information for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3).")
91 Insert the following new clause—
Obstruction Etc
(" .—(1) The Commissioner may certify an offence to the High Court where—
(2) Where an offence is so certified the High Court may inquire into the matter; and after hearing—
the High Court may deal with the person charged with the offence in any manner in which it could deal with him if he had committed the same offence in relation to the High Court.")
92 Insert the following new clause—
Further Functions
(" .—(1) Regulations may confer power on the Commissioner to assist a child to whom this Part applies—
and in this subsection "proceedings" includes a procedure of any kind and any prospective proceedings.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), assistance includes—
and the regulations may provide for assistance to be given on conditions, including (in the case of financial assistance) conditions requiring repayment in circumstances specified in the regulations.
(3) The Commissioner may, in connection with his functions under this Part, give advice and information to any person.
(4) Regulations may, in connection with the Commissioner's functions under this Part, confer further functions on him.
(5) The regulations may, in particular, include provision about the making of reports on any matter connected with any of his functions.
(6) Apart from identifying any person investigated, a report by the Commissioner shall not—
unless, after taking account of the public interest (as well as the interests of any person who made a complaint and other persons), the Commissioner considers it necessary for the report to mention his name or include such particulars.
(7) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any matter by the Commissioner in a report is absolutely privileged.")
93 Insert the following new clause—
Restrictions
(" .—(1) This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal.
(2) This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to exercise any function which by virtue of an enactment is also exercisable by a prescribed person.")
94 Insert the following new clause—
Interpretation
(" .—(1) This Part applies to a child to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales are provided.
(2) In this Part, "regulated children's services in Wales" means any of the following services for the time being provided in respect of children—
(3) For the purposes of this Part—
(4) For the purposes of this section, an establishment or agency, and an undertaking of any other description, is a Part II undertaking if the provider of the services in question is for the time being required to be registered under that Part.
(5) Where the activities of an undertaking are carried on from two or more branches, each of those branches shall be treated as a separate undertaking for the purposes of this Part.
(6) Regulations may provide—
(7) In this Part—
"information" includes information recorded in any form;
"regulations" means regulations made by the Assembly.
(8) In this section, "relevant adoption functions" and "relevant fostering functions" have the same meanings as in Part III.")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 to 94.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 to 94.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
95 Clause 68, page 33, line 16, leave out ("the proximity or) and insert ("regular contact with")
11.45 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 137, 208 to 211 and 213–49 amendments in all.
These amendments were made to Part V in Schedule 2 to the Bill as it left this House. They are concerned with the regulation of day care and child minding. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain the House for too long—indeed, for any time at all—in dealing with this group of amendments. They are all technical or minor. None alters to any great degree the provisions considered by this House. They were made simply with the intention of refining various provisions within Part V. Several of the amendments simply extend to Wales provisions which were to apply in England. They are Amendments Nos. 109, 123, 124, 126 to 128 and 132 to 135. The remaining amendments are minor or technical in nature. Their general purpose was: first, to provide increased protection for children, for example, by strengthening the provisions which test the suitability of people on the premises; secondly, to enable the chief inspector and the Assembly to fulfil their role as regulator more effectively, for example, by giving them the ability to take away evidence that they may come across while on a provider's premises; and, thirdly, to offer improvements for providers, for example, by extending the circumstances in which registration cannot be cancelled before the provider has had time to take appropriate action. Amendments Nos. 96, 125, 137 and 212 are purely technical. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these amendments, although minor, are beneficial. They improve Part V of the Bill. I commend them to the House. If noble Lords want details of any particular amendment, I shall be happy to oblige. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.—(Lord Bach.)My Lords, the Minister's brief introduction of these amendments is commendable, but I do not wish to detain the House for very long on these technical amendments. I regret to some extent that we did not examine in more detail the provisions transferring responsibility for registration of childminders to Ofsted when they came before this House, but the separate provisions for Wales are different, as Ministers have pointed out throughout, and that raises the issue of why in England there cannot be the option of considering a different system in future. No doubt Ministers will understand that there are considerable doubts about the wisdom of transferring this responsibility to Ofsted. In the other place, there were lengthy debates on the subject. But it is odd that there should potentially be two very different systems at play in the two jurisdictions.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government gave considerable thought to who would best operate these procedures. We have come to the view that we have. We believe that we shall be proved right. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
96 Clause 68, page 33, line 30, leave out ("and every prescribed person")
97 Page 33, line 33, leave out ("the proximity of") and insert ("regular contact with")
98 Page 34, leave out lines 1 and 2
99 Page 34, line 5, after ("includes") insert ("any area and")
100 Page 34, line 28, leave out ("the proximity of") and insert ("regular contact with")
101 Page 34, line 34, leave out ("and safety") and insert (", safety and suitability")
102 Page 35, line 45, at end insert—
("(b) give any other information which the registration authority reasonably requires the applicant to give.")
103 Page 36, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Where the registration authority has sent the applicant notice under section 79L(1) of its intention to refuse an application under this section, the application may not be withdrawn without the consent of the authority.
( ) A person who, in an application under this section, knowingly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.")
104 Page 37, line 8, leave out ("carry out repairs or make alterations or additions") and insert ("make any changes or additions to any services, equipment or premises")
105 Page 37, line 11, leave out from ("ground") to ("if") in line 12 and insert ("of any defect or insufficiency in the services, equipment or premises")
106 Page 37, line 15, leave out from first ("the") to ("additions") in line 17 and insert ("defect or insufficiency is due to the changes or")
107 Page 37, line 23, leave out ("The regulations may make") and insert ("Any regulations made under this section shall include")
108 Page 37, line 23, leave out ("for")
109 Page 37, line 28, leave out ("Chief Inspector") and insert ("registration authority")
110 Page 38, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Where an order has been so made, the registration authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the making of the order, notify the local authority in whose area the person concerned acts or acted as a child minder, or provides or provided day care, of the making of the order.")
111 Page 38, line 44, leave out ("in person or by") and insert ("orally or in writing, by the recipient of the notice or")
112 Page 39, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (6) does not prevent a step from taking effect before the expiry of the time within which an appeal may be brought under section 79M if the person concerned notifies the registration authority in writing that he does not intend to appeal.")
113 Page 39, line 35, at end insert (", or intend to do so")
114 Page 39, line 37, leave out ("by registered persons")
115 Page 39, line 40, leave out ("section 2(7)(a)") and insert ("subsection (7)(a) of section 2")
116 Page 39, line 42, at end insert (", and the power conferred by subsection 7)(b) of that section to make other reports to the Secretary of State includes a power to make reports with respect to matters which fall within the scope of his functions by virtue of this Part.")
117 Page 40, line 32, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Chief Inspector may at any time require any registered person to provide him with any information connected with the person's activities as a child minder, or provision of day care, which the Chief Inspector considers it necessary to have for the purposes of his functions under this Part.")
118 Page 40, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) The Chief Inspector may arrange for an inspection conducted by a registered inspector under this section to be monitored by another registered inspector.")
119 Page 41, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) The period mentioned in subsection (1) may, if the Chief Inspector considers it necessary, be extended by up to three months.")
120 Page 41, line 5, leave out from ("he") to ("send") in line 8 and insert—
( ) may send a copy of it to the Secretary of State, and shall do so without delay if the Secretary of State requests a copy;
( ) shall")
121 Page 41, line 11, leave out from ("and") to end of line 13 and insert—
("( ) may arrange for the report (or parts of it) to be further published in any manner he considers appropriate.")
122 Page 41, line 22, at end insert (", or intend to do so")
123 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to child minding and day care provided in Wales, the Assembly shall have any additional function specified in regulations made by the Assembly; but the regulations may only specify a function corresponding to a function which, by virtue of section 79N(5), is exercisable by the Chief Inspector in relation to child minding and day care provided in England.")
124 Page 41, line 23, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Assembly may at any time require any registered person to provide it with any information connected with the person's activities as a child minder or provision of day care which the Assembly considers it necessary to have for the purposes of its functions under this Part.")
125 Page 41, line 35, leave out ("the Chief Inspector of Schools") and insert ("Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training")
126 Page 41, line 43, leave out ("A registered") and insert ("An authorised")
127 Page 41, line 44, after ("England") insert ("or Wales")
128 Page 42, line 1, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("an authorised")
129 Page 42, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) seize and remove any document or other material or thing found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be evidence of a failure to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by or under this Part;
( ) require any person to afford him such facilities and assistance with respect to matters within the person's control as are necessary to enable him to exercise his powers under this section;
( ) take measurements and photographs or make recordings;")
130 Page 42, line 13, at end insert ("and the arrangements made for their welfare")
131 Page 42, line 17, after ("living") insert ("or working")
132 Page 42, line 23, leave out ("Chief Inspector") and insert ("registration authority")
133 Page 42, line 24, leave out ("him") and insert ("the authority")
134 Page 42, line 24, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("an authorised")
135 Page 42, line 35, after ("section") insert—
(""authorised inspector" means a registered inspector or a person authorised by the Assembly or by any person with whom the Assembly has made arrangements under section 79T(2);")
136 Page 43, line 36, at end insert—
("Time Limit For Proceedings
79UA. Proceedings for an offence under this Part or regulations made under it may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this section more than three years after the commission of the offence.").
137 Page 43, line 46, leave out ("the Chief Inspector of Schools") and insert ("Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 to 137.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 to 137.—(Lord Bach.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
138 Clause 69, page 44, line 16, after ("clinic") insert (", an independent medical agency")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138. My noble friend Lord Bach has pointed us in the direction of brevity at this late hour, but we do come to a very important issue which deals with a large group of amendments concerning the protection of vulnerable adults list, and, indeed, the protection of children list.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, brought to our attention a concern that workers who had been made redundant would evade referral to the appropriate list. Amendments Nos. 147 to 150, 201, 267, 271 and 273 plug this gap in both the POVA and POCA schemes. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the intense interest he took in, and the help that he gave to the House in relation to, these particular clauses. We also discussed in the House the need for employers who have committed misconduct to be referred to the appropriate list. Amendments Nos. 152 and 162 provide new clauses relating to the POVA and POCA schemes respectively, which enable the registration authority to make referrals to the lists. There was also some debate about the need for the POCA scheme in particular to be extended to other services, with particular reference to day centres. Amendments Nos. 142, 144 and 161 introduce a new clause which makes comprehensive provision for the extension of the POVA scheme. Essentially, this scheme can be extended to a full range of services corresponding to those which may or must be provided by local authorities in the exercise of their social services functions and to help services that correspond to those provided by the NHS. The Bill already requires employers not to take on a worker who is found to be on the POVA list. Amendment No. 155 places a further duty on employers requiring them to stop employing a worker in a care position should it come to light that that person is on the list. Amendment No. 269 makes parallel provision for the POCA list, and Amendment No. 268 is a related technical amendment. Amendment No. 156 provides for a criminal offence if a person applies for, offers to do, accepts or does any work in a care position, if they know they are on the POVA list. There are two further areas where provision is being made for access to the POCA list once the Criminal Records Bureau comes into operation. Amendment No. 173 enables adoption agencies to screen prospective adoptive parents against the POCA list. I would argue that that is very important. In addition, this amendment also makes express provision for the registration authorities in Part II and Part V, and the councils, to screen applicants against the appropriate lists.It had always been intended that persons seeking provision under Part II of the Bill, for example, care home providers, or under Part V of the Bill, for example, day care providers, should be subject to such checks. Similarly, persons seeking to be admitted to the registers held by councils under Part IV may also be checked. Amendment No. 173 makes explicit provision for those checks. Amendment No. 170 is a new clause which provides that a parent in receipt of a direct payment can require his local authority to undertake a check against the POCA list in respect of the carer he wishes to employ. If a parent reports, for example, that the carer has harmed his child or has placed him at risk of harm, the local authority can refer the carer for inclusion on the POCA list. But such a referral—and I stress this—can take place only after the local authority has conducted an inquiry under Section 47 of the Children Act. Three new clauses—Amendments Nos. 153, 163 and 171—have come about principally as a result of the Waterhouse inquiry. After that inquiry, we decided that it would be prudent to enable a person to be referred to the POCA or POVA list as a result of an appropriate inquiry report. We are all sadly aware that sometimes it is only as a result of an inquiry some years after the original events occurred that the abuse is discovered and the perpetrators are identified. Amendment No. 153 enables referrals to be made in those circumstances. Amendment No. 163 enables equivalent provision for POCA. A small group of people was referred to the consultancy index in that way as a result of the Waterhouse report. However, for technical reasons, we need to make special provision to ensure that those workers can be transferred to the new protection of children list. Amendment No. 171 has been tabled expressly for that purpose. The final batch of amendments within this large group simply tidies up the provisions and makes consequential amendments as a result of the new provisions that I have just described. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)My Lords, I start by welcoming Amendments Nos. 147 to 150 put down by the Government in response to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Phillips in Committee. They certainly fulfil the role which he intended his amendments to fulfil. However, on these Benches—and it is worth stating it in this instance—we regret that the Government did not listen to all of his amendments in Committee, particularly those relating to natural justice aspects which he raised so eloquently. That is especially since the Bill will now cover a wider range of people—those put onto the list as a result of an inquiry.
On these Benches, we continue to believe that some aspects of the POVA list provisions will act as a deterrent to the recruitment of care workers, but time will tell.My Lords, we listened in particular to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. There are different views. We have always felt that we have struck the right balance between the necessary protection of young people and vulnerable adults and the ability of people so affected to have their case considered very carefully. We have provided rights of appeal. I suspect that we must agree to differ in that regard.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
139 Clause 69, page 44, line 39, after ("clinic") insert (", independent medical agency")
140 Page 44, line 42, leave out from ("agency") to end of line 43
141 Page 45, line 1, leave out ("or an independent clinic") and insert ("an independent clinic or an independent medical agency")
142 Page 45, line 4, after ("78") insert ("or (Power to extend Part VI)")
143 Page 45, line 4, after ("78") insert ("or (Temporary provision for access to lists)")
144 Page 45, line 6, after ("section") insert ("or section (Power to extend Part VI)")
145 Page 45, line 6, after ("section") insert ("or section ( Temporary provision for access to lists)")
146 Clause 70, page 45, line 9. leave out from ("list") to end of line 12 and insert ("except in accordance with this Part")
147 Clause 71, page 45, line 24, leave out ("or retired") and insert (", retired or been made redundant")
148 Page 45, line 26, leave out ("or retired") and insert (", retired or been made redundant")
149 Page 46, line 31, leave out ("or retiring") and insert (", retiring or being made redundant")
150 Page 46, line 33, leave out ("or retired") and insert (", retired or been made redundant")
151 Page 46, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply where—
152 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
Power Of Registration Authority To Refer
(" .— (1) The registration authority may refer a care worker to the Secretary of State if—
(2) Section 71(4) to (7) shall apply in relation to a reference made by the registration authority under subsection (1) as it applies in relation to a reference made by a person under section 71(1).
(3) The reference in subsection (1) to misconduct is to misconduct which occurred after the commencement of this section.")
153 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
Individuals Named In The Findings Of Certain Inquiries
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(2) The Secretary of State—
(3) The Secretary of State shall—
(4) Where the Secretary of State has considered the report, any observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant, he shall confirm that individual's inclusion in the list if subsection (5) applies; otherwise he shall remove him from the list.
(5) This subsection applies if the Secretary of State is of the opinion—
(6) In this section—
"relevant employer" means the person who, at the time mentioned in the definition of "relevant misconduct" below, employed the individual in a care position;
"relevant misconduct" means misconduct which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult and was committed (whether or not in the course of his employment) at a time when the individual was employed in a care position.
(7) In this section "relevant inquiry" means any of the following—
(8) Before making an order under subsection (7) the Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly.")
154 Clause 74, page 48, line 40, leave out first ("section")
155 Clause 76, page 49, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person who provides care to vulnerable adults discovers that an individual employed by him in a care position is included in that list, he shall cease to employ him in a care position.
For the purposes of this subsection an individual is not employed in a care position if he has been suspended or provisionally transferred to a position which is not a care position.")
156 Page 49, line 45, at end inser—
("(4) An individual who is included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list kept by the Secretary of State under section 70 shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly applies for, offers to do, accepts or does any work in a care position.
(5) It shall be a defence for an individual charged with an offence under subsection (4) to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that he was so included in that list.
(6) An individual who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
157 Page 50, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("apply") in line 43 and insert ("Section 2(4) to (7) of the 1999 Act (referrals for inclusion in list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children) shall, in the case of any reference under section 2, 2A or 2D of that Act,")
158 Page 50, line 46, at end insert—
("(2A) Section 2B of the 1999 Act shall apply in relation to the list kept under section 70 as it applies in relation to the list kept under section 1 of that Act, but as if the references in subsections (1)(c)(ii) and (5)(b) to children were references to vulnerable adults.")
159 Page 51, line 1, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 4 and insert ("or (2A) provisionally include an individual in the list kept under section 70, or confirm his inclusion in the that list, unless he provisionally includes him in the list kept under section 1 of the 1999 Act or, as the case requires, confirms his inclusion in that list.")
160 Page 51, line 5, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)")
161 After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—
Power To Extend Part Vi
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(2) This subsection applies to—
(3) In its application by virtue of subsection (1), this Part shall have effect—
162 After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
Inclusion In 1999 Act List On Reference By Certain Authorities
(" .—(1) After section 2 of the 1999 Act there is inserted—
"Power Of Certain Authorities To Refer Individuals For Inclusion In List
2A.—(1) A person to whom this section applies may refer to the Secretary of State an individual who is or has been employed in a child care position if—
(2) The persons to whom this section applies are—
(3) Section 2(4) to (7) above shall apply in relation to a reference made by a person under subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to a reference made by an organisation under section 2(1) above.
(4) The reference in subsection (1) above to misconduct is to misconduct which occurred after the commencement of this section."
(2) In section 1(2)(a) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to keep list), after "2" there is inserted "or 2A".
(3) For the sidenote to section 2 of that Act there is substituted "Inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action etc.".")
163 After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
Inclusion In 1999 Act List Of Individuals Named In Findings Of Certain Inquiries
(" .—(1) After section 2A of the 1999 Act (inserted by section (Inclusion in 1999 Act list on reference by certain authorities) there is inserted—
"Individuals Named In The Findings Of Certain Inquiries
2B.—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(2) The Secretary of State—
(3) The Secretary of State shall—
(4) Where the Secretary of State has considered the report, any observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant, he shall confirm that individual's inclusion in the list if subsection (5) applies; otherwise he shall remove him from the list.
(5) This subsection applies if the Secretary of State is of the opinion—
(6) In this section—
"relevant employer" means the person who, at the time referred to in the definition of "relevant misconduct" below, employed the individual in a care position;
"relevant misconduct" means misconduct which harmed a child or placed at risk of harm a and was committed (whether or not in the course of his employment) at a time when the individual was employed in a care position.
(7) In this section "relevant inquiry" means any of the following—
(8) An order under subsection (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) Before making an order under subsection (7) above the Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales."
(2) In section 1(2) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to keep list), before the "or" preceding paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) he has been included in the list under section 2B below;".").
164 Clause 81, page 52, line 1, leave out ("3") and insert ("2B")
165 Page 52, line 1, after ("Act") insert ("(inserted by section
(Inclusion in 1999 Act list on reference by certain authorities))")
166 Page 52, leave out lines 2 to 12 and insert—
("2C.—(1) Section 71(4) to (7) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (persons who provide care for vulnerable adults: duty to refer) shall, in the case of any reference under subsection (1) of that section or section (Power of registration authority to refer) of that Act, apply in relation to the list kept under section 1 above as it applies in relation to the list kept under section 70 of that Act, but as if the reference in subsection (7)(b) to vulnerable adults were a reference to children.
(2) Section 72(4)10 (7) of that Act (employment agencies and businesses: duty to refer) shall, in the case of any reference under subsection (1) of that section, apply in relation to the list kept under section 1 above as it applies in relation to the list kept under section 70 of that Act, but as if the reference in subsection (7)(b) to vulnerable adults were references to children.
(2A) Section (Individuals named in the findings of certain inquiries) of the Care Standards Act 2000 shall apply in relation to the list kept under section 1 above as it applies in relation to the list kept under section 70 of that Act, but as if the references in subsections (1)(c)(ii) and (5)(b) to vulnerable adults were references to children.")
167 Page 52, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert ("this section provisionally include an individual in the list kept under section 1 above, or confirm his inclusion in the that list, unless he provisionally includes him in the list kept under section 70 of the Care Standards Act 2000 or, as the case requires, confirms his inclusion in that list.")
168 Page 52, line 18, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section")
169 Page 52, line 24, leave out ("section 71 or 72") and insert ("Part VI")
170 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
Individuals Providing Care Funded By Direct Payments
(" .—(1) After section 2C of the 1999 Act (inserted by section 81) there is inserted—
"Local Authorities Proposing To Make Direct Payments In Respect Of Services
2D.—(1) A local authority may refer a relevant individual to the Secretary of State where, as a result of enquiries made, or caused to be made, by it under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, the authority considers that the individual has been guilty of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm.
(2) Section 2(4) to (7) above shall apply in relation to a reference made by a local authority under subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to a reference made by an organisation under section 2(1) above.
(3) In this section—
"funded care" means care in respect of a person's securing the provision of which the authority has made a payment under section 17A of the Children Act 1989 (direct payments);
"relevant individual" means an individual who is or has been employed to provide funded care to a child.
(4) The reference in subsection (1) above to misconduct is to misconduct which occurred after the commencement of this section."
(2) In section 7 of that Act (effect of inclusion in certain statutory lists), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where—
the authority shall, if the recipient asks it to do so, ascertain whether the individual is included in any of the lists mentioned in subsection (1) above."
(3) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Where a local authority is required under subsection (1A) above to ascertain whether an individual who has been supplied as mentioned in subsection (2) above is included in any of the lists there mentioned, there is sufficient compliance with subsection (1A) above if the authority—
(4) In section 1(2)(a) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to keep list), after "or 2A" there is inserted "or 2D".")
171 After Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
Transfer From Consultancy Service Index Of Individuals Named In Past Inquiries
(" .—(1) Section 3 of the 1999 Act (inclusion in list on transfer from Consultancy Service Index) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "This section" there shall be substituted "Subsections (2) and (3) below" and in paragraph (a), for "this section" there shall be substituted "section 1 above".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) Subsections (5) and (6) below apply where—
(5) The Secretary of State shall—
(6) The Secretary of State shall include the individual in the list kept by him under section 1 above if, after he has considered the report, any observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant, he is of the opinion—
(7) In this section—
"relevant employer", in relation to an individual named in the report of a relevant inquiry, means the person who, at the time referred to in the definition of "relevant misconduct" below, employed the individual in a child care position;
"relevant inquiry" has the same meaning as in section 2B above"
"relevant misconduct" means misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm and was committed (whether or not in the course of his employment) at a time when the individual was employed in a child care position."").
172 After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—
Temporary Provision For Access To Lists
(" .—(1) Any person seeking to ascertain whether a relevant individual is included in—
shall be entitled to that information on making, before the relevant commencement, an application for the purpose to the Secretary of State.
(2) In this section "relevant individual" means—
(3) The relevant commencement is—
(4) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) are without prejudice to any right conferred otherwise than by virtue of those provisions.")
173 After Clause 84, insert the following new clause—
Part V Of The Police Act 1997: Further Provision
(" .—(1) The Police Act 1997 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 113 (criminal record certificates)—
"(3E) The references in subsections (3A) and (3C) to suitability to be employed, supplied to work, found work or given work in a position falling within subsection (3B) or (3D) include references to suitability to be registered—
(3) In section 115 (enhanced criminal record certificates)—
(a) in subsection (5)—
(i) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
"(ea) registration under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000 (establishments and agencies);
(eb) registration under Part IV of that Act (social care workers);" and
(ii) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted—
"(h) a decision made by an adoption agency within the meaning of section 11 of the Adoption Act 1976 as to a person's suitability to adopt a child." and
(b) in subsection (6A), after "113," there shall be inserted "or his suitability to adopt a child,".")
174 Clause 85, page 54, line 30, after ("school") insert ("or college")
175 Page 55, line 20, at end insert—
(""appropriate authority" means—
176 Page 55, line 21, leave out from ("means") to ("of") in line 22 and insert ("an institution within the further education sector as defined in section 91")
177 Page 55, line 36, after ("to") insert ("an institution conducted by")
178 Page 55, line 45, after ("is") insert ("an institution within the further education sector, as defined in section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, or")
179 Clause 87, page 57, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Before issuing a statement, or an amended statement which in the opinion of the Secretary of State effects a substantial change in the standards, the Secretary of State shall consult any persons he considers appropriate.").
180 Clause 89, page 58, line 24, leave out from ("means") to ("of") in line 25 and insert ("an institution within the further education sector as defined in section 91")
181 Page 58, line 28, at end insert—
(""further education corporation" has the same meaning as in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992."")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 139 to 181.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 139 to 181.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
182 After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
Charges For Local Authority Welfare Services
(". In Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committee), there shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
"Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (c. 41)
| |
Section 17, so far as relating to services provided under the enactments mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (c)
| Charges for local authority welfare services".") |
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 182.I shall speak also to Amendment No. 289.
These amendments concern statutory guidance on charges for home care. We have debated these matters on a number of occasions, particularly in relation to the various reports. I refer in particular to the Audit Commission reports concerning the variation in charges by local authorities. It is clear that people in similar circumstances in different parts of the country can find that they are paying nothing or over £100 per week for the same level of services. The Audit Commission report, published in May, highlighted the full extent of variations. While there are arguments for local discretion to local councils to take account of local circumstances, real problems come about, as the Audit Commission identified, when charging policies in some councils are not fully thought through and not properly related to the aims of social care in the authority. Action has had to be taken to ensure that we consider ways in which we can reduce those variations. That is why we propose the new clause in Amendment No. 182 to allow statutory guidance to be issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 on home care charges. Amendment No. 289 amends the long title of the Bill accordingly. It might be helpful if I inform the House that we hope to consult on draft guidance to be issued in the autumn, with final guidance to be issued by April 2001. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 182.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)Midnight
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak on this matter. This is perhaps one of the most important underpinning elements of the Bill. Unfortunately, now is not the time to discuss it in any great length. That is not because it is about to chime midnight and some of us might turn into pumpkins, but because of the statements made earlier this afternoon about the Comprehensive Spending Review and, more importantly, the statement which will be made in a few days time concerning the Government's response to the Royal Commission on the future of long-term care, which will have a fundamental impact on the whole of the care economy. To discuss this matter at any length tonight would therefore be premature and foolish.
However, before I sit down I should like to say to the Minister that we welcome the fact that the guidance will be statutory. Perhaps I may return to a concern I raised at the beginning of the debate on the Bill on one of the most crucial factors; that is, resources. It is perhaps timely that as we come to the end of this long debate we return to focus on resources. No matter what duties are placed on local authorities by the Government—there are many; they emanate increasingly from the Minister's department—the capacity of local authorities to make a real difference to older and disabled people in terms of practical help is ultimately a matter of resources. It is good to focus our attention on that. It would not be right to say any more now. However, with those few brief words I hope I have conveyed the spirit of the way in which we welcome the new amendment to the Bill.My Lords, I fully accept the construction placed on this by the noble Baroness. This can have an impact on overall local authority finances. I shall not go down the route of describing the Government's generous allocation to local authorities. I agree that we need to await further announcements. Perhaps I may also say that, although finance is a consideration, there are other factors which suggest that some local authorities have not done the job properly. There are issues concerning transparency and how charging relates to overall policy. I believe that statutory guidance here is warmly welcomed and will lead to vast improvements to many people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
183 Clause 97, page 61, line 14, at end insert—
("In subsection (2) and this subsection, references to the Secretary of State include the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 183.
I am sure noble Lords will be aware that this large group of amendments, which I shall speak to, concerns various technical matters which are minor and consequential. I seek the guidance of the House as to whether noble Lords would like me to go into those in more detail—No.
or whether they would prefer me to move them formally. Perhaps I may move them formally.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 183.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
184 Clause 97, page 61, line 15, leave out ("The following subsections") and insert ("Subsections (5) to (7)")
185 Page 61, line 16, leave out ("or the Assembly") and insert (", the Assembly or the appropriate Minister")
186 Page 61, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) The provision which, by virtue of subsection (7), may be made by regulations under the Part of this Act which relates to the Children's Commissioner for Wales includes provision amending or repealing any enactment or instrument.")
187 Clause 98, page 61, line 39, leave out ("or instrument")
188 Clause 100, page 62, line 9, after ("England,") insert ("Scotland or Northern Ireland.")
189 Page 62, line 10, at end insert—
("and in relation to England and Wales means the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly")
190 Page 62, line 11, at end insert—
(""community home" has the same meaning as in the 1989 Act;")
191 Page 62, line 15, at end insert—
(""enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);")
192 Page 62, line 15, at end insert—
(""to foster a child privately" has the same meaning as in the 1989 Act;")
193 Page 62, line 24, leave out ("mental disorder and")
194 Page 62, line 27, at end insert—
(""local authority foster parent" has the same meaning as in the 1989 Act;")
195 Page 62, line 41, leave out ("only")
196 Page 62, line 42, after ("State") insert ("or the Assembly)")
197 Page 63, line 16, leave out from ("if") to end of line 18 and insert—
("( ) his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired;
( ) he has a mental disorder; or
( ) he is physically substantially disabled by any illness, any impairment present since birth, or otherwise;")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 184 to 197.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 184 to 197.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendment
198 Clause 100, page 63, line 22, leave out from ("care"") to ("does") in line 23
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 198. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 200.
These are technical changes to the definitions at the end of the Bill but are extremely important to the workings of the legislation. The amendments deal with the definition of personal care used in the Bill. The definition of personal care is important to the effect of the requirement for certain establishments and agencies to register with the national care standards commission. Personal care is defined in the Registered Homes Act 1984 as,That definition has been interpreted, following a High Court judgment—Harrison v. Cornwall—as meaning that personal care could include emotional or psychiatric care as well as physical care. The intention of the original definition in the Bill was to reflect that interpretation and not to end up with either a wider or narrower definition than the one that applies now. However, as your Lordships may be aware, there has been a great deal of concern as to whether the definition in Clause 100 would extend the definition more widely than currently applies. The fear has come in the main from those who provide sheltered housing schemes and similar arrangements. Their concern is that they would find themselves required to register as care homes. A similar point was raised about this definition by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In our discussions it has never been our intention to extend the definition, nor to require organisations such as sheltered housing schemes to register as care homes. We endeavoured to reassure people about this. But one has to record that there has been considerable worry and it has particularly focused on possible loss of DSS benefits. It has become clear that an amendment to the Bill would be necessary to provide the necessary reassurance. The reference to "advice and encouragement" has therefore been removed from the definition through Amendment No. 198 and a further amendment, Amendment No. 200, has been made to replicate the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984. My honourable friend Mr John Hutton explained fully the intention behind these amendments in Commons Committee, and in particular made clear that the interpretation set out in the Harrison v. Cornwall judgment was intended to apply. We believe that this has now settled the concerns on this issue and I hope that noble Lords will be willing to accept the amendments. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 198.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)"care which includes assistance with bodily functions where such assistance is required".
My Lords, without penetrating too deeply into the legal thickets of this amendment, we will take the Minister's word that taking out "advice and encouragement" from the statute but essentially having it implied by a case is a more satisfactory solution. I confess that, even though I am a lawyer, I am not half-way to understanding why that should be so.
My Lords, I have extensive notes which I desisted from repeating. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with that information. It may make it a little clearer.
My Lords, that would be helpful. The Minister is threatening me with a long speech which, without being discourteous, I am sure none of us wishes to hear. But in the context of discussions on personal and nursing care, which I am sure we will all have as a result of hearing the Government's response to the Royal Commission, that would help us to clarify the situation.
In closing on this amendment, and since there is no further opportunity, I thank the Minister on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lady Barker for his conduct on this Bill. We have had our disagreements. We had a few votes on the Bill, though not many. In the main we have been united in wanting to see this Bill through and its purposes, which are extremely important, fulfilled. I thank the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for their courtesy and great flexibility throughout the passage of the Bill.My Lords, I should like to associate myself and my noble friend Lord Howe with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said.
My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate those very kind remarks. This Bill is a tremendous Bill, and one that will lead not only to very great improvement both in terms of the standards of care for many people in this country but also—and we should not forget this—in enhancing the status and quality of social workers and other people in social care.
It has been a delight to take this Bill through your Lordships' House. There has been a great deal of consensus. I am most grateful for all the contributions that have been made. The Bill has, undoubtedly, been enormously improved. On Question, Motion agreed to.Commons Amendments
199 Clause 100, page 63, line 24, at end insert—
200 Page 63, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) An establishment is not a care home for the purposes of this Act unless the care which it provides includes assistance with bodily functions where such assistance is required.")
201 Page 63, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Act an individual is made redundant if—
202 Page 63, line 40, at end insert—
("Commissioner
| Section (Children's Commissioner for Wales)") |
203 Clause 102, page 64, line 17, leave out subsection (5)
204 Schedule 1, page 67, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 15 and insert—
("( ) An authority may make arrangements with persons under which they, or members of their staff, may perform functions of members of the staff of the authority")
205 Page 69, line 21, leave out ("and")
206 Page 69, line 25, at end insert ("and
( ) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 (audit of Welsh public bodies), at the end there shall be inserted "(other than the Care Council for Wales)".")
207 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("The Children's Commissioner For Wales
Status
1.—(1) The Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.
(2) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as the servant or agent or the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Commissioner's property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
Appointment And Tenure Of Office
2. Regulations may make provision—
Remuneration
3. The Assembly shall—
as may be provided for under the terms of his appointment.
Staff
4.—(1) The Commissioner may appoint any staff he considers necessary for assisting him in the exercise of his functions, one of whom shall be appointed as deputy Commissioner.
(2) During any vacancy in the office of Commissioner or at any time when the Commissioner is for any reason unable to act, the deputy Commissioner shall exercise his functions (and any property or rights vested in the Commissioner may accordingly be dealt with by the deputy as if vested in him).
(3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2), any member of the Commissioner's staff may, so far as authorised by him, exercise any of his functions.
General Powers
5.—(1) Subject to any directions given by the Assembly, the Commissioner may do anything which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of his functions.
(2) That includes, in particular—
Estimates
6.—(1) For each financial year after the first, the Commissioner shall prepare, and submit to the executive committee, an estimate of his income and expenses.
(2) Each such estimate shall be submitted to the executive committee at least five months before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates.
(3) The executive committee shall examine each such estimate submitted to it and, after having done so, shall lay the estimate before the Assembly with any such modifications as the committee thinks fit.
(4) Regulations shall specify the periods which are to be treated as the first and subsequent financial years of the Commissioner.
(5) In this paragraph and paragraph 10 "executive committee" has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
Accounts
7.—(1) The Commissioner shall keep proper accounting records.
(2) The Commissioner shall prepare accounts for each financial year in such form as the Assembly may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
Reports
8. Regulations may provide for the Commissioner to make periodic or other reports to the Assembly relating to the exercise of his functions and may require the reports to be published in the manner required by the regulations.
Audit
9.—(1) The accounts prepared by the Commissioner for any financial year shall be submitted by him to the Auditor General for Wales not more than five months after the end of that year.
(2) The Auditor General for Wales shall—
(3) In examining any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall, in particular, satisfy himself that the expenditure to which the accounts relate has been incurred lawfully and in accordance with the authority which governs it.
Accounting Officer
10.—(1) The accounting officer for the Commissioner's Office shall be the Commissioner.
(2) The accounting officer for the Commissioner shall have, in relation to the accounts of the Commissioner and the finances of the Commissioner's Office, the responsibilities which are from time to time specified by the Treasury.
(3) In this paragraph references to responsibilities include in particular—
(4) The responsibilities which may be specified under this paragraph include responsibilities owed to—
(5) If requested to do so by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, the Audit Committee may—
(6) In this paragraph and paragraphs 11 and 12 "the Commissioner's Office" means the Commissioner and the members of his staff.
Examinations Into Use Of Resources
11.—(1) The Auditor General for Wales may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Commissioner has used the resources of the Commissioner's Office in discharging his functions.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Commissioner.
(3) In determining how to exercise his functions under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee as to the examinations which he should carry out under this paragraph.
(4) The Auditor General for Wales may lay before the Assembly a report of the results of any examination carried out by him under this paragraph.
(5) The Auditor General for Wales and the Comptroller and Auditor General may co-operate with, and give assistance to, each other in connection with the carrying out of examinations in respect of the Commissioner under this paragraph or section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).
Examinations By The Comptroller And Auditor General
12.—(1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the finances of the Commissioner's Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General—
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—
before he acts in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Commissioner under section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).
Evidence
13. A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Commissioner or to be signed by him or on his behalf is to be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, taken to be so executed or signed.
Payments
14. The Assembly may make payments to the Commissioner of such amounts, at such times and on such conditions (if any) as it considers appropriate.
General
15. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part III of Schedule 1 (certain disqualifying offices), the following entries are inserted at the appropriate places—
"Children's Commissioner for Wales."
"Member of the staff of the Children's Commissioner for Wales."
16. In the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, the same entries as are set out in paragraph 16 are inserted at the appropriate places in Part III of Schedule 1.
17.—(1) Regulations may provide that the office of Children's Commissioner for Wales shall be added to the list of "Offices" in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (offices etc. to which section 1 of that Act applies).
(2) The Assembly shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to provision made under sub-paragraph (1) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
18. In section 144 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (accounts etc.), in subsection (8)(a), after "the Welsh Administration Ombudsman" there shall be inserted "the Children's Commissioner for Wales".")
208 Schedule 2, page 70, line 7, leave out ("in")
209 Page 70, line 8, at beginning insert ("in")
210 Page 70, line 9, at beginning insert ("in")
211 Page 70, leave out line 10 and insert—
("( ) as a patient in a hospital (within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000);")
212 Page 70, leave out lines 11 and 12
213 Page 70, line 13, at beginning insert ("in")
214 Schedule 3, page 72, line 17, at end insert—
("National Assistance Act 1948 (C29)
.—(1) Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (provision of accommodation in premises maintained by voluntary organisations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "(1B)" there shall be substituted "(1C)".
(3) For subsections (1A) and (1B) there shall be substituted—
"(1A) Arrangements must not be made by virtue of this section for the provision of accommodation together with nursing or personal care for persons such as are mentioned in section 3(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (care homes) unless—
(4) In subsection (1C), for the words from "no" to "person" there shall be substituted "no arrangements may be made by virtue of this section for the provision of accommodation together with nursing".
Mental Health Act 1959 (C72)
. In section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (sexual intercourse with patients)—
"(6) In this section "independent hospital" and "care home" have the same meanings as in the Care Standards Act 2000."").
215 Page 72, line 30, at end insert—
("Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (C42)
. In Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committee), in the entry relating to the 1989 Act, for "registered" there shall be substituted "private" and for "residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes or in independent schools" there shall be substituted "care homes, independent hospitals or schools".
216 Page 72, line 44, at end insert ("and for "residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes or in independent schools" there shall be substituted "care homes, independent hospitals or schools"")
217 Page 73, line 18, leave out ("and")
218 Page 73, line 25, at end insert ("and
( ) in subsection (4), after "(2)" there shall be inserted "or (3)".")
219 Page 74, line 5, at end insert—
("Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (C 43)
. In Schedule 6 to the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (fees), in the entry relating to family proceedings, in the paragraph relating to the Children Act 1989, for "Part X" there shall be substituted "Part XA".")
220 Page 74, line 5, at end insert—
("Limitation Act 1980 (C58)
. In section 38 of the Limitation Act 1980 (interpretation)—
221 Page 74, line 7, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Mental Health Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
( ) In sections 12(3), 23(3), 24(3), 46(1), 64(1), 119(2), 120(1) and (4), 131(1), 132(1), (2) and (4) and 133(1), for "mental nursing home" and "mental nursing homes" in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted, respectively, "registered establishment" and "registered establishments".")
222 Page 74, line 7, leave out ("of the Mental Health Act 1983")
223 Page 74, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In section 34—
(a) in subsection (1), after the definition of "the nominated medical attendant" there shall be inserted—
""registered establishment" means an establishment—
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "a mental" to "1984" there shall be substituted "a registered establishment".
( ) In section 116(1) (welfare of certain hospital patients), for "or nursing home" there shall be substituted ", independent hospital or care home".
( ) In section 118(1) (code of practice)—
( ) In section 121 (Mental Health Act Commission)—
( ) In section 127(1) (ill-treatment of patients), for "or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted ", independent hospital or care home".
( ) In section 135(6) (warrant to search for and remove patients) for "a mental nursing home or residential home" there shall be substituted "an independent hospital or care home".")
224 Page 74, line 10, leave out ("of that Act")
225 Page 74, line 10, after ("(interpretation)") insert—
("( ) after the definition of "approved social worker" there shall be inserted—
""care home" has the same meaning as in the Care Standards Act 2000";
( ) after the definition of "hospital order" and "guardianship order" there shall be inserted—
""independent hospital" has the same meaning as in the Care Standards Act 2000;"
( )")
226 Page 74, line 11, leave out from ("managers",") to end of line 12 and insert ("for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) in relation to a registered establishment, the person or persons registered in respect of the establishment;" and.
( ) after the definition of "Primary Care Trust" there shall be inserted—
""registered establishment" has the meaning given in section 34 above;"").
227 Page 74, line 12, at end insert—
("Public Health (Control Of Disease) Act 1984 (C22)
. In section 7(4) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (port health district and authority for Port of London), paragraphs (h) and (i) and the "and" following paragraph (i) shall be omitted.")
228 Page 74, line 24, at end insert—
("Income And Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (C40)
. In section 155A(6) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (care for children), after "section 71" there shall be inserted "or Part XA".")
229 Page 74, line 27, leave out ("19(1)(c) (review of provision of day care),") and insert ("19 (review of provision of day care, child minding etc.)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c),")
230 Page 74, line 28, at end insert ("and
(b) in subsection (5), for the definition of "relevant establishment" there shall be substituted—
""relevant establishment" means—
231 Page 74, line 31, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(e)")
232 Page 74, line 32, after ("home;"") insert—
("( ) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Where under subsection (2)(aa) a local authority maintains a child in a home provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State under section 82(5), it shall do so on such terms as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine."").
233 Page 74, line 39, after ("children),") insert ("as it has effect before the commencement of section 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000—
(a)")
234 Page 74, line 40, at end insert ("and
("(b) in subsections (2)(d)(ii)) and (l2)(c), for "residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "care home or independent hospital".
( ) In section 24 (persons qualifying for advice and assistance) as it has effect after that commencement—
( ) In section 24C(2) (information)—
235 Page 74, line 43, leave out ("59(1)") and insert ("59")
236 Page 74, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (1),")
237 Page 74, line 44, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(e)")
238 Page 74, line 45, at end insert ("and
( ) after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where under subsection (1)(aa) a local authority maintains a child in a home provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State under section 82(5), it shall do so on such terms as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine."")
239 Page 74, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) In section 60 (registration and regulation of voluntary homes)—
"(3) In this Act "voluntary home" means a children's home which is carried on by a voluntary organisation but does not include a community home."")
240 Page 75, line 8, leave out ("63(11) (which introduces Schedule 6)") and insert ("63 (children not to be cared for and accommodated in unregistered children's homes)—
241 Page 75, line 9, at end insert ("and
(c) in subsection (12), after "treated" there shall be inserted ", for the purposes of this Act and the Care Standards Act 2000,".")
242 Page 75, line 19, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 20 and insert ("for subsection (3)(b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) the applicant's right to appeal under section 65A against the refusal to").
243 Page 75, line 23, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section and section 65A")
244 Page 75, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) After section 65 there is inserted—
"Appeal Against Refusal Of Authority To Give Consent Under Section 65
65A.—(1) An appeal against a decision of an appropriate authority under section 65 shall lie to the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999.
(2) On an appeal the Tribunal may confirm the authority's decision or direct it to give the consent in question."").
245 Page 75, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In section 66 (privately fostered children)—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the circumstances in which a person who provides accommodation to a child is, or is not, to be treated as providing him with accommodation in the person's own home."")
246 Page 75, line 34, after ("home") insert ("or independent hospital")
247 Page 75, line 42, leave out ("81(1)(d) (inquiries)") and insert ("81(1) (inquiries)—
(a) in paragraph (d)")
248 Page 75, line 42, at end insert ("and—
(b) in paragraph (e), for "a residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "a care home or independent hospital".
( ) In section 82(6) (financial support by Secretary of State), in the definition of "child care training", for "residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "care home or independent hospital".
( ) In section 83 (research and returns of information), in subsections (1)(c), (2)(c) and (3)(a)(ii), for "residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "care home or independent hospital".
( ) In section 86—
( ) For the sidenote to section 87 (welfare of children accommodated in independent schools) there shall be substituted "Welfare of children in boarding schools and colleges".")
249 Page 75, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 102(6)(a) (power of constable to assist in exercise of certain powers to search for children or inspect premises), after "76," there shall be inserted "79U,".")
250 Page 75, leave out line 43 and insert—
("( ) In section 105 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—")
251 Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) in the definition of "day care", after "care"" there shall be inserted "(except in Part XA)";")
252 Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) in the definition of "hospital", after "hospital" there is inserted "(except in Schedule 9A)";")
253 Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) after the definition of "income-based job-seeker's allowance" there shall be inserted—
""independent hospital" has the same meaning as in the Care Standards Act 2000;";").
254 Page 76, line 7, leave out from ("home;"") to end of line 10
255 Page 76, line 10, at end insert—
("(b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) References in this Act to a child minder shall be construed—
256 Page 76, line 10, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 3 (supervision orders), in paragraphs 4(2)(c)(ii) and 5(2)(c), for "or mental nursing home" there is substituted ", independent hospital or care home".")
257 Page 76, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 19
258 Page 76, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 (foster parents: limit on number of foster children), after "treated" there shall be inserted ", for the purposes of this Act and the Care Standards Act 2000".")
259 Page 76, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 8 (privately fostered children)—
"But this sub-paragraph does not apply to a school which is an appropriate children's home."")
260 Page 76, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) For paragraph 2(1)(f) of Schedule 8 (privately fostered children) there shall be substituted—
"(f) in any care home or independent hospital;".").
261 Page 76, line 31, at end insert—
("Criminal Procedure (Insanity And Unfitness To Plead) Act 1991 (C25)
. In paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 (supervision and treatment orders), for "hospital or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "independent hospital or care home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 or in a hospital".")
262 Page 76, line 33, leave out ("61") and insert ("61(2)")
263 Page 76, leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert ("for the words from "voluntary" to the end there shall be substituted "persons carrying on an appropriate children's home for the provision or use by them of such accommodation".")
264 Page 76, line 40, at end insert—
("Water Industry Act 1991 (C56)
. In Schedule 4A to the Water Industry Act 1991 (premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of charges), for paragraphs 8 and 9 there shall be substituted—
"8.—(1) A care home or independent hospital.
(2) In this paragraph—
"care home" means—
"independent hospital" means an independent hospital within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000.
9. A children's home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000."
Local Government Finance Act 1992 (C14)
. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (persons disregarded for purposes of discount)—
"(2) In this paragraph—
"care home" means—
"hostel" means anything which falls within any definition of hostel for the time being prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State under this sub-paragraph;
"independent hospital" has the same meaning as in the Care Standards Act 2000."
(d) in sub-paragraph (3), for ""mental nursing home", "nursing home" or "residential care home"" there shall be substituted ""care home" or "independent hospital"".")
265 Page 76, line 40, at end insert—
("Water Industry Act 1991 (C56)
. In Schedule 4A to the Water Industry Act 1991 (premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of charges), in paragraph 12 for "section 71(1)(b)" there shall be substituted "Part XA".")
266 Page 77, line 33, after ("registration") insert ("under"")
267 Page 77, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In section 2 (inclusion in list on reference to Secretary of State)—
268 Page 77, line 39, leave out ("7(2)") and insert ("7")
269 Page 77, line 40, after ("1988)") insert—
("(a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where a child care organisation discovers that an individual employed by it in a child care position is included in any of the lists mentioned in subsection (1) above, it shall cease to employ him in a child care position.
For the purposes of this subsection an individual is not employed in a child care position if he has been suspended or provisionally transferred to a position which is not a child care position." and.
(b) in subsection (2),")
270 Page 78, line 3, leave out ("65 of or paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to") and insert ("65A of")
271 Page 78, line 20, leave out ("12(1),") and insert ("12 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i)")
272 Page 78, line 22, at end insert ("and
(ii) after the definition of "harm" there shall be inserted—
""local authority" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;";").
273 Page 78, line 22, at end insert ("and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of this Act, an individual is made redundant if—
274 Page 78, leave out lines 23 and 24
275 Page 78, line 40, at end insert—
("Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6)
. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 shall be amended as follows.
. In paragraph 5(3)(a) of Schedule 2 (additional requirements which may be included in probation orders), for "a hospital or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "an independent hospital or care home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 or a hospital".
. In paragraph 6(2)(a) of Schedule 6 (requirements which may be included in supervision orders), for "a hospital or mental nursing home" there shall be substituted "an independent hospital or care home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 or a hospital".")
276 Page 78, line 40, at end insert—
("Amendments Of Local Acts
.—(1) Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981 (exemption from provisions of Part IV of the Act of certain premises) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (g) there shall be substituted—
"(g) used as a care home, or an independent hospital, within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000;"
(3) For paragraphs (gg) and (h) there shall be substituted—
"(gg) used as a children's home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 which is a home in respect of which a person is registered under Part II of that Act;"
(4) Paragraph (j) shall be omitted.
.—(1) Section 10(2) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 (exemption from provisions of Part IV of the Act of certain premises) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) used as a care home, or an independent hospital, within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000;"
(3) For paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
"(d) used as a children's home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 which is a home in respect of which a person is registered under Part II of that Act;"
(4) Paragraphs (f) and (1) shall be omitted.")
277 Schedule 4, page 79, line 16, at end insert—
("Children's Commissioner For Wales
.—(1) The Part of this Act which relates to the Children's Commissioner for Wales has effect, in relation to times before the commencement of any other relevant provision of this Act, as if references—
were or included references to services which would be regulated children's services in Wales, or (as the case may be) to the person who would be the provider, if that provision were in force.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) has effect subject to any provision made under sections 97 or 98.")
278 Schedule 5, page 80, line 6, at end insert—
("1981 c. xvii.
| Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981. | Section 16(j). |
| 1983 c. 20. | The Mental Health Act 1983 | In section 145(1), the definition of "mental nursing home".") |
279 Page 80, line 9, at end insert—
("1984 c. 22.
| Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. | In section 7(4), paragraphs (h) and (i) and the "and" following paragraph (i).") |
280 Page 80, line 11, at end insert—
("1984 c. xxvii.
| Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984. | Section 10(2)(f) and (1).") |
281 Page 80, line 25, column 3, after ("of") insert (""child minder",")
282 Page 80, line 25, column 3, after ("of") insert (""mental nursing home"")
283 Page 80, column 3, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("9") in line 39
284 Page 80, line 43, column 3, after ("Schedule 8,") insert ("paragraph 2(1)(b) and")
285 Page 80, line 47, column 3, at end insert (", in paragraph 73, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and in paragraph 74, sub-paragraphs (2) and (4)")
286 Page 81, column 3, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—
| ("Section 13(3) and (4).") |
287 In the Title, line 5, after second ("agencies") insert (", nurses agencies")
288 Line 10, after ("workers;") insert ("to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales;")
289 Line 15, after ("1957;") insert ("to amend Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970;")
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 199 to 289.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 199 to 289.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.) On Question, Motion agreed to. An amendment (privilege) made. House adjourned at ten minutes past midnight.