Education in Inner London

HL Deb 04 February 1988 vol 492 cc1213-28

4.36 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the organisation of education in inner London.

"The Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at an acceptable cost.

"ILEA has patently not done that. Its spending is profligate; its service is poor. Between 1981 and 1988 its spending increased from about £700 million to over £1 billion—while over the same period its pupil numbers have fallen by 15 per cent. It now spends 52 per cent. per pupil more than the outer London boroughs; 45 per cent. more than Manchester; and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham: cities with problems comparable to those of London. This increase in expenditure has in no way been reflected in improved pupil performance, which remains disappointingly low. There is now an urgent need for change.

"ILEA's failure is partly a failure of political will but, it is also a product of its unmanageable size. Its administration is cumbersome, excessively costly and too distant from its clients. The Government want to improve standards of education in London and to bring costs under control. We decided that the way to do this was to enable each inner London council to become the local education authority for its area.

"Our proposals arc incorporated in Part III of the Education Reform Bill. Three boroughs have already stated their intention to apply for LEA status; other boroughs are known to be considering similar action. But as this positive response to our proposals has emerged there has been a growing view that our objectives would be better achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions in inner London.

"The Government have reviewed these developments and have concluded that the time is now right to carry through the logic of their proposals in the interests of better standards and of orderly progress. We therefore propose to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill, while it is before the Standing Committee, to wind up ILEA and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1st April 1990.

"We propose that the arrangements for transfer-ring functions should follow closely those established at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

"A staff commission will be established to facilitate the process of staff transfer. All LEA teaching and non-teaching staff working at individual schools and colleges will transfer by order to the employment of the council concerned. Where appropriate, detriment or redundancy compensation will be available on the terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

"The arrangements for property transfer will be broadly those set out in the Education Reform Bill. It is likely that the London Residuary Body will be employed to deal with assets which cannot be allocated between boroughs.

"The Education Reform Bill already contains certain counter-obstruction safeguards to protect the interest of the local councils which will be assuming education functions. We shall strengthen these safeguards, introducing the same sanctions as were included in the legislation abolishing the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils.

"The Government propose that each local council should be required to publish in 1989 as a basis for local consultation a development plan setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the service it would propose to run. The Government will issue statutory guidance on the subjects to be covered by such development plans which will provide the basis for property and staff transfer orders.

"I recognise that some co-operation will be needed between inner London councils for the maintenance of certain aspects of education provision. I hope that in most cases such co-operation will be secured through voluntary arrangements; these might in certain circumstances need to take the form of joint education committees, requiring my approval under existing powers. Were it to become necessary, there are also powers under the Education Act 1944 to enable me to require groups of boroughs to establish joint education committees in respect of particular functions.

"The Government propose to maintain rigorous pressure to control ILEA's expenditure over the next two years. We attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children. They and their parents have a right to something better. The Government's proposals set out the basis for a more cost effective and responsive education service for inner London."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness David

My Lords, convention impels me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I have to say that we are deeply shocked by it; we are shocked by the timing and, indeed, by the leaks that have gone on. Since last Friday there have been unseemly debates in the media leading to a major change of policy. In the week when the Education Reform Bill has been guillotined in another place and a timetable agreed for discussion of the remaining clauses, among which are the clauses on ILEA, surely a separate Bill is called for. The proposal comes at a time of heavy legislation when Parliament is already under pressure from an overloaded programme. This proposal was not in the Conservative Party manifesto, nor in the Queen's Speech. The Government have no mandate for it. Have the parents been consulted about this? Have the Churches been consulted about this? Have the teaching staff been consulted about this? The Government have made much of parental involvement in the Education Reform Bill. What parental involvement has there been in this sudden decision?

I remind noble Lords that there was a very full discussion three years ago when the GLC abolition Bill was going through Parliament. It was decided that ILEA should be a directly elected authority. What has happened since then and indeed in the last eight weeks since the Education Reform Bill was published to trigger off such a fundamental change?

ILEA has been criticised for excessive expenditure. The cost per secondary pupil at ILEA is just over £2,000. The DES is paying for assisted places at Westminster School, costing just over £4,000 a place, and at St. Paul's School, costing just under £4,000 a place. ILEA's size is mentioned in the Statement. This has been accepted by four reviews in the last 10 years, three of them done by this Government. I remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said as the then Secretary of State for Education: The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/84; col. 1124.] I repeat, The nature, scale and importance". The effect of the Statement is that the education service in inner London will be handed over, not back, to boroughs with no experience of running an education authority and, some would think, not capable of carrying out such a function. For instance, Kensington and Chelsea would have just one county secondary school in its area. At the same time these councils will be coping with the administration of the poll tax, with new housing legislation and with the privatisation of their services. As to the quality of education, a recent poll in Wandsworth, which I remind noble Lords is a Conservative council, showed a high level of satisfaction by parents with ILEA schools in both primary and secondary education. Over 80 per cent. of parents said that they were satisfied with academic standards.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions. What will happen to special education, adult education and further education in which ILEA has such a good record when this legislation has gone through, if it does go through? Inner city problems may well be exacerbated by the abolition of ILEA. The Government are supposed to be taking a special interest in inner city problems. I suspect that children in inner London are likely to be the sufferers from this political act. Perhaps I may mention the Centre for Young Musicians, which is held at Pimlico School. What will happen to such provisions where children from all over London assemble for the most wonderful teaching and performance?

Have the Government thought through these proposals and their implications? The answer must be no.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister in a qualified way for repeating the Statement. I do not think that I have ever been impolite in your Lordships' House hitherto, but I propose to be now, at the expense not of noble Lords but of the Government's proposal.

Let us be frank and say first that the Government have never liked ILEA. It is a large organisation controlled by Opposition parties. That of course does not please them. Now they feel like Macbeth: With barefaced power sweep him from my sight". If small boroughs control education throughout London the Government will more easily be able to control them and will be in a position to divide and rule, which seems to be their growing policy. It will also be convenient for the London Residuary Body to be able to empty County Hall at last, a matter that has been bugging that body for some time past.

As the noble Baroness said, the idea is not a new one. It has been discussed a number of times under this Government in three reviews, to which the Minister referred. On each occasion it was concluded that a unitary education authority was the best for London. The most recent occasion was when the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, concluded that inner boroughs will not have the right to opt out. He said: The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for Inner London". That was only just over three years ago.

In 1985 the Local Government Act established the authority as a directly elected body. It is not two years since the first election. Why the change? We are now told that this will happen within a Bill already before Parliament in which we have been considering very different proposals—to the effect that the boroughs should opt out independently. Now, with the minimum time, we have to consider this much more drastic proposal.

No reference was made in last summer's consultation papers to any detailed study on which the current proposals were based. When I speak of the current proposals, I mean either the proposal for boroughs to opt out individually or for this much more drastic measure. No reference was made in the consultation papers to any research or consultation that has occurred.

I cannot refute offhand the figures quoted in this Statement, but I know that ILEA, for all its faults, has done much excellent work in the time of its existence. I am thinking in particular of the research that it has done: such things as the Fish report into the problems, diagnosis and remediation of children with special education needs. How can this sort of report covering the whole of London be carried out by individual boroughs? Much imaginative and innovative work has been done by the authority. Let us remind noble Lords that it is now doing all it can to restrain the activities of the unions which have caused so much trouble. I am thinking in particular of the Inner London Teaching Association, which the authority is now trying very hard to control.

London has been under a unitary education authority for well over 100 years, since my grandfather introduced the local government Bill in the other place in the 1880s. Throughout the years it was considered that the LCC was a highly efficient organisation, so the reference to the sphere of its control being too great seems to be quite untrue.

What will happen to the poor and deprived boroughs without the cross-subsidy which the Inner London Education Authority was operating? Can one imagine Kensington and Chelsea voluntarily subsidising Hackney? Is the Minister aware that some boroughs are in a state of administrative and financial chaos? Will any research be done to discover whether boroughs are fit to take on full responsibility for education within their bounds? How many councils want to opt out? Has that been discovered? There was a vague pronouncement in the Statement that a number of councils were thinking of it. Of course they are thinking of it, but they may well decide that they do not want to do so. Have the parents been consulted, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked?

Finally, I have to ask those two Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party who are apparently advocating this policy how much they know about education in London. Has this matter really been thought through? I cannot give more than the barest formality of thanks to the Minister for reading the Statement to us.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments, I must say as a preliminary how surprised I am that they were both shocked and forced to resort almost to rudeness. I find it rather difficult to discern this in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.

The whole question of the future of ILEA has been debated for some time. There has been strong feeling expressed on many sides and the Government are responding to that strong feeling, not only from people in another place who have tabled Motions but also from many experts. I think we can even quote a Member on the Opposition Benches in this House who has asked for an orderly transfer in a planned and rational fashion.

Lord Strabolgi

Name him.

Baroness Hooper

It is a "her", actually—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She has been quoted when she spoke at a conference on this matter. She told us that we should have the courage of our convictions and abolish the authority for this very reason—in order to have proper and orderly progress. However, I shall endeavour to respond to the questions raised both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if perhaps I do not get my responses in quite the right order or put them quite as gracefully as I should wish.

On the question of timing, I should like to point out that the outer London boroughs were set up largely from scratch in 1965, just 20 months after the passage of the London Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. The inner London boroughs will have a similar period in which to prepare to assume their new responsibilities, and in doing so they will have the assistance of the staff commission and the residuary body. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to set up a special unit in the department to help boroughs to prepare for the transfer of functions and to consult them about the arrangements to be made.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to our manifesto commitments and to consultation with parents, teachers and the Churches. Apart from the fact that our election manifesto brought in the principle of devolution by giving the right to boroughs to take over responsibiliity for this service, the responses that we have received are such that we have decided that this is a better way of achieving our objectives.

Apart from the fact that there was an explicit reference in the election manifesto which was warmly subscribed to by the electorate at large, there was a very recent poll on this matter. The noble Baroness referred to a poll in Wandsworth. I should like to refer to the by-election in Wandsworth which took place on 19th November last year, where this issue was brought very much to the fore by the Opposition parties and where we improved our majority. In addition, we believe that the Churches will also welcome the effort to bring in an orderly and rational scheme rather than subscribe to the accusations which we have had directed at us of allowing ILEA to wither on the bough. So there is nothing new about the proposals in terms of what will happen in ILEA. There is simply a different direction.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to special education, further education and, I believe, adult education. As regards specialist provision, of course boroughs must explain in the development plans that they put forward what they wish to do with property that they plan to take over, including plans for continuing specizalist provision. There is something I should like to add to that, because local authorities have and will have a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Smaller local education authorities in other parts of the country who do not provide a complete range of schools themselves often co-operate with neighbouring authorities and may use non-maintained special schools and independent schools. We see no reason why boroughs in the inner London area should not co-operate in the same way as boroughs in other parts of the country.

So far as concerns further education and adult education, again, we recognise that these are very important provisions. In terms of cross-boundary movement in this area, there is again perhaps an enhanced problem in the London area. Nevertheless. we believe that this will be met by the possibilities which exist for co-operation between boroughs.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, felt that small boroughs were not going to be able to cope. I should point out to him that there is, in addition to the provisions that have been made, the special unit to which I have referred, the staff commission and the London Residuary Body. Those will enable boroughs which have not had recent experience of education provision to cope. The important thrust behind all the Government's proposals in this Bill is to take back provision and responsbility for education to the grass roots.

Therefore we must look at these proposals in the light of the other proposals of the Bill; for example, the provision for the national curriculum, which will better ensure that standards are maintained on a more balanced level throughout the country, as well as the provisions for financial delegation.

There may not have been a detailed study to which we can refer in that instance—again the noble Lord raised this point—but reviews have taken place steadily over past years. There was the Marshall review in 1977 and there was the Young review in 1981. Those reviews admitted that a unitary authority might be the most appropriate way of dealing with inner London provision of education. However, I must emphasise the second paragraph of the Statement where the Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at acceptable cost.

If one can say that it is acceptable for inner London to provide 4 per cent. of the country's pupils with education costing 8 per cent. of the country's spending, if one thinks it appropriate that ILEA should employ two and a half times more administrators than the average local education authority and if one can agree that ILEA is providing a better service in spending 52 per cent. more per pupil than the outer London boroughs, 45 per cent. more than Manchester and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham, I can only say that it is my turn to be surprised.

In relation to the extravagance and liberal spending, there is little evidence of pay-off in terms of results. Nationally some 53 per cent. of school-leavers have been getting one or more higher grades at O-level; ILEA has just 43 per cent. At A-level the figures is 14 per cent. nationally and 11 per cent. in ILEA. I can even pray in aid the intentions of the present Labour leader of ILEA who has made it clear that it must improve education standards and levels of achievement. Obviously he too thinks that the provision is wanting.

We believe that we are acting in the best interests of all the children in the inner London area in making these arrangements. The arrangements that are made, the plans that are put forward, will be scrutinised very thoroughly, and every possible co-operation will be given by the Department of Education for the smooth and orderly progress of these plans.

5 p.m.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, before we lash ourselves into an emotional pother about all this perhaps I may make a brief intervention. I must confess that I was one of the putative fathers of ILEA, I think the only surviving one, from those ancient days when Mr. Macmillan was Prime Minister. In the election of 1959—which I think shows that the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps has too short a memory and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, too long a memory—our manifesto was to hand over to the boroughs the educational responsibility of the local education authorities in London. It was recognised then that a small central body would be necessary, and the intention was to make it very small.

I think I am the surviving member of the committee which was asked to say how large the central body should be. We came to the conclusion that we did not for any educational reason at all but for a perfectly practical one. Since in central London the London County Council had built its schools as a matter of bricks and mortar without reference to the borough boundaries as they then existed, still less to the boundaries as they exist now, it would be necessary to use the old LCC area as the central authority. If the conclusion is reached that the experiment has been a failure, which I think must be the case but for one question which I have to ask my learned friend, there is no reason for the extraordinary outburst of emotion to which we have been subjected.

The question I should like to ask is the bricks and mortar question. The crux of the matter lies in the question of whether by the machinery which the Statement contains, if I understood it correctly, inter-borough education committees can deal with the problem of bricks and mortar and the location at any rate of older educational institutions in central London. If those will work it seems to me this is a long overdue reform. I should like some assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench that it is thought that this is a viable approach.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is certainly true in terms of size that ILEA is the largest local education authority in England. It has therefore developed commensurately large support services. Clearly from some of the examples I have given size does not guarantee effectiveness. In fact the outer London boroughs have been responsible for education for over 20 years, and three of them, Harrow, Kingston and Barnet, achieved better examination results than anywhere else in the country. That is a very hopeful and happy prospect to which to look forward.

On the question of bricks and mortar, perhaps I can respond to my noble and learned friend by saying that boroughs will be required to explain in their development plans which institutions and which property they need to inherit in order to secure adequate provision. This applies in particular to further education, which has been mentioned, because there is a great deal of trans-boundary provision. Where colleges in particular have sites in more than one borough the Government intend that in general they should not be split up but should be assigned to the borough in which they are primarily located. But again there is scope for voluntary agreements and arrangements to be made between boroughs.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, I feel that this Statement uses a great many words to tell a very simple story. Since ILEA is to be abolished because it has a Labour majority, just as earlier the Greater London Council and earlier still the London County Council were abolished for the same reason, would it not have been more candid and courageous for the Government to tell us plainly what they are doing and why instead of trying to cover it up with this verbose camouflage?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the standard of education available in London is the paramount consideration. We believe that the continued failure of ILEA to put its house in order makes an arrangement such as we are proposing the best way of raising standards for children in inner London. I can only say that there was a lot of fuss and bother about the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, but who is missing them now?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, as High Steward and a former Member of Parliament for Kingston I should like to thank my noble friend for her graceful and kindly reference to the great education success of the Kingston Borough Council. Arising from that, does that not illustrate the extraordinary situation there has been in recent years in which large and wealthy boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea have not had education authorities, whereas education authorities have existed in much smaller places? I suggest to my noble friend that if education is to be a locally administered service, then it is absurd that such large boroughs should he excluded from the administration of education.

Is my noble friend aware that that logical approach might have been answered if ILEA had been a success? However, as she has made clear, it has been an expensive failure for both children and ratepayers. Therefore, perhaps I may thank her most warmly—and perhaps more sincerely than did the noble Baroness, Lady David—for the Statement and say that my only regret is that such a step was not taken years ago. In particular, I regret that the opportunity which was given by the Local Government Act three years ago when the matter was raised and discussed, was not taken. If it had been, we should now be rid of that monstrous organisation. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell me whether this matter will help to facilitate the eviction of the rump of the ILEA from the buildings across the river.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, to answer the last point made by my noble friend, there will no doubt be a transitional period with the continued existence of a rump. However, the process will no doubt be speeded up. I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention underlining some of the comments which have been made and indicating how important and urgent it is to get on with the job now.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the ILEA election the Labour Party won less than half the votes but more than three-quarters of the seats? Perhaps some of the problems of ILEA—like some of the problems of local Labour authorities—are created by its unrepresentative nature which is due to the addiction of the Conservative Party to a preposterously undemocratic electoral system. Will the Minister assure us that her party will learn from experience and that the idea of representative democracy will carry some weight in the future?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we are learning in relation to ILEA and I can assure the noble Lord that he will have no further problems because there will be no further elections in ILEA.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, no one could be discourteous to the Minister for the very painstaking way in which she answers our questions. However, I do not think that her amiability can disguise the fact that many of us feel that this is a most discourteous manner of proceeding. If the issue is so important—and it is; it involves the abolition of the largest and most important education authority—why is it stuffed in at the Committee stage of a Bill? Why did the Government not bring it forward in the initial stages of the Bill? Is my noble friend Baroness David not right in saying that the matter should be withdrawn and made the subject of a separate Bill when some of the proposals which are being put forward can be properly worked out?

The Minister referred to the possibility of forming joint education committees. Does she have a clear idea as to whether the poorest inner London boroughs will form local education committees? Has not the matter been discussed with them? Have the Government no clear idea of what the government and administration of the schools is to be?

I am sure that the noble Baroness shares with all of us the desire that every one of those children who are in the poorest and most deprived parts of London—that is the reason for the emotion which has been generated on this occasion—should have the best possible education. Does she realise that if we consider any of our large provincial cities, we shall find that the worst examination results are produced in the poorest areas of the city and the best examination results are produced in the Kingstons of the city? If noble Lords do not appreciate that, then they do not understand the fundamental problem.

I ask the Minister to take the matter back to the Government and say that the proposal needs much more careful working out and thought. If we are not careful, we shall leave the poorest authorities with the most inadequate resources and withdraw the strongest elements, without any clear ideas from the Government as to what is to replace them. I do not wish to be offensive when I say that if there is powerful pressure from some Back Benchers in another place and the Government do not know what to do, they say, "Stuff it in the Bill".

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courteous introduction to his comments. However, I must disagree with him. The subject is not a new one which has been brought up overnight. The whole question of ILEA and its future has been under discussion for a considerable length of time. It was a manifesto commitment that action would be taken, and the subject has been well discussed both in the media and in education circles. I do not think that it can be regarded as a sudden move requiring a separate Bill. Furthermore, the new clauses will be introduced at Committee stage in another place. There will be ample time under the guillotine Motion for a discussion. There will be further time for discussion at Report stage. The emphasis must now be on action rather than further discussion.

I share the view of the noble Lord that the interests of the children and students of ILEA are paramount. I have emphasised the fact that the reason for the changes to be introduced is to make sure that educational standards are improved as well as being made more cost-effective.

As regards the comments made by the noble Lord concerning other provincial cities with poor inner city areas and their examination results, I can only say that ILEA's results come below those of other large cities with similar socio-economic problems and large inner city areas. As regards the smaller boroughs who have perhaps not been considering the possibility of operating their own education systems as education authorities in the manner of the boroughs which have given us notice of their intention to opt out I say this. We must take all the reforms together and look at the fact that the Government are providing a national basis with a national curriculum for improving and maintaining standards. They are also providing other ways for schools to take more responsibility. Schools, teachers and parents will have more opportunities to be responsible for education in their immediate areas.

Baroness David

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question concerning standards. In the Sheffield University league table, which took into account socio-economic conditions, out of 96 local education authorities ILEA came 56th, Oxfordshire was 54th, Waltham Forest was 71st, Essex was 92nd and Bromley was 96th. If other matters are taken into account, ILEA has done pretty well.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I speak as someone who has looked at the problems of ILEA. I welcome what my noble friend has said in her Statement. The fact that the Government have taken a decision removes an uncertainty about the future of a number of London boroughs. We all share the view of the importance of the education of children, not only in inner London but throughout the country as a whole.

Parents are obliged by law to send their children for at least 11 years of compulsory education. One of the most disturbing features of educational life is uncertainty. Now we know that 1st April 1990 is the date from which individual boroughs will be responsible for education in their areas. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I think that that is much clearer than the original provisions in the Education Reform Bill as it stands at the present time.

I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about standards is very important. It is true that the standards ILEA fall well below those which we should like to see. It is true that they have to educate some of the poorest and most disadvantaged children. However, inspectors' reports show that children still underachieve and we should see a better result. I believe that devolving downwards (as the Education Reform Bill and this measure propose) will make it more likely that there will he greater parental and other involvement which will help the children in the end. Much will be said; but I should like to welcome this Statement and say that I for one look forward to hearing the details of how it will be worked out. That is something we must look at very carefully.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments and for underlining the fact that the present proposals remove the uncertainty which existed and which indeed was growing. The Government are carrying on a continuing consultation process on education reform. They are responding not only in this area but in other areas to comments and consultation. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for not responding immediately to her previous remarks. I do not have the statistics that she mentioned, but I should like to underline the fact that the Labour leader of ILEA himself has said that socio-economic factors are too often used as an excuse for poor achievement.

Lord Peston

My Lords, may I first make this point? The noble Baroness referred to my colleague Lady Blackstone and her remarks on ILEA. In case your Lordships have misunderstood her view, my noble friend was, and is, totally against the abolition of ILEA. Her comment, to which the Minister referred, was simply to the effect that if the Government were against ILEA they should show a little courage by removing it rather than killing it off by the death of a thousand cuts. I make that point just in case there was any misunderstanding of my noble friend's position.

I am a little disappointed at another aspect of the noble Baroness's Statement. My colleague Lady David has made the statistical point about 1LEA's undoubted achievements. I never decry statistics. But my view is that one ought to go and visit some ILEA schools. I hope that noble Lords opposite will occasionally do so. My experience from such visits is that the teachers perform miracles every day of the week. I should have liked to hear the noble Baroness proffer at least some words of support for those teachers. I was most disappointed not to hear such words.

Finally, there is the question of whether this is a genuine decision or a political one. I am always willing to be persuaded by the noble Baroness, but I must ask her what evidence has arisen about performance and costs that would cause the Government to change their mind since the Bill was originally published. If the noble Baroness wishes us to believe that there is no political side to this question and that it is a genuine educational decision, she might well offer us some new evidence to justify that change.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am glad that the age of miracles has not passed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me to put in a word for the teachers—the very good teachers—who do indeed perform miracles in some of London's schools. I believe that those teachers will welcome these moves because they will be able to continue teaching in the schools and provide education with less interference than was experienced under ILEA.

I shall marry up the noble Lord's first and last points and quote from the statement made by his noble friend, who, I quite accept, might well be against any change at all in ILEA. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is quoted as saying that this slow dismemberment could not be more damaging to the education of young people in London and therefore the Government should have had the courage of their convictions and met it head on. That is precisely what we are now doing and we expect to receive some support from the noble Baroness.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I was nominally responsible for ILEA for some three years, and perhaps I am the only Member of this House to have held such a position. I can confirm that when we took over ILEA it was then as now cumbersome and excessively costly. It had an ability to spend at an enormous rate and at the same time operated with an inflated staff level which was totally unreasonable. Like the GLC, ILEA has brought about its own doom by poor financial controls, petty policies and, more importantly, by sending pupils from poor and deprived areas out into the world with a poor education. This situation must be ready for reform, and I hope that the Government will press forward with it.

Lord Annan

My Lords, I have very mixed feelings about ILEA. I think that some of the criticisms that have been made of it are quite justified. It has destroyed itself by often taking very partisan views on subjects. My only experience with ILEA concerned its dealings relating to the Polytechnic of North London, which did not reinforce my good opinion of the authority.

Having said that, nobody expects the Government to hold inquiries or carry out research because whenever they do, as in the case of the Peacock report, the research and the report come out in a form which the Government do not like. Even if one does not undertake research, I should have thought that it was politically extraordinarily insensitive to make a Statement which misses the one point which anyone who knows anything about education in London must have in the forefront of his mind; namely, when one removes the rich boroughs how are the poor boroughs to be financed?

The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was entirely right to say that it was scandalous that this was not in the forefront of the Statement, and it must confirm people in the view that the Government think of the inhabitants of those poor boroughs as sludge and the schools in them as sinks.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I find it very difficult to accept the point made by the noble Lord, because, if he is talking about resources for schooling, there has been no indication that those resources will be reduced. In fact, our aim is that the available resources should be used more cost-effectively.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I should like to correct the record with regard to something that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I can speak as one who has relatives—my son and daughter-in-law—who are teachers in Catholic schools in London. I can assure the noble Baroness that far from removing uncertainty this will further demoralise staff which is already struggling in appalling conditions. Uncertainty looms up every day. Staff do not know how many teachers will be retained, nor the character of the borough by which they will be taken over. I think that it must be placed on record that whoever else may like this action it is certainly not the teachers of London.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there is important business to which we must return. Perhaps it would be the wish of the House to take the noble Baroness's question and a question which I know was coming from behind me and then call it a day and return to the Legal Aid Bill.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Belstead

My Lords, it is precisely because I know that other noble Lords wish to ask questions that I ask what the House would like to do. Let us take the next two questions and we shall know whether your Lordships wish then to return to the Legal Aid Bill.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, it is difficult to judge competing evidence which is put forward. However, the Government's evidence has been that an orderly and rational progression to the splitting up of ILEA will be the best possible solution that will find acceptance and support among parents and teachers in the boroughs concerned.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, much has been said about the poorest children in London and about how they may be disadvantaged by the abolition of ILEA. Can the Minister inform us that she is aware—as I believe she is—that these are the people who are being so disadvantaged now? The children in the poorest part of Islington—I speak as someone who has practised in that area over a long period—are almost unemployable. If one asks them to put a dozen forms into alphabetical order, they cannot. These are school-leavers. Eighty-five per cent. cannot put 10 or 20 forms into alphabetical order. This means that ILEA has failed those poor children, and when there is a clear option for boroughs such as Westminster, with which I am closely connected, to opt out, they will certainly do so, and there will remain a hopelessly ill-formed ILEA. It will be only the worst of ILEA. Certainty is absolutely essential in these circumstances. Certainty and rapid change are important.

In the abolition of the GLC, because of the time taken over the preliminary Bill which did not go through, uncertainty existed for the two years during the abolition process. This caused great anxiety to staff. It also caused the problems referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of people not knowing what was gong to happen. I believe it is right that the Government have made a definite, formative Statement so that everyone will now know the situation. I also believe that in terms of finance no one living in the so-called wealthy borough of Westminster needs to delude himself or herself that it will not continue to cost Westminster a lot of money. Under all the inter-borough arrangements presently existing for social services, Westminster is still contributing on a rateable basis.

I therefore believe that there will still be that same element of the rich boroughs subsidising the poor. I represent an outer London borough and I have seen how much better education was there. We saw last year the Audit Commission report on the ineffectiveness of ILEA. I believe that the abolition of ILEA will enable better education and better value to be provided.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these proposals should not be taken out of the context of the other proposals in the Education Reform Bill. Neither should they be taken out of the context of the proposed new system of local government finance. Any arguments therefore for cross-subsidy of education from one inner London borough to another will no longer apply. We believe overall that the new system will provide a fairer means of distributing resources to local authorities, taking account of local social needs. Boroughs will have an opportunity to examine the cost of education in their areas in this light.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, perhaps I may follow up this point. Is the Minister aware that in inner London the education service is financed by a rate on the whole of inner London? Is she saying therefore that the Government will have the power to rate the whole of inner London in order that it may establish the equality that the Inner London Education Authority now provides?

She spoke very glibly about the way in which the outer London boroughs have settled down. Perhaps I may remind her that the outer London boroughs were always education authorities in the sense that they had delegating powers. Inner London education has always been planned for the whole area. ILEA merely succeeded London County Council. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady David, made seems to have been ignored. Education was planned for London as a whole. There are many boroughs. The noble Baroness, Lady David, instanced a particular borough that had only one county secondary school. It is not isolated. The plan for education in inner London was always for the whole area. Will the Minister say what the Government propose to do about that?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, in the context of the outer London boroughs perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that they took over not only the education functions but also all other functions. They managed to do that successfully in the time.

On the financial aspect, the new proposals for local government finance will take into account the particular situation of inner London. We believe that the new system will provide a fairer means of distributing resources to the local authorities.