HL Deb 14 November 1988 vol 501 cc842-55

3.9 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 3.10 to 3.12 p.m.]

Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved. [35th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before speaking to the Motion, I must apologise sincerely to your Lordships for not being in my place when 1 should have been.

These draft regulations, which further amend the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984, add to the schedule a number of new purposes for which my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales may pay grant, and extend to five the number of activities on which grant may be paid at 50 per cent.

As the House will be aware, 1989–90 will be the fifth year in which education support grant will be available to help local authorities to respond to important initiatives and meet particular needs. All the £115.5 million of expenditure planned for 1988–89 was allocated to LEAs, and applications for support exceeded the total available in every category where distribution was not decided on a formula basis. All LEAs in England and Wales are receiving support under the ESG programme in the present financial year.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 20th April the Government's intention to support through education support grants expenditure amounting to £125.5 million cash in 1989–90. Of this, some £77 million will support new activities and the extension of existing ones; the balance represents continued support for activities begun in 1988–89 and earlier years. Grant of some £81.5 million will be paid on this expenditure.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has consulted the appropriate local authority associations about the content of the 1989–90 programme. In the course of those consultations he has specified the new purposes for which the Government propose to pay ESG in 1989–90 and the rate of grant which he intends to apply in each case, and has given a provisional assessment of amount of expenditure to be supported for each purpose, the number of LEAs to be supported, and the likely length of support. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had similar consultations with the Welsh Counties Committee and the Welsh Joint Education Committee.

As your Lordships will be aware, education support grants are intended to assist LEAs with expenditure on new or particularly pressing aspects of education which in many cases will later become part of mainstream activity. To this end it is appropriate in some cases to reduce the level of grant for activities in their final year or years. The 1987 amending regulations included a provision which allowed grant on one named activity, records of achievement, to be paid at 50 per cent. instead of the general rate of 70 per cent. for the special two-year extension offered to participating LEAs.

It is now proposed to extend the lower rate to four more activities in 1989–90, paying grant at 50 per cent. on both new and committed expenditure on maths in schools, science and technology in primary schools and action to combat the misuse of drugs. All three programmes have had support at 70 per cent. for at least three years and have been extended beyond the length originally envisaged. It is also proposed to pay grant at 50 per cent. on the new equipment element of the information technology in schools activity. Support for advisory teachers appointed as part of the 1988–89 programme will continue to be paid at 70 per cent.

In drawing up their proposals for the 1989–90 ESG programme my right honourable friends' main concern has been to reflect the priorities of the Education Reform Act. They wish to offer authorities support for the organisational and curricular changes they will need to undertake to implement the provisions in the Act, and to this end most of the new activities and extensions are relevant to the implementation either of local financial management or of the national curriculum.

My right honourable friend is proposing to make some £35 million of new expenditure available to support the introduction of local management of schools and colleges. Of this, the largest element—£25 million—will be devoted to helping LEAs to introduce schemes for the local management of schools. My right honourable friend is also proposing a new category to fund the establishment of central teams and the introduction of training for local management of colleges. Some colleges are already receiving funding in 1988–89 for management information systems, and more will be brought within the programme in 1989–90.

Under the general heading of local managment are also included two new activities to support the provision of training for school and college governors to help prepare them for their new responsibilities under the 1986 and 1988 Acts. Your Lordships will recall that it was indicated last year that extra expenditure would be available in future years for training school governors once the pilot projects funded in previous years had come to a conclusion. 1 am happy to say that the Government intend to make almost £5 million available for the purpose in 1989–90, and that all LEAs which submit satisfactory bids will receive a share. Support is also proposed for a small number of pilot projects to develop methods and materials for the training of college governors. It is intended that these should lead to the development of a scheme to include all LEAs in 1990–91.

My right honourable friend is proposing to support new expenditure of some £30 million on activities related to the introduction of the national curriculum in 1989–90. In addition to extending the programmes for science and technology in primary schools and information technology in schools, he proposes to fund training to help teachers to improve pupils' use of the English language. The training will have particular reference to the recommendations of the Kingman Committee on this subject. It is also proposed to make £9.5 million available to provide flexible support for the core subjects of the national curriculum—English, science and maths, and technology. My right honourable friend is also proposing to support the appointment of an additional inspector in each LEA to cover aspects of financial delegation and the introduction of the national curriculum.

The other new purposes listed in the schedule are in the adult and youth fields. The Government are proposing to make funds available to support the training of 200 young people from the inner cities to undertake youth work in their own communities and to receive training which will equip them as qualified youth workers. This is a significant step towards enhancing the capacity of the youth service in these areas to meet the needs of young people. It is also designed to continue the promotion of social responsibility among young people and encourage them to become active citizens more generally. I should also mention at this stage that support for the appointment of co-ordinators in LEAs to help combat the misuse of drugs is to be extended for a further year.

I am sure that your Lordships will approve the proposal to make support available for the establishment of a chain of open learning centres for adults with literacy and numeracy problems. Existing provision for vocational open learning will also be extended to allow more LEAs to be supported, and it is proposed that grant should be available to help LEAs to improve educational guidance services for adults in their area.

Finally, my right honourable friend plans to continue the initiative begun in 1988–89 to provide colleagues with equipment for use in the teaching of computer-aided engineering on crucial higher technician level courses.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of the education support grant programme in Wales. On 1st September he announced that support of up to £5.1 million would be given against approved expenditure amounting to £7.8 million.

The Welsh programme closely follows that proposed for England and reflects the priorities of the Education Reform Act. Additionally it provides particular support for the development of the teaching of the Welsh language in all primary and secondary schools in Wales as both a foundation and a core subject within the national curriculum.

There is also continuing support for projects related to Welsh heritage and culture. In these ways the regulations take specific account of the special circumstances in Wales.

The regulations provide for the continuation of action against drug abuse and support for schemes of health promotion in Wales. The English scheme to train young people to qualify as youth workers will be mirrored by a similar scheme for training young people from the valley areas of South East Wales, where the problems of the inner cities are repeated with the added dimension of difficult communications imposed by the geography of the area.

I believe that this programme offers important help to LEAs in England and Wales across all phases and subject areas. In particular it fulfils the commitment made by the Secretary of State during the passage of the Education Reform Act to use specific grant to provide financial underpinning for the reforms in the Act. I commend these amendment regulations, and the list of purposes, to be supported in 1989–90 to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Davidson.)

Lord Peston

My Lords, perhaos I may also apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my seat at the appropriate moment, thereby wasting two or three minutes of your Lordships' most valuable time. However, I can say that I was in my seat at least 30 seconds ahead of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson.

As regards the matter before us, I should like to start with the schedule of purposes. I must say that of course we, and indeed anyone with an interest in education, can do nothing other than welcome this list of activities, all of which are highly desirable educationally and represent important and extremely attractive educational initiatives.

Therefore there is nothing between us on the schedule itself—the list, so to speak; it is wholly admirable. Obviously many of the items arise from the passing of the Education Reform Bill, which has now become the Education Reform Act, while others arise from general developments in education, either developments which are actually happening or, since this is to do with educational initiatives, developments which we should like to see happen.

I do not propose to go into detail except perhaps to anticipate what another noble Lord may say; namely, how pleased I am with paragraph 29 on the provision of open learning centres for adults to deal with problems of adult literacy and numeracy. It is a matter which is very dear to our hearts and especially my own, because it goes back to 1975 when I was closely involved with the development of the Adult Literacy Campaign.

The other point I wish to make is on a slightly lighter note. In comparing last year's schedule with this one, I am especially amused by the item regarding the provision of data processing equipment. Perhaps noble Lords would kindly look at that. Last year the initiative was to provide the equipment, accessories and software. whereas this year the same words are used but in addition we are told that funds will be made available to train staff in the use of such equipment. I imagine that the staff have had a year with the equipment being there and have stared at it wondering what it is there for. Thus the Secretary of State has felt that the time has come to explain to the staff how to open the boxes, plug the equipment in and how to use it.

However, leaving that frivolous note on one side, the obvious point one has to raise is not the list of items but the sums of money made available. The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, will not be in the least surprised that my main complaint is that the sums of money are too low.

Here we have major initiatives being financed with not a lot of money. I should have thought that £100 million and £125 million in the context of the education budget is almost within the margin of error. It is not enough money. It still seems to be insufficient even if we accept the premises upon which it all happens; namely, that it is an initiative by way of a pilot project.

I believe, and I hope I can persuade the noble Viscount to comment on this, that if one looks at all the additional items in the 1988 document compared with that of 1987 and compares the change in the grant, it is difficult to persuade oneself that the sum of money has increased remotely in line with all the new initiatives.

I should like to give one example of the money problem. If we look at the PICKUP programme for retraining, that again is something that we have always agreed is desirable. The total sum made available there is £200,000. That sum is to be divided between just over 100 LEAs and works out at about £2,000 per LEA. That is an infinitesimally small sum of money. It has been brought to my notice—and it seems to me a valid point—that with grants as small as that, the costs of preparing the appliction for such a grant could well exceed the value of the grant itself. I hate to use the word "penny-pinching" but it seems to me that a matter as important as this is being somewhat underfinanced.

As I say, I do not wish to introduce a discordant or acid note into the discussion because all of us are sensitive to the desirability of everything that is being done here. Certainly anything that the Secretary of State can do to encourage and assist appropriate developments is desirable. Indeed, the fact that he at least consults is a good sign.

However, I hope—I assume that this is a matter to which we shall return next year and in subsequent years—that in due course we can come back to the issue of education support grants with a rather more generous funding of them, a degree of funding which is much more in line with the needs which such initiatives indicate.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his clear annunciation of the proposals in the Education Support Grants Regulations for the coming year. I think that I am the only speaker so far who does not have to apologise for having been absent at the beginning of the debate.

I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in agreeing that these are all worthy objects. However, I should just like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. The first relates to the records of achievement, which was an initiative begun under the last Secretary of State whereby when a boy or girl came to leave school he or she took away a general, rounded report covering not only achievements in the academic field but also everything about them that had become evident during their years of schooling. Therefore a prospective employer would not merely know that John or Jane had obtained so many subjects in GCSE and that was it; he would also know what kind of person they were and what gifts they had outside the classroom.

That seemed to me to be an excellent idea but one which is now in danger of being smothered by the demands of the Education Reform Act; that is, that a child should leave school at 16 plus with a list of subjects gained in GCSE, together with an assessment on those subjects which he or she had not taken in GCSE. I fear that that may overtake what seemed to me to be a much more civilised approach—namely, the records of achievement. They were positive and told you more about the person. As I said, they gave future employers the idea that people exist outside classrooms and outside academic achievement.

I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance that that programme is a going concern and that it will be keenly supported from the centre, although one knows that the Government are allowing only 50 per cent. support instead of 75 per cent. I realise that the reduction was made last year and therefore is not new. However, one would like to know that the programme was still receiving government support.

There is a reduction to 50 per cent. in support for the control of drug abuse. Does that indicate that the problem is considered to be solved? Will it be pursued with equal vigour?

Full marks to the Government for the suggested provision of open learning centres for adults who suffer from numeracy and literacy problems. There are about 7 million adults in the country whose literacy and numeracy skills are inadequate for everyday life. The provision therefore seems to be most important. If one asks any body of people concerned with the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills to adults, one will find that their great problem is how to persuade those unfortunate people to come forward and say that they want to learn. The facilities are offered, but how does one persuade such people to come forward? They are shy. No one likes to admit at the age of 30 or 40 that they cannot read or can read only inadequately. If one puts notices in public places such as libraries or doctors' surgeries, such people will not read them. Could consideration be given to local television networks announcing that such facilities are available? Many of these people want to learn. They are too shy to come forward, and they do not discover where to go because they are unable to read the notices.

I should like to ask the Minister a little about the progress of some of these initiatives. Each year in the education support grants we give our approval to the proposed new initiatives but we do not hear what progress has been made. Will the Minister be kind enough to give us a progress report on some of the initiatives? I am thinking especially about the project designed to meet the educational needs of persons from ethnic minorities, promoting harmony between different racial groups and so on, and the project relating to the improvement of the spoken word, which is of the utmost importance.

In Shaw's play of Pygmalion, your Lordships will remember a slum flower girl was passed off as a duchess at an embassy reception. It is impossible to attach too much importance to clear and articulate speech. I am not talking here about the dialect of the well-to-do but about clear and articulate speech. Many children suffer from an inability to produce such speech. The project is an excellent idea. How is it going?

There is also the proposal designed to promote social responsibility in children. How is that going? I see no improvement in the amount of litter that surrounds our schools and is in all our streets. Are children being educated in the idea that the entire country outside their own front gardens is not one vast tip, which is the impression many of them seem to have?

The planning, development and co-ordination of provision to meet the educational needs of persons who are unemployed is a good project. One would like to know how that is going. Finally, there is the support for children under the age of five with special educational needs. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would let me have a little information about the progress of those initiatives.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords—

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, perhaps I may first reply to the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Bench with your Lordships' leave, as, I think, is normal practice. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden appearance at the Opposition Dispatch Box as education spokesman. I look forward to many friendly exchanges with him across the Table. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for the general welcome they have given the regulations. On the whole it seems to me that we do not disagree very much on principle and only marginally on the amounts of money available.

I shall leave a few more general remarks on the regulations until other noble Lords have had a chance to ask questions. It would be proper if I now tried to answer the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ritchie of Dundee. If I do not answer them adequately, I shall write to them. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the level of support offered for Education Reform Act related activities. Over £90 million of the proposed ESG expenditure supports, directly or indirectly, activities relating to the Act.

In addition, our spending plans for education for 1989–90 give priority to those aspects of the service most affected by the Education Reform Act. They allow for over £450 million more in cash to be spent than in 1986–87 on education support staff, administrative and clerical staff for schools, books and equipment, local authority administration and extra help for financial delegation. About £65 million will be available through in-service training grants. In addition, there is some £90 million available for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 for the development, introduction and monitoring of the national curriculum and associated assessment arrangements.

The noble Lord asked about PICKUP. This is the last year for special funding for PICKUP and represents money for a final term's work. Hereafter, it will be for LEAs to decide what to fund. Altogether over five years, over £8 million of expenditure has been supported through ESGs for PICKUP.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked a number of questions. He asked first about records of achievement and whether they will be swamped—I think that is what he said—by the Education Reform Act. It remains the Government's objective that arrangements for the national introduction of records of achievement for all young people in secondary schools should be in place by 1990. To that end, the final report of the Records of Achievement National Steering Committee is expected shortly. That report will be published. The Government are still committed to ensuring that arrangements are in place by 1990 for a national system of records of achievement for all school-leavers. All 14 LEAs in England already in receipt of grant have submitted proposals for extensions of support at the lower rate of 50 per cent.

The noble Lord also asked about act ion to combat the misuse of drugs. The programme was originally intended to run for two years only. In 1988–89, it was extended for a further year at the full rate of 70 per cent. The decision to extend support still further was taken in recognition of the extremely important work which the co-ordinators are doing and of the concern felt by LEAs about that activity. We felt it right however that in the fourth year of support LEAs should be required to take on a 50 per cent. share of the cost.

With respect to open learning, I take completely on board what the noble Lord said about die problem of literacy and numeracy and will convey his remarks to my right honourable friend. The noble Lord asked about the current situation as regards the multi-ethnic society and ethnic learning problems. The grants currently support innovative projects designed to meet the educational needs of ethnic minority children and prepare pupils and students for life in an ethnically diverse society. Activities being supported include exchange schemes between multi-racial and all-white schools, the establishment of multi-cultural resource centres, improving race relations, curriculum development and in-service training for teachers, reinforcing and supporting the work of staff, funded by the Home Office under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

As regards social responsibility, these pilot projects began in 1987–88 and in most cases they have now been running for about a year. We intend soon to assess their early progress. I think I have answered the questions that were posed to me.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, first, on a point of information, is it not unusual for the Minister to find it necessary to reply to the two Front Benches? After all, we have here not a Statement but regulations. I am a little concerned because I am a Back-Bencher and I notice, as was mentioned the other day, that Back-Benchers do not have an opportunity to speak. If we are likely to have additional Front Benches because more parties are being formed, I think it is important that Back-Benchers should have their say.

The regulations purport to be concerned with new grants, as I understand it, or a new schedule. I am mystified by paragraph 15 which says: Securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday". As I, as an ex-teacher, understood it, the law required that pupils should be supervised throughout the whole of the day while they were at school. The school was in loco parentis the whole time. During the lunch hour we employed people to supervise. Is this something new? I am very puzzled.

The whole schedule has the great advantage for skilled teachers that they can use it for their own ends. I am delighted to see this. There exists this delightfully vague suggestion that there could be a pilot scheme to promote social responsibility in children. This leads me already to consider a number of plans which I should put into operation if I were in a position to do so. I do not feel that we have anything new in these regulations. We are simply reiterating the codes of practice which the teaching profession, if it is not interfered with by government, has been carrying out for many years. Many of the regulations will merely perpetuate, and hopefully expand, activities which have been going on for a long time. I should like an answer regarding paragraph 15.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, I too should apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for arriving late for the debate. If I say anything or ask any questions that have been dealt with by the Minister then I reiterate that apology. First, I am a little concerned about the form and format of the circular itself. I find it very odd. Having dealt with Department of Education and Science circulars in a previous experience, I find it odd that we have such a huge schedule. My noble friend has just made that point. It is a huge schedule, and yet with such sparse references to it in the paragraphs of the circular. Again underlining what my noble friend has just said, some of the matters in the schedule are of the utmost importance and are not dealt with as they should be.

Before I go further and turn to the main points relating to the circular itself, perhaps I may comment on the very first point in the schedule: The management and appraisal of lecturers and school teachers". When the Minister replies, perhaps he can say whether the appraisal refers to head teachers. I submit to your Lordships that the appraisal of a head teacher is one of the most difficult tasks with which administrators have to deal. Who is to do it? Is it to be HMIs? I suggest that that would be rather dangerous because HMIs do not often visit schools. They are therefore not very much in a position to see head teachers in operation. Is it a matter for the chief education officer, or the local education authority? If so, then the same argument applies about the frequency with which one is able to see the head teacher. I do not wish to go further than to say that the effect of the influence of the head teacher on a school is of supreme importance. We are talking about an effect on the lives of thousands of children. Many noble Lords have experienced this and are aware just how important it can be. If one has a bad head teacher, what on earth does one do to get rid of him or her?

I mention the nature of the circular. There are no fewer than 31 points in the schedule. I can see immediately that they are quite comprehensive. While I think no one would care to debate the schedule itself today, there could be added at least half a dozen other points which are very topical and important. Perhaps there will be opportunities at a later date to discuss them.

Turning to the first part of the circular, perhaps I may ask the Minister which bodies representing LEAs were consulted. That is in the foreword and it is the normal practice for this kind of regulation. I should like to know which bodies were consulted. Even more important, what did they have to say? It may well be that the proposals now before your Lordships' House are not the consensus of the opinions among the organisations which were consulted. The second point I put to the Minister is whether it is not the usual practice regarding regulations of this kind and this importance—I do not think anyone will disagree as to how important these are today—to have a longer period before coming into force? According to the circular, they will come into effect on 1st December. We are talking about a period of 17 days for matters of the utmost importance in our schools and other educational institutions today.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule deal with some of the most important issues in education today. I mention those paragraphs because they are highlighted and specified in the circular itself. I quickly remind your Lordships what they are: paragraph 2, the teaching of mathematics in schools. That subject has been a matter of the utmost importance for many years now and there is still no obvious solution to the problem. Paragraph 3 concerns teaching of science and technology as part of primary education; this is another matter of major importance. Paragraph 4 is concerned with one of seven themes on which pilot schemes could be devised. I quote these matters merely in order to emphasise their importance.

The projects are to receive grants of 70 per cent. but items 2 and 3, which I have just mentioned, will be reduced to 50 per cent. from 1st April next year. It seems to me that this is a most peculiar way of emphasising the importance of what the Minister says raise some of the most serious issues in education today. Perhaps we may have some explanation for that.

Paragraphs 14 and 20 deal with the misuse of drugs and work-related computers. The rate will also be reduced to 50 per cent. of expenditure for them. I shall not repeat what my noble friend said from the Front Bench, but it seems to me that that matter requires further explanation. The Government are constantly saying how important all these issues and others are. Yet those are the grants which they consider adequate. I admit quite openly to the Minister that I do not know whether these percentages represent an increase or a decrease.

What my noble friend has said from the Front Bench is worth repeating. The sums which he quoted, which are presumably a repetition of what the Minister said before I came in, are simply inadequate to deal with the problems which we are debating today. There could be no better example of the difference between what the Government preach and what they practise.

On the evidence of this circular anyway and, I submit, in other ways, the Government have not even begun to appreciate the cynicism which today exists in our schools and other educational institutes. If it were not for the dedication of our teachers, I shudder to think how much worse the position would be. If the Government mean what they say about the future of our country depending on what is done in our education institutions today, they had better have a long, hard look at some of the proposals. The regulations before us today are a perfect example of that need.

Lord Parry

My Lords, when the Minister began his career on the Front Bench I asked him a question about the results of the primary school staffing survey reported in the Welsh Office pamphlet. I did not congratulate him that day because I did not know it was his first appearance on the Front Bench. I congratulate him now, and I also congratulate my noble friend who has taken over Front Bench responsibility on the subject for this side of the House.

Has the regulation which makes provision for the teaching of high technology and mathematics in primary schools taken into account the very real difficulties that exist now and were shown to exist in that survey which I mentioned in the House? The Minister will know that the House may well have an opportunity to debate that matter and its significance for Great Britain as a whole before the end of this year because there is a Question down for an unnamed date.

Can the Minister tell me whether there is provision within the regulations to make up for what the primary schools of Wales and England currently lack as regards general education? Will he also accept that the fact that there are a great many illiterate adults and non-numerate adults in the country proves that primary and indeed secondary education has been inadequate for a long time for a great many of the pupils in our schools? As I am on my feet, may I give the Minister some comfort as regards the litter campaign as opposed to the illiteracy campaign? The Tidy Britain Group, of which I have the pleasure to be chairman, is greatly encouraged by the current interest being taken in its long-term efforts. The group was formerly called Keep Britain Tidy. Interest is being taken in the efforts of that group to introduce a kind of social education as regards litter control into the school curriculum. That has been successful up to the secondary level, but it seems to fall off thereafter.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I too was not present when he spoke due to the rather tardy transport arrangements across the nation today. I hope I am not repeating something that either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said. I think this subject has been mentioned. I wish to ask about paragraph 29 of the regulations which states: The provision of open learning centres to provide tuition for adults in literacy and numeracy. Can my noble friend tell me exactly what is meant by "open learning centres"? What do the Government mean by "open learning" in this context? Who will the tutors be? Will they all be paid professionals, or are local authorities being encouraged to return to a system whereby they have teams of volunteer tutors working with professionals for that purpose?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, we have had a useful debate. I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and to other Back-Benchers in this House if I showed any disrespect to them. Having been a Back-Bencher for many years myself, I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as regards the importance of Back-Benchers. If I showed any disrespect, it was entirely an oversight on my part and I apologise for it.

Before I reply in detail to some of the points which noble Lords have raised, I wish to say a little about what has already been achieved through the use of education support grants across all sectors of education. Grant approved for 1987–88 has been used to support the appointment of 320 advisory teachers to improve the effectiveness and relevance of science teaching in primary schools, and 350 appointments have been supported for maths in schools. One hundred and twenty eight appointments have been made in 96 LEAs in connection with action to combat the misuse of drugs, 42 centres have been established to provide a focus for staff development in the use of information technology across the vocational curriculum in non-advanced further education, and management information systems have been purchased for 119 colleges. It is estimated that the £0.5 million approved for computerised learning aids for further education students with special educational needs has allowed about 850 students to be helped through the purchase of some 2,500 items of equipment in each of the two years of the programme. Her Majesty's Inspectors, who are involved in assessing the broad impact of the various programmes, have confirmed that ESGs have had a considerable impact on quality in these and many other areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised the question of midday supervision. I must tell her that support for the GCSE and midday supervision was introduced in particular circumstances which have now changed. However, there are now other priorities and pressing needs.

As I explained, most of the new expenditure to be supported in the 1989 to 1990 programme is in areas related to aspects of the Education Reform Act. My right honourable friend undertook through the passage of that Act to use specific grants to provide LEAs with the financial support they needed to underpin the reforms.

In previous years we have funded LEAs to allow them to develop approved schemes for supervision at midday. All LEAs now have such schemes and there will be no new support in 1989–90. It is in the schedule to allow payments for 1988–89 submitted after 1st April 1989.

The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked me various questions. I am sorry that the noble Lord was not present when I made my speech. I think he will find that quite a few of his questions were answered in it. As regards the timing of the regulations, where they come into effect in December, allocations will be announced thereafter. Local education authorities have been able to work up their bids on the basis of draft proposals over the past four months. The programme does not start until April 1989.

Last year's draft circular gave notice that the Secretary of State was minded to pay grant at 50 per cent. on maths, science and technology in primary schools in 1989–90, as well as continuing to pay at that rate on pilot projects to develop records of achievement. In all three cases the original programmes have been extended. It is only after the activities in question have been funded at 70 per cent. for at least three years that the rate has been reduced. The same applies to support for action to combat the misuse of drugs.

The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked about consultation. I can tell him that my right honourable friend has consulted the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Following that meeting, support for action against drugs was reinserted in the programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked me certain questions about Wales. On this occasion I shall have to write to him, if he will allow me to do so. I shall also have to take the same action with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. In conclusion, I believe that the programme of education support grants which the Government are proposing to fund in 1989 to 1990 builds on the valuable work already supported through this means in the areas of the curriculum and the management of local authority education, as well as providing incentives to LEAs to engage in important work in youth and adult education. In particular, the new purposes set out in these draft regulations offer authorities vital assistance in meeting the challenges they will face in implementing the requirements of the Education Reform Act. I commend these amendment regulations to your Lordships.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I should be grateful if he would deal with the point which he did not answer. The regulations come into force on 1st December, as I said in my speech. He is now telling your Lordships' House that they will be operative—if that was his word—from 1st April. There is a four-month period there. Does that mean that the sums allocated for each of the items in the schedule could be changed; in other words that nothing will be finally fixed for 1st December? Is that what the Minister is saying?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I can only repeat what I said. Where the regulations come into effect in December allocations will be announced thereafter. Local education authorities have been able to work up their bids on the basis of draft proposals after the last four months. The programme does not start until April 1989. If there is another problem there, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.