§ 3.57 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
§ Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Henley.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ [Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ Clause 32 [Home-school partnership documents]:
§ [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
§ [Amendment No. 45 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§
Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 28, line 29, at end insert ("the need for the terms of the partnership document and parental declaration to be so worded that they cannot be used by schools to exclude pupils solely because of the economic or social circumstances of their parents, and to").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the context in which this Bill is now being dealt with, I hope that it is reasonable for me to ask the Minister to give the 917 House an assurance that the important issue which is raised by this amendment will not be entirely lost and will be raised with the new Secretary of State, whoever that may be, in the next government so that it can be taken into account during the preparation of guidelines on the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall reflect on those concerns when drawing up the guidance on home-school partnership documents and their use in school admission arrangements.
§ Lord NorthbourneMy Lords, I am grateful for that assurance from the Minister. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
§ [Amendments Nos. 53 to 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PUPILS' PERFORMANCE
(" . After section 537 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted
"Provision of information about individual pupils' performance.
537A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring—
to provide to the Secretary of State such individual performance information relating to pupils or former pupils at the school as may be prescribed.(2) In this section "individual performance information" means information about the performance of individual pupils (identified in the prescribed manner)—
(3) The Secretary of State may provide any information received by him by virtue of subsection (1)—
918
(4) Any body or person holding any individual performance information may provide that information to any body to which this subsection applies; and any body to which this subsection applies—
(5) Subsection (4) applies to any body which, for the purposes of or in connection with the functions of the Secretary of State relating to education, is responsible for collating or checking information relating to the performance of pupils—
(6) No individual performance information received under or by virtue of this section shall be published in any form which includes the name of the pupil or pupils to whom it relates.
(7) References in this section to the attainment of a qualification of any description include references to the completion of any module or part of a course leading to any such qualification."").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. These amendments meet the purpose of those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in Committee. They enable the Secretary of State to collect the performance data of individual pupils and to provide it to LEAs and others. The data will help schools, LEAs and the Government to analyse performance and will underpin school improvement policies—including target-setting and benchmarking. The exact requirements will be set out in regulations on which there will be full consultation. I can offer assurance that the amendments provide appropriate safeguards to protect the confidentiality of individual pupil data, and that they will not force independent schools to participate in national curriculum assessment. I beg to move.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, the issue was debated thoroughly in Committee. In our view, the Government's amendments meet the objectives that were set out in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas; namely, that the Secretary of State should be able to give pupil level information electronically to LEAs to assist with local work on value added and the setting of performance targets. The operation of this new power by the Secretary of State will, we hope, be subject to much discussion after the Bill has been enacted. However, the clause will enable all those with a legitimate interest to obtain the data that they need.
§ Lord TopeMy Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lady Thomas cannot be with us this afternoon. However, I know that she would wish me to express our support for the amendments on her behalf. I should also like to thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he approached the matter; and I do so with pleasure.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
919§ [Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ Schedule 6 [The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 70:
Page 70, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Page 70, line 38, leave out first ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service").
Page 70, line 38, leave out second ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 70, line 39, leave out ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Secretary of State").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 en bloc and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 to 84 and 117.
§ These are technical amendments tabled on the advice of the Treasury. Their purpose is: to remove the requirement for the Treasury's consent to decisions by the Secretary of State about payments to members of the QCA and ACCAC; to transfer decisions concerning the terms on which people who are both members and officers of QCA and ACCAC should qualify for pensions from the Treasury to the Secretary of State; and to take account of the transfer of responsibility for the Vote from which Civil Service pensions are paid from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office. I understand that the Treasury is looking to introduce legislation to change the many previous pieces of legislation where these procedures apply to ensure that all non-departmental public bodies work to the same practices. I beg to move.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, we welcome the amendments.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ [Amendments Nos. 71 to 75 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ Clause 44 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 37, line 3, leave out ("and").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 79 and 86 to 88. I promised during the debate in Committee that I would consider further the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to take account of all learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities in schools, colleges and publicly-funded education.
§ The amendments place a duty on the new authority and ACCAC to take into account the requirements of persons with special learning needs when carrying out their functions. In amending Clauses 44 and 50, rather than Clauses 41 and 47, as proposed by the noble Baroness in Committee, the duty will apply to all the functions of the authority rather than just those relating to pupils of compulsory school age. I beg to move.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for producing the amendments 920 in response to amendments that I moved in Committee. I am very pleased with this reference to children with special educational needs—indeed, all the special educational needs—and that the authority will have to pay more attention to them than it would have done if the Bill been left in its original form.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Government as I have an interest in the matter.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 37, line 6, at end insert (", and
() the requirements of persons with special learning needs.").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 37, line 27, at end insert—
("() In this section "persons with special learning needs" means—
(a) children with special educational needs (as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996); or
(b) persons (other than children as so defined) who—
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 7 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 84:
Page 74, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Page 74, line 24, leave out first ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service").
Page 74, line 24, leave out second ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 74, line 25, leave out ("the Treasury") and insert ("he").
Page 74, line 30, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Secretary of State").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 85 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ Clause 50 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 40, line 10, leave out ("and").
Page 40, line 13, at end insert (", and
() the requirements of persons with special learning needs.").
Page 40, line 34, at end insert—
("() In this section "persons with special learning needs" has the same meaning as in section 44.").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
921§ Clause 56 [Inspection of LEAs]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("each") and insert ("a").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90. These amendments seek to improve the wording of Clause 56(6), with regard to the collection of information from LEAs by the chief inspector. In particular, they remove the pre-set condition that regulations must require each LEA to supply information on an annual basis. They substitute a more flexible arrangement to allow the timing of the supply of information to be adjusted through the regulations. This recognises, among other things, that it may not always be necessary to collect information annually from all LEAs. The Secretary of State would consult LEAs, and others, before making the regulations. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, lest we should seem to be rattling through the proceedings at an unseemly speed, I have just one question to ask the Minister. The noble Lord said that the amendment relates to the frequency of reports from LEAs to HMCI. Certainly the LEAs will be grateful for what appears to be the purport of the amendment. They may well say with King Richard II:
I give this heavy weight from off my head".While recognising that relief from the onerous task of providing HMCI with annual reports is welcome, the amendment seems to suggest that reports might be made very much more frequently. Can the Minister say whether there is anything to stop that happening, because that could be a very considerable burden on the LEAs?
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I agree that it would be a very considerable burden on the LEAs if they were asked to do this more often than on an annual basis. That is certainly not our intention. As I made quite clear, the important point here is that we want to remove burdens on the LEAs because we do not think that it is always necessary for them to produce such a report every year. That is why my right honourable friend will consult the LEAs precisely on the appropriate regulations before making such regulations.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am quite sure that LEAs will in years to come quote that particular passage from Hansard to their immense relief.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("on such annual basis as may he prescribed.") and insert ("in such form and—
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
922§ [Amendments Nos. 91 to 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 98:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
("Exceptional educational provision
EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION
.—(1) Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty of local education authority to make arrangements for provision of suitable full-time or part-time education, at school or otherwise, for excluded children etc.), the words "full-time or part-time" shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (4) (power of local education authority to make arrangements for provision of suitable full-time or part-time education, otherwise than at school, for excluded young persons etc.), the words "full-time or part-time" shall he omitted.
(4) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
(4A) In determining what arrangements to make under subsection (1) or (4) in the case of any child or young person a local education authority shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114 and 118. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, moved an amendment in Committee to remove the words "or part-time" from Section 19 of the 1996 Act and thereby to require that LEAs always arrange full-time education for pupils who are out of school for whatever reason. As the noble Baroness will be aware, I had some sympathy for her aims and promised to consider further whether we could find a way of taking some useful steps in the direction that she proposed without giving rise to the legal, financial and practical difficulties which would have arisen from the amendment that she tabled.
§ The noble Baroness will also be aware that she and I and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady David, discussed such matters privately. I believe that these amendments meet the commitments that I made. By deleting the words "full-time or part-time" from Section 19, more emphasis is put on the requirement that LEAs arrange suitable education for pupils who are out of school. I believe that the amendments offer a practical way of meeting the concerns which were raised, and trust that they are generally acceptable. I beg to move.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, we welcome the amendments and no doubt my noble friend behind me may wish to express her more detailed form of gratitude.
§ Baroness Ramsay of CartvaleYes, my Lords; I was going to do that in any event. I am most grateful to the Minister for seeing both myself and my noble friend Lady David and, indeed, for the fruitful discussions that we had. We welcome the amendments. As the Minister knows, they do not cover everything that we wanted but, so far as we are concerned, they represent an improvement on the 1993 Act. By taking out "full-time" and "part-time" but leaving in the positive word "suitable", we hope—I think there is general agreement with the Minister on this—"suitable education" will be interpreted to mean, except 923 in circumstances where it is quite impossible, that there should be full-time education, which certainly should be effective education, for those children out of school. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to us and for having moved towards our objectives.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, the Minister was kind enough to discuss the matter with me as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. I thank the Minister for going a long way towards meeting what we wanted. It was not quite everything we wanted, but he went a long way. I hope that the new clause will be interpreted in the way we want, so that children will not receive only one or two hours' education a week and will not be left roaming the streets. I do not know whether guidance will be issued on this matter. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us that and when the guidance might be available. It would be interesting to see it.
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, if there is not guidance, I should be very much surprised. Guidance more or less comes out of our ears, if I can put it that way. As to when guidance would be ready, I am not in a position to be able to advise the noble Baroness but I shall let her know in due course.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 not moved.]
§ [Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
§ [Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 not moved.]
§ Clause 65 [Management committees for pupil referral units]:
§ [Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.]
§ Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 80, line 35, at end insert—
(" . In section 4(2) of that Act (schools: general)
(a) for "For" substitute "Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken to preclude the making of arrangements under section 19(1) (exceptional educational provision) under which part-time education is to be provided at a school; and for"; and
(b) omit "(pupil referral units)".").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 83, line 46, at end insert—
(" . In section 537(4) of that Act (power of Secretary of State to require information from governing bodies etc.), at the end add "; and regulations under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the provision of information to a person other than the Secretary of State is to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of such regulations or this section, as compliance with any requirement of such regulations relating to the provision of information to the Secretary of State.'"').
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
924§ [Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 84, line 45, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 2 to that Act (the funding authorities), paragraph 9(2) (superannuation of employees) shall have effect (and be deemed always to have had effect) with the following amendments, namely—
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 66. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 86, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 4(2), the words "(pupil referral units)".
In section 19(1) and (4), the words "full-time or part-time".")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended, (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Henley.)
§ Clause 1 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 40. I believe those are all the remaining amendments on the Marshalled List.
§ It is with much regret that I move these amendments which remove Parts I and II from this Bill together with their schedules and all the consequential amendments. With the announcement of the general election there has been much negotiation to agree progress on the legislative programme. As part of those discussions, the Government are pleased that we have agreement to proceed with all of the measures in the Bill on discipline and standards.
§ These clauses account for three quarters of the Bill. However, the Government very much regret that it was not possible also to secure agreement to proceed with the measures in Clauses 1 to 19 which allowed schools more power to select pupils, and which gave grant-maintained schools more power to develop new provision to meet local needs. These clauses would have encouraged more diversity among schools, helping 925 schools to develop particular strengths and giving parents more choice from among a range of different types of good school.
§ The Government remain firmly committed to extending choice and diversity. That is a powerful way of raising standards in schools because it allows parents to match what schools offer to the individual needs, interests and abilities of their child. But we do not now have time in this Parliament to secure these important measures. Therefore we shall pursue the discipline and standards measures for now, and come back to the selection and grant-maintained deregulation measures at the earliest possible opportunity following the general election. I beg to move.
§ Baroness Farrington of RibbletonMy Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments moved by the Minister. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris stated in the Queen's Speech,
Selection flies in the face of parental preference".—[Official Report. 29/10/96; col. 305.]We in the Labour Party have set out our policies with regard to this issue in Diversity and Excellence which states that the party wants to give parents a key role in the education of their children.Opposition parties have argued throughout the passage of this Bill that the Government's plans would mean not parents choosing the school but the school choosing, or choosing to reject, particular children. This would have happened even more if the Government's plans to give new freedoms had remained in the Bill, but thankfully these are being removed.
This is the 18th education Bill since 1979 and the first where the Government have been defeated on what the Government had declared to be their major policy of giving more freedom to a minority of schools to select more children. There are aspects of the Bill where the opposition parties have provided critical support in keeping with their existing policies: new measures on school discipline, parent partnership agreements, baseline assessment and the merging of SCAA and NCVQ.
Education is the beginning of the process of socialisation, particularly for the young child starting primary school. We believe that that process should occur within the neighbourhood. It should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It should offer opportunities for parents to place all their children in the same school whatever the individual child's talents, ability and aptitude. That is part of the process of people learning from an early age to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses and the needs and potential contributions of their neighbours and friends in their community. That is good comprehensive education. It is comprehensive in that it encompasses the best of what a child needs to learn to grow up in a caring society. We welcome these government amendments.
§ Lord TopeMy Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in—rather unusually for both of us—giving a warm welcome to the amendments moved by the Minister today. I recall 926 that at the Second Reading debate I suggested to the Minister that the originally stated objective of Part I of the Bill—which was, apparently, to embarrass the Labour Party over selection—had already achieved its purpose because the Labour Party was at that time adequately embarrassing itself over selection, and that as it had achieved its purpose Part I of the Bill should then be withdrawn.
Unfortunately, the Minister, on that occasion as on so many, chose not to take my advice. I cannot help reflecting now that had he taken my advice on Second Reading and withdrawn that part of the Bill, we would all have saved ourselves an enormous amount of fruitless, wasted and frustrating time and might indeed have been able to spend more time in considering in more depth that part of the Bill which is now to pass, which I believe reflects broad agreement which we all share on the objectives of the Bill. Certainly we are pleased to support that part. Nevertheless, it could still have done with more detailed consideration and could still be improved further. We welcome today the improvements that have so far been made.
However, the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to education, to the provision of high standards and high quality in education is well known, and will become even better known over the next six weeks. We share objectives with noble Lords in all parts of the House. However, we shall be the only party in the coming weeks which will be prepared to say that we will pay for it, and how we shall pay for it. That still remains a fundamental issue. Many important measures need to be taken, but until and unless the chronic underfunding of our education system in this country is tackled many of those problems will remain unresolved.
Whatever the result of the general election in the weeks to come, I look forward to taking part in the debate on the next education Bill, whoever is standing at the Government Dispatch Box; and—who knows?—perhaps I shall be looking forward to it even more. In the meantime, I give my warm support to the amendments.
I have one regret. By agreement with my party, too, Clause 20 is not included in the amendments. Clause 20 extends the assisted places scheme to primary education. During previous debates, I have made clear that my party is opposed to the assisted places scheme and is opposed, therefore, to extending it to primary education. We have readily agreed not to include the deletion of that clause because we understand that commitments have been made to some 1,200 children who would participate in the assisted places scheme in primary education in the summer. I ask the Minister whether that is the case. If that is the case I wish to make clear that my party would honour commitments made, however much we disagree with the scheme. For that reason we keep the clause.
However, if those commitments have been made, how have they been made? Given that the Bill has not been passed, under what legal powers have they been made? If those commitments had not been made, I am sure that Clause 20 would be among the clauses to be deleted in these amendments.
Can the Minister give some explanation as to how commitments are made before a Bill has even completed its Report stage, let alone has passed through this House 927 and through another place? I hope that we can have an answer. However, we are advised that those commitments have been made and my party would wish to honour them. For that reason, and that reason alone, we accept that Clause 20 should remain part of the Bill.
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I imagine that the first part of the noble Lord's question was rhetorical. I cannot answer as to why his party or the party opposite made the decisions that they did in terms of negotiations about Clauses 1 to 19 and Clause 20.
As regards the numbers of those benefiting from the new provisions under the assisted places scheme, I cannot confirm the precise figures that the noble Lord gave. Nor can I say whether firm, legally binding commitments have been made. But there will be an expectation among a number of people that they will benefit. For that reason, it is right that they should be allowed to benefit. That is part of a commitment certainly made by the party opposite about the assisted places scheme generally. When the party opposite claims that it would like to phase out the scheme, it has always made it clear that it would do so gradually so that no one individual would suffer.
I hope that I have dealt with the noble Lord's questions to the best of my ability. If there is anything more that I can add, I would prefer to write. I commend the amendment.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 2.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Objections on notification to proposals which do not need to be published]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 3.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Relaxation of controls on enlargement of premises]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 4.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 5.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Relaxation of controls on changes in age groups for admission etc.]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 6.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
928§ Clause 7 [Consultation and notification where proposals do not need to be published]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 7.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Schools requiring special measures]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 8.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 9.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 10 [Alteration of admission numbers for grant-maintained schools]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 10.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Review of approved admission numbers]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 11.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 12 [Notification of proposals in connection with Sex Discrimination Act 1975]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 12.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13 [Secretary of State's reserved power to limit appropriate threshold]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 13.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 14 [Sponsor governors]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 14.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15 [Extension of power of funding authority to establish grant-maintained schools]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 15.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 16.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of start-up grants]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 17.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
929§ Clause 18 [Ballot observers]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 18.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 19 [Provision of advice and assistance by funding authority]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 19.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 33 [Corresponding provisions about admissions to grant-maintained schools]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 30, line 6, leave out from ("After") to ("Schedule") in line 8 and insert ("section 425 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
425A.").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1996]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Schedule 1.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 [Sponsor governors]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Leave out Schedule 2.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 37:
Page 81, leave out lines 5 to 7.
Page 81. leave out lines 8 to 40.
Page 81, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 82.
Page 82. line 5, leave out ("the words from "the age" to "same age—) and insert (—the age of five"").
Page 82, leave out lines 7 to 9.
Page 82, leave out lines 10 to 13.
Page 82, line 15 at end insert—
(". In section 266(1)(b) of that Act (interpretation of Chapter VII of Part III), for "the age of five" substitute "compulsory school age".").
Page 82, leave out lines 16 to 20.
Page 83, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Page 84, leave out lines 8 to 10.
Page 84, leave out lines 15 to 17.
Page 84, line 18, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (2)").
Page 84, leave out lines 26 to 31.
Page 85, leave out lines 3 to 6.
Page 85, leave out lines 8 and 9.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
§
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 40:
Page 86, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 86, leave out lines 35 to 39.
Page 86, leave out lines 43 to 45.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
930§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, feels that some of the time spent on the Bill has been somewhat fruitless. I accept that another place has spent some 54 hours and 45 minutes debating the Bill through all its stages. In this House, even with a rather truncated Report stage, we have devoted some 35½ hours to the Bill. That is over 90 hours devoted to the Bill. I do not believe that the time spent even on those parts now deleted was fruitless or without purpose. I think that a useful exercise was performed in exercising our views. It will no doubt make it easier after the coming election to get the additional clauses back through Parliament because they will have been debated extensively and thoroughly.
It only remains for me to thank all those involved in the Bill. I shall not name all the individuals. I thank them for their politeness and kindness to me in particular in the long nights that we spent on the Bill. I believe that the debate has remained good humoured throughout the 35½ hours spent on the Bill in this House, even if, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will remember, sometimes a little after midnight the usual courtesies were not observed in quite the form they normally are. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his party, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for their help on the Bill throughout its passage. I offer my thanks to all those on the Cross-Benches. In particular on my own Benches, I offer my thanks to my Whip, my noble friend Lady Miller for all she has done during the course of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, was it not Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) who said, "In victory, magnanimity, in defeat defiance"? We are happy to welcome the amendments that have been announced this afternoon. I for one receive those amendments in magnanimous silence.
At this point in the long march of any large Bill through your Lordships' House it is customary for us to obey the proposal of the old Hebrew writer who said,
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us",and thank each other and thank ourselves and thank our fathers that begat us, not forgetting the Vicar for the use of the hall and the ladies for preparing the sandwiches.I have people whom I wish to thank. I thank, first, my noble friends on these Benches who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and the cold and boredom of the night as well, with a fortitude and enthusiasm which would be hard to match in the annals of your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady David, and Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and perhaps pre-eminently my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton whose energy is matched only by her perspicacity, and whose assiduity in her duties is only enhanced by her occasional desire for some of the lesser and legal stimulants like tannin and caffeine to keep her going at full throttle.
931 I wish also to thank my colleagues, if I may call them that, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their help and support. It is heartening and fortifying to realise that on education matters, if not on some other matters, there is no more than a pennyworth of difference between the policies of our two parties. There is virtually no difference between our policies and those of the Cross-Benches. So it is a great pleasure to me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I shall not easily forget the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, being virtually borne in upon a litter to cast a vote, which by sheer chance was one about which we had taken the trouble to warn him.
But none of this would have been possible without the work of the engine room, by which I mean those who have advised and assisted us in the organisation and presentation of our work and have kept us out of trouble and in order. It has often been remarked that a Government Minister is loyally supported by the entire Civil Service. I remind noble Lords that the Opposition is supported not by the whole Civil Service but by Robert, Clare and David. On this occasion I want to pay a special tribute to Mr. David Melhuish who only joined our researchers' office a few months ago and yet within weeks proved himself able to master all the skills necessary to power us through the Bill. It has been for him a fiery but triumphant baptism and he is to be congratulated on his remarkable achievement. From Mr. Damien Welfare of the AMA we have come to expect administrative and organisational brilliance of the very highest order, and on this occasion he has surpassed even his own high standards in preparing us for all the pitfalls, banana skins and elephant traps in our path. My only worry is that if 1st May proves fortunate for the Labour Party in the phrase so beloved of the classicists o albo dies notanda lapillo, (may the day be marked with a white stone), we may face the daunting prospect of seeing him advising our opponents.
That very word "opponent" brings me to the thanks that we all owe to the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Henley. It reminds me of the newly-elected Member of another place who was being shown around the Chamber by an older colleague. He was told:
Your opponents sit over there; your enemies sit behind you.The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has not been troubled by that particular peril on this occasion. The Minister has been a formidable but scrupulously fair and courteous opponent. So far as he is concerned, I only hope that I may have achieved in his estimation the rank, title and status of "enemy in good standing".Above all, everyone who has been concerned with this Bill has been able to trust everyone else; and when the Minister has assured me that something is going to happen, I have trusted him implicitly and have never been let down. That is important. Trust does not come 932 easily to a Welshman where Englishmen are concerned. There was an old professor of Welsh who once said to me:
I am a South Walian born and bred. And at my mother's knee I learned that North Walians are not to be trusted. After 60 years, teaching in five countries and four continents, and meeting all sorts and conditions of men, I have learned one other thing … that North Walians are not the only people who are not to be trusted.It has not been so with us, and I am grateful.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Lord TopeMy Lords, perhaps I should begin by responding to the Minister, who took me to task for saying that much of the time that we had spent on this Bill had been fruitless. What I was struggling to say and perhaps can now say better is that it would have been more fruitful had we been spending more time on the latter parts of the Bill—and had that been the case in the other place as well—to further improve what we broadly agree about, and rather less time on those parts of the Bill which have now fallen, about which, frankly, we were never going to agree, and which, I suspect, were always doomed.
I do not know what our debates have done for the education of the nation because views about that may differ; but they have certainly done something for my education. I pondered at an early stage whether I should come into the Chamber equipped with a dictionary of quotations and the complete works of Shakespeare in some vain attempt to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. However, I determined at a very early stage that such a thing would certainly have been a fruitless exercise and so I have not tried to do so. I must confess to one moment of alarm which occurred on the third day of the Committee stage, when we were heading through until some time after 3 o'clock in the morning. At around 1 o'clock in the morning the noble Lord, Lord Morris, came across and whispered to me, "I have got my second wind now". I must say that I had not noticed that his first wind was completely blown out at any stage and did wonder whether the coming of the second wind might indeed keep us in the Chamber until breakfast time. Fortunately that proved not to be the case.
I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, but with one small reservation. He said, if I quote him accurately, that there was not a penny's worth of difference between our policy and that of the Labour Party. "A penny's worth" is of course a very appropriate phrase because there was one important difference, and that is a penny's worth. However, let me say more particularly that it is comparatively easy to agree with what we are opposed to, whereas it is not always quite so easy to agree on measures which we favour. Should the general election turn out in favour of the Labour Party, I certainly look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, or whoever it may be, explaining to me exactly what the difference is between a grant-maintained school and a foundation school: but that is all in the future.
I echo very sincerely the thanks that the noble Lord gave all round, and particularly to those who advised me and my colleagues with equal favour as they did 933 the Opposition. The noble Lord has already mentioned Damien Welfare. I certainly wish to echo the thanks that have been expressed, and also to thank Chris Waterman at the Association of London Government, who, perhaps because I am a London member, has been particularly helpful to me as well.
I pay a very warm tribute to my two colleagues who have helped me very much on this Bill: my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood (who, as I previously explained, cannot be here this afternoon), and my noble friend Lord Addington, who is here at my side. They have been a tower of strength not only in their advice and support but also in keeping me awake at times when it was necessary. I should like to mention the support, help and guidance I have had on this Bill, and throughout my time as our party's education spokesman in your Lordships' House, from my colleague the honourable Member for Bath, Don Foster. He has given tireless support.
Next, and perhaps most important of all—because it is less visible—I want to pay a very warm tribute and say sincere thanks to Carolyn Rampton in our Whips' Office, who has kept me briefed phenomenally well, in addition to all her other duties in a very busy and understaffed office. She has always done so enormously efficiently, always cheerfully and apparently never under pressure, although I know that the opposite has often been the case.
I have also welcomed the interest and support of all Members in this House. It may be invidious to single out some, but I should like to mention, because others have not yet done so, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ripon, to whom I think we owe the demise of QNCA, for which I think the nation will always be grateful. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House could have done that with greater delicacy than he achieved at the time. I also thank most sincerely the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, with whom we have worked closely and well.
Lastly, I should like to join again with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in thanking the Minister for the very helpful and courteous way in which he has dealt with this Bill, not only inside the House but also outside it, and the way he has kept us informed of his intentions. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the view that when the Minister said that something would happen, it did happen; and I have to say that equally when the Minister said that something will not happen, it does not happen. I think we should all pay tribute to the Minister's stamina. It cannot have been easy to have stood for hour upon hour at the Dispatch Box, even with the very able help of his Whip. It was, despite that help, he and he alone who has stood at the Dispatch Box, especially on that third day of the Committee stage which lasted for almost 12 hours. The noble Lord dealt with every amendment and on almost every one of them he had to say "No". It was a remarkable test of stamina. Although we may not always have agreed with what he was saying, we certainly recognised his formidable efforts in saying what he had to say. In the end—for perhaps different reasons—we are about to pass a Bill 934 which is very much better than the one which we started with in your Lordships' House. I pay tribute to all those who have helped to bring this about.
§ The Lord Bishop of RiponMy Lords, in the earlier stages of our deliberations on this Bill, reference was made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to the curate's egg. I think many of us are relieved that the parts of the egg which, dare I say, were less palatable have now been consigned to the waste bin. I have to say that I share the view which has already been expressed that this is now a better Bill than it was when we first received it.
I detected a certain hint in one or two comments made by the Minister that he suspected, to use a mathematical term, that there was a certain correlation between the views expressed on the Bishops' Bench and those expressed on the Opposition Benches. Let me assure the noble Lord that if he looks at the meaning of "correlation", he will find that it does not mean "identity" and that on occasions there has been a good deal more than one pennyworth of difference between the views of this Bench and those of the Opposition Benches. Nevertheless, we have been glad to share with them our concerns on this Bill. I am particularly glad also to express my thanks to all who have shared in our debates.
I express thanks to the staff of my board and their legal advisers, whom we have to thank not only for saving the chief executive of the new QCA from embarrassment but also from the burden of having to carry an inaccurate title. I am glad that we have been able to make that contribution to the Bill. As others have done, I thank the Minister for his unfailing attention, courtesy and stamina, during the very long hours that we have spent on this Bill. I am relieved that he gave us the exact time, because I have been trying to say to my colleagues just how many hours we have actually spent on the Bill. I think by the time we have finished, it may have amounted to about 36 hours. I am grateful to him for that piece of information, and I am glad that we have been able to share those 36 hours to achieve such a profitable outcome.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, I should like very briefly to spoil this "love fest" by saying that there are many Members of your Lordships' House on these Benches and many members of my party outside this House who deeply regret the necessity of sacrificing so much of the Bill to the pressure of time. We hope and believe that this defeat for the accent placed in the original Bill on the need for excellence and for selection as the only method of creating excellence will come back and that when my party is again returned to government, another blow will be dealt against the mediocrity with which the comprehensive system has landed this country for so many years.
Earl Baldwin of BewdleyMy Lords, a Bill which began in high seriousness in your Lordships' House last month has ended in an atmosphere which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, described at the beginning of this week as somewhat "surreal". Not even the powers of 935 intuition which enabled me, to the surprise of the noble Lord the Minister, to arrive in time for a vote on the first night of Committee were capable of predicting the course which this Bill would take in its later stages.
Naturally, I am pleased with the result. It bears saying one last time that no measure which impacts on neighbouring schools, measures such as selection or creating a sixth form, should be capable of being driven through without full consultation and, if need be, arbitration by some body which can hold the ring for those who might be disadvantaged. One of the truly sad features of the Government's educational reforms has been the way in which partnership has been eroded and local consensus and accountability discarded. At one point on Monday the noble Lord the Minister stated:
We expect schools to act responsibly".On that expectation, in the present competitive atmosphere, can hang and die the freedoms of others.So, the prospect of secondary moderns in every town recedes and, with the Opposition parties, I am glad.
I do not wish to take up any more time at this stage of proceedings, but I should like to make one proposal which I believe I aired at the end of the Education Reform Bill in 1988. There are some 26,000 maintained schools in this country and by comparison a handful of independent schools. Your Lordships' House has more than one head teacher from the latter among its Members but none I believe who has come to this House by virtue of a headship from the maintained sector. I doubt whether party leaders comb the pages of Hansard for comments from your Lordships' House. I just wonder whether the party spokespeople present would agree that our education debates, which almost always are about the maintained sector, could be enriched in future by a well chosen appointment or two from that direction and, if so, whether they might drop a word in higher places. We are not short of lawyers, doctors or university academics here, but we could benefit from current mainstream educational experience.
It remains for me to join in thanking and congratulating all those who have played a far more active and consistent part in the passage of this Bill than I have, and in particular noble Lords on the Front Benches, who have been so thoroughly and admirably on top of their briefs, day in, day out, amendment after amendment. It took me years as an education officer in the thick of things to grasp the issues and know what I was doing. The noble Lord the Minister seems to achieve that effortlessly, as do the Opposition speakers, to whom I have listened with interest and much admiration.
So to what remains of this Bill I wish a fair wind but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the hope that we may be spared more education legislation for some time to come.
§ Lord Howie of TroonMy Lords, I hesitate to intervene so late in the proceedings of this Bill. However, I do not believe that the characteristically intemperate outburst of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, should be allowed to pass unnoticed. He may be 936 unaware of it but the Scottish secondary education system has been very largely comprehensive for a great many years. Indeed, I was at a comprehensive school before the war and did not realise that it was comprehensive until I came to London many years later. I thought that was what schools were like; and very good they were.
My point is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, regards as a grave disadvantage—namely, having, broadly speaking, a comprehensive educational system—the Scots are not notably under-educated and can certainly hold their own in comparison with other persons in the United Kingdom who have had the disadvantage of a highly selective system for so many years.
§ On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.