House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Introduction: Lord Curry of Kirkharle
Health: Cardiology
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in the development of paediatric cardiac services in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the review of children’s congenital heart services is a clinically led NHS review, independent of government. The consultation ended on 1 July and an independent analysis of the responses and interim health impact assessment was published in August. The joint committee of primary care trusts expects to make a decision later this year. This will be based on an independent analysis of the consultation, reports from overview and scrutiny committees, a health impact assessment and other evidence from the consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with me that, especially where children from deprived backgrounds are concerned, it is crucial that social and personal issues are considered alongside the clinical? Will he ensure that geographical proximity of services to children’s homes is taken into account when the time comes to make final decisions in this matter?
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given that the review of paediatric cardiac surgery services presented earlier this year suggested a requirement for 400 or 500 cases per year, which is a level that cannot be provided in Northern Ireland so the service there would not be allowed to continue, can my noble friend reassure me that the Department of Health has been in discussion with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland to see what the Department of Health here can do to ensure that paediatric cardiac surgery services are available to the children and young people of Northern Ireland?
Earl Howe
As my noble friend knows, the children’s heart surgery unit in Belfast is not part of the Safe and Sustainable review as it is the responsibility of the healthcare systems in the devolved Administration. It is for the Northern Irish health service to take a view on the safety and sustainability of those services and to consider the recommendations that flow out of the review in this country. We will, of course, share the learning from our experience in England, but I emphasise again that this is a matter for the NHS, and not Ministers, to resolve.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the north of England is a special case because of deprivation, long distances and cultural problems around the Bradford area? Does he agree that both Leeds and Newcastle need their children’s heart surgery units, and that deprivation is an important factor as far as travelling is concerned?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree that deprivation is an important consideration. The population density of the West Midlands conurbation and the very high case load of Birmingham Children’s Hospital suggested that the Birmingham service should be, as it were, a fixed point. However, I am afraid that the same cannot be applied to Leeds because although the Leeds catchment area has a high population it has a much lower case load than that of Birmingham. The analysis of the expert group suggested that there needed to be two centres in the north of England because of the population density; that was either Liverpool and Leeds or Liverpool and Newcastle. It was not possible to have a Leeds and Newcastle combination since Newcastle could not achieve a credible network.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, as a Bradfordian I have to say that that is a very great shame because I cannot see how the people in Bradford will find it easy to go to Newcastle to visit their children in hospital. When you add up the number of surgical cases performed on adults as well as children in England each year, you reach a figure which would require nine or 10 centres across England, not the six or seven proposed by the Safe and Sustainable review. Therefore, does the Minister share my concern that, by deciding the future of children’s heart services without reference to adult congenital heart services, the review is not looking at the full picture? Indeed, why are adult and children’s services subject to two reviews?
Earl Howe
My Lords, surgery for children with congenital heart disease is much more complex than surgery for adults with congenital heart disease. The focus of the review has been on paediatric services up to now. As the most immediate concerns were around the sustainability of the children’s services, the paediatric cardiac services standards include the need for links with adult services and for good transition services between the two.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Will the Minister confirm that in Yorkshire and Humber, there are 5.5 million people—more than in Scotland—and that there are nearly 14 million people in the catchment area of the Leeds children’s heart unit? Does the Minister imply by his remarks that he rules out Leeds as continuing to have a heart surgery unit? Will the Minister play any role at all in bringing good sense to the need for a major unit in one of the largest regions in this country?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot rule anything out, because, as I emphasised, this is a matter for the NHS. In the final analysis, however, this could be a decision that falls on to the desk of the Secretary of State, so it would be unwise of me to be drawn into commenting in too much detail on particular centres of surgery. All I can say about the service at Leeds is that it received a very low score as an outcome of the assessment by the independent expert panel. It was ranked 10th out of 11 centres; that is one above the service at the John Radcliffe Hospital which, as noble Lords will know, was suspended over safety fears in February 2010.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Does the Minister accept that the lessons to be learned from Bristol represent an important critical mass for highly specialised services, and that a hub-and-spokes model allows families to access really high-quality, high-tech services, leaving the lower-tech services to be delivered nearer to home? That requires integration at all levels across providers, but the concern with the NHS reforms is that that integration will be threatened.
Earl Howe
I hope to persuade the noble Baroness in our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill that her fears on the Bill and its provisions in regard to integration are not well founded. However, I agree with her remarks in the first part of her question. It is very important that surgeons have sufficient clinical work to maintain and develop their skills and to train the next generation of surgeons. The need for change in this area is widely supported, and it is only by taking a national perspective that the optimum configuration of services can be effectively assessed.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Am I not right in thinking that this process of review is currently the subject of judicial review initiated by the Royal Brompton? What will the Minister do if the process is found to be flawed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. A judicial review has been launched by the Royal Brompton into the fairness of the process being followed. I am not in a position to comment on that. We expect a decision well before the end of the year and if that decision is not one that allows the process to continue, then clearly those in charge of it will have to look again at how to set about it.
Health: Healthcare Assistants
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to regulate healthcare assistants by establishing minimum standards and a code of conduct to ensure the protection of patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, there are provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill to enable the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence to establish a process for accrediting voluntary registers for healthcare workers. Assured voluntary registration for healthcare assistants would build on existing safeguards such as the Care Quality Commission’s registration requirements and the vetting and barring scheme, and would include setting national standards for training, conduct and competence for those on the register.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I thank the noble Earl for his response, but is he aware of the worry and concern he has caused in his comments in the Times this morning? At my hospital, the director of nursing is very concerned that there are many reasons why nurses are reported to the statutory body and some of that can just be that they are not caring properly. The noble Earl’s remarks do not take that into account. Will he also accept, in a positive way, that many healthcare assistants would like to be regulated so that they can assure their patients and themselves that the skills they have and the service they are providing are of the very best?
Earl Howe
I agree with the latter part of the noble Baroness’s question in so far as I am quite sure that many healthcare assistants would like to be recognised for their skills. The question is whether statutory regulation or voluntary registration is the best and most proportionate route to achieve that. As regards the first part of her question, I regret the slant that the Times took on my remarks, because if a nurse has been struck off because they are considered to pose a risk to patients, then they must be referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which would have the power to bar them. On the other hand, if a nurse is struck off for, say, misprescribing drugs to patients but is still capable of performing care tasks such as washing and bathing, they could still work as a healthcare assistant under appropriate supervision—depending on the circumstances. So there is no blanket prescription in this area; one has to look at the competencies of the individual and whether they are safe to work with adults.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, the same article in the Times referred to people without any experience whatever being appointed as healthcare assistants. While that might be splendid in terms of more people helping in the hospital, is it not important to develop training standards of some level to replace the lost SENs—state-enrolled nurses—and to be sure that these care assistants are reasonably competent in what they are being asked to do?
Earl Howe
I agree with my noble friend and it is why we are proposing a system of assured voluntary registration that would provide those training standards. We need to bear it in mind that the health and social care sectors are already subject to numerous tiers of regulation, including the important requirement on employers who are providing regulated activities to use only people who are appropriately trained and qualified. That means taking up references, having proper induction processes and so on. No national set of arrangements absolves employers of their responsibility to ensure that the people they are employing are suitable for the roles that they are fulfilling.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, does not the problem lie with nursing having been made a wholly graduate profession, whereby nurses are taught nothing but theory and not how to nurse people at all? Indeed, I recently heard a nurse on the radio complaining that being asked to minister to the needs of patients was very inconvenient because it got in the way of completing their paperwork. Should it not be the case that nurses are taught the traditional skills of nursing that are directed at meeting patients’ needs, and that if nurses are to be helped by healthcare assistants it is important that the job of nurses is not simply delegated to the kind of untrained people that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was talking about?
Earl Howe
I can agree in part with what the noble Lord says. I do not agree that the training of nurses is skewed against what one might call the traditional caring activities that we associate with nursing, because my understanding is that the division is around 50:50 between the academic and practical elements of the training. We recognise the important contribution of nurses, not just in the new roles that they have taken on but in the fundamental aspects of care. They have the reach and relationships to improve outcomes and experiences for patients. We are doing our best to support them by various means.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I often take my lead from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. In an article in the Times today she said that a voluntary register was no cure. This, taken with the confusion created by, I am afraid, the noble Earl’s remarks about struck-off nurses, underlines the point at issue. I ask the Minister: is it really satisfactory that there is a chance that no one would know that a nurse was a struck-off nurse? Is it satisfactory that thousands of nursing care assistants are taking blood and carrying out procedures, but patients cannot know whether they are on a register and properly regulated? That is the problem. The noble Earl needs to think about the kind of juggernaut that is heading towards him on this one.
Earl Howe
No, it is not satisfactory that people should not know that a nurse has been struck off and is on the barred list. That is why it is incumbent on employers to make exactly those inquiries when taking on a new employee. As regards patients, the presence or absence of statutory regulation will not change one jot the responsibilities of employers or the responsibility of nurses to delegate appropriately on a ward or in a care home. Unsupervised, unregistered healthcare assistants should not be working without the proper authority and supervision.
Crime: Youth Justice
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have changed their policy regarding the abolition of the Youth Justice Board in the light of the public consultation and the board’s assistance in dealing with the aftermath of recent street riots.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
No, my Lords, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board and to carry out its main functions within the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I suppose I ought to thank the Minister for that reply, because he has the disadvantage of his department having lost some of the responses to the summer consultation. However, is he aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Magistrates’ Association have written trenchant letters to Mr Crispin Blunt, his colleague, saying that the Government have got this wrong and that the board should not be abolished? How many other organisations have written in similar terms in response to the consultation?
While he is about it, can the Minister explain to the House why it is right to abolish one commissioning board in order to improve ministerial accountability but in another department it is appropriate to install the daddy of all quangos at the same time—the National Commissioning Board, for the Minister's information—and can he assure the House, as the noble Earl will later, that that in no way affects ministerial accountability?
Lord McNally
My Lords, perhaps fortunately, I am responsible for the Ministry of Justice, and, there, we have come to the clear conclusion that we can operate the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board better by creating a new youth justice division, which will be a dedicated part of the MoJ sitting outside NOMS, and maintaining continuity and expertise by agreeing that John Drew, the current chief executive of the YJB, will lead the division.
We have indeed received a number of responses—70 in all, I think—to the consultation, which closed on 11 October. The department is studying those responses and will report in due course.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, Mr Crispin Blunt, in his evidence to the Justice Committee in another place, said that there were complaints from youth offending team managers about the Youth Justice Board. How many complaints were there and what was the nature of those complaints?
Lord McNally
I have not seen in detail the evidence given by my honourable friend. I suspect that almost in the order of things there are occasional irritations between a central and a local body. Throughout the life of the YJB, there have been various debates about where the onus of responsibility should lie. We believe that by slimming down the central role of the YJB, we can give youth offending teams more responsibility, in keeping with the Government’s localism policy. I will investigate whether the exact exchanges that Mr Blunt was referring to are available on the public record and what they contain, and if I can reveal them to my noble friend, I will.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, will the Minister thank the Secretary of State for the care with which he has listened to your Lordships’ concern across the House at this change? Does he know of any chief police officers who support the change? Does he understand my concern, as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, and as treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, that this will not only be less safe for the public but will be a step back for those children in the criminal justice system and will mean fewer children going on to make a better life for themselves having had a bad start?
Lord McNally
I am well aware that the YJB is a much loved organisation and that a number of organisations have come to its aid. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has voiced a number of concerns about this. We will return to this when the Public Bodies Bill returns to the House. I do not see that creating a new youth justice division within the MoJ, maintaining continuity and expertise, retaining the expertise of the staff who have worked on the Youth Justice Board, strengthening its focus on youth justice by establishing an advisory board on youth justice, and agreeing that Dame Sue Street, a non-executive director of the MoJ who has experience and knowledge of the youth justice system, should take a direct interest in youth justice matters, is in any way a retreat from the kind of commitments that the noble Lord wishes for.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Minister has time after time from that Dispatch Box praised the work that the Youth Justice Board does. Everyone agrees that it has kept down the number of young people in custody and that it played a vital role in the aftermath of this summer’s riots. Why on earth are Her Majesty’s Government still determined to abolish it? Is it sensible or wise to abolish an organisation that everyone, including Ministers, thinks is doing a first-class job? How ridiculous is that? Would it not be sensible and rather more mature for the Government to drop these plans now?
Lord McNally
My Lords, we believe that the job can be done better. We have acknowledged—and I have certainly acknowledged from this Dispatch Box—that the YJB has overseen a considerable amount of success in treating young offenders. As I have just read out, the governance for youth justice within the Ministry of Justice will be better because it will have a more direct responsibility to Ministers. The buck will stop with the Minister responsible for justice, not with an arm’s-length body. We believe that that is an improvement.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the new youth justice division will work collaboratively and regularly with the Department of Health and the Department for Education?
Lord McNally
I can give that assurance absolutely. One of our key approaches across the criminal justice system is to make sure that we have an holistic approach to offending, which particularly applies in the youth justice system.
Schools: Sex and Relationships Education
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the teaching of sex and relationships education in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we are reviewing personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships education. The review is considering how to improve the quality of teaching, the core outcomes that we expect PSHE to achieve and the core of knowledge and awareness that the Government should expect pupils to acquire at school. It is looking at existing research and also welcomes submissions of evidence and good practice before 30 November.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very pleased that we now have a date for the ending of the review, but it does seem to be taking rather a long time. Why, when all the evidence was already available, has it taken so long? He will appreciate that the majority of parents, teachers and school governors believe that PSHE and SRE should be taught in schools, and that advice should be given for use in the home as well. Can he elaborate on what support parents are receiving to give them the confidence to discuss the issue along with the school? Further, when the review is over, when will the teaching start?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I know that there has been a lot of eager anticipation about the review starting and that a number of noble Lords wish that we could have started sooner. We were keen to try to set up the review properly and I am glad that it is now going. We recently had a very useful meeting with a number of noble Lords in which they gave us a lot of helpful advice. I welcome contributions from all noble Lords in this House who have a range of different perspectives and who would like to contribute to the review. One important issue that the review is looking at is how to improve the quality of teaching. When Ofsted looked at PSHE, it found that it was good or outstanding in three-quarters of schools but that there were problems in some. That is important. Clearly, the role that parents play is vital as well. The guidance from the Secretary of State—it was issued by the previous Government and we have retained it—talks about that, and it is something that we will need to look at as the review progresses.
Baroness Sharples
Can my noble friend explain why children here go to school at the age of five when in virtually every other country they go to school at the age of six or seven?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure that I can provide an easy answer to that, other than to say that practices vary from country to country in all sorts of different ways.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many parents are concerned about the teaching of sex and relationships education to very young children and that sometimes the children are too young to understand these subjects? Do the Government have any plans to force sex education on to the national curriculum, and does the Minister think that it is teachers who should decide whether such things are taught in their schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, of course I am aware of the sensitivities around this issue, and I agree with the noble Lord about the important role that parents play. Perhaps I may read from the guidance which the previous Government issued in 2000 and which is still in place. It is very clear on this matter:
“Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned. Governors and head teachers should discuss with parents and take on board concerns raised, both on materials which are offered to schools and on sensitive material to be used in the classroom”.
That seems very clear and it is absolutely right. We are not proposing any change to the current legislation on sex education or to make the whole of PSHE statutory.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, the Minister will know that teaching children how to avoid sexually transmitted disease and HIV/AIDS is a compulsory part of the curriculum. Can he explain to me, as a doctor, how you can teach children that without teaching them about sex and relationships?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend that children understanding STIs and HIV/AIDS is extremely important, and I am glad that the most recent figures show that there has been some improvement in that respect. I also take the point, which is often raised in this House, that, when we talk about sex education, the SRE or relationships bit, which I think is an important part of the process, often gets missed out.
Lord Elton
In his last reply but one, the Minister referred to the age of children. Can he tell us whether the regulations refer to calendar or biological age, which are often very different, and whether they take account of the views of the parents of the children being taught?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I tried to make it clear that they should indeed pay attention to the interests and views of the parents concerned. On the specific point about calendar age, I shall need to write to my noble friend.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the consistent evidence that the teaching of sex and relationships education reduces, rather than increases, sexual activity? Does he agree, as I think he indicated, that teaching young people about relationships, and in particular young girls about the nature of informed consent in sexual relationships, is vital? Does he also agree that that is best achieved by teaching sex and relationships as part of compulsory modules in statutory PSHE education?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think I was with the noble Baroness right until the very last bit of her question. I accept the thrust of her points but, as she will know because we have discussed it before, the overall aim in the Government’s plans is to slim down the curriculum, which we think has become overcrowded. Therefore, as she knows, we do not plan to make SRE a statutory part of it. The purpose of our review is to try to share best practice, to look at how we can raise the quality of teaching and to identify the core elements of PSHE which we think children should study.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
Can the information on the annunciator screen be changed? I am not Lord Gould of Brookwood.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Coinage (Measurement) Bill
Education Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Clause 18 abolishes the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, which was set up to design a national framework of pay and conditions for support staff in maintained schools in England. Its remit was to do so by combining,
“national consistency and local flexibility”,
to avoid a rigid pay structure that was not applicable to the needs of all schools.
As I reported in Grand Committee, the SSSNB has played a crucial role in preparing core documents setting out the range of non-teaching roles carried out in schools. This is an important personnel resource for employers. As we know, school support staff cover a wide range of functions and include teaching assistants, welfare support staff, specialist or technical staff and, for example, business management staff.
As colleagues from the Benches opposite acknowledged in Grand Committee, in abolishing the SSSNB now the Government are scrapping it before it has had time to deliver the job profiles that it was set up to produce and that would, in due course, reduce the bureaucratic load on schools as well as set the scene for fair employment practices and protect employers from equal value claims.
The abolition of the SSSNB is counter to the widespread support that it had from teachers, heads, governors and parents. Most employers welcomed the work being done. Many regarded it as long overdue, particularly as the job descriptions would have been recommendations and not prescriptions, and would therefore not have hindered schools or given rise to an unduly heavy administrative burden. Indeed, only last week, I received an e-mail from the Association of School and College Leaders urging me to put down an amendment to allow the SSSNB to stay.
In Grand Committee the Minister argued that to implement the scheme would have been too time-consuming for school leaders, who would have to re-evaluate their staff. On the contrary, having profiles that self-governing schools could use as benchmarks could cut the time and costs that they would otherwise have to spend creating their own job descriptions. They would be a tool for schools to use rather than a mandatory, new employment structure.
School support staff are an increasingly central feature of the education team in schools. They impact directly and indirectly on the success and achievement of schools. However, the abolition of the SSSNB is a clear signal from the Government that they do not value the contribution or status of support staff. It also sends a signal to the largely female staff carrying out these roles that they are somehow expendable and that it is okay for the gap in pay between teaching and non-teaching staff working side by side to widen while the differing levels of responsibilities narrow.
As we mentioned in Grand Committee, Ofsted argued for such an initiative. It recommended that the Government should,
“provide guidance on appropriate levels of pay and conditions for the increasingly diverse roles that have been introduced as a result of workforce reform”.
The work of the SSSNB is half complete. If we are concerned about value for money, what is the point of abandoning the project half way through? We are close to having a resource that employers would find useful and that would at last go some way to recognising the crucial role that support staff increasingly play in educational achievement. I hope that noble Lords will see the sense in the SSSNB completing the work in hand and will support the amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Jones. This will not be a surprise to the Minister, because when I was in his office it was my job to put together this negotiating body. I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships why we felt that that was important and why we legislated to do so. We were pleased to enjoy the support of all parties at the time, which was just a couple of years ago.
First, as we have heard, support staff perform increasingly important roles in our schools. They perform their roles in the school community as caretakers, catering assistants or dinner ladies—whatever one wants to call them—in a variety of roles outside the classroom, and also, increasingly, inside the classroom as teaching assistants and higher-level teaching assistants. That latter group of support staff do some of the hardest work educationally to support those with special educational needs. They free the qualified teachers to focus on the majority. There is a fair argument to say that, at times, the deployment is the wrong way around, and perhaps the professional expertise should be used on the hardest to teach, leaving those less qualified to focus on others.
As a demonstration, I will give an example of a member of staff in a school in south Wales. Her name is Bev Evans. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the declaration of interests about my work with TSL Education. Bev was a learning support assistant in a school in Pembrokeshire. As a parent of someone with cystic fibrosis, she was asked to come onto the school support staff as a learning assistant. I can inform Members of your Lordships' House who are not aware of the status of a learning support assistant that they are normally paid around £10,000 to £14,000 per year. These are very low-paid roles in schools. As a former community artist and a parent of someone with this condition, Bev looked after one child in a brilliant way, producing materials on a daily basis so that the child could be educated in a mainstream setting alongside children of her own age who did not have the condition from which she suffered. Bev was asked to publish her materials so that the whole school could use them; then so that other schools in the authority could use them; then so that schools across South Wales could use them. She then started uploading them onto TSL’s TES resources site. Now 1.2 million children have benefited from downloading resources from the learning support assistant. It is a demonstration of how much qualified teachers can value individuals doing that sort of work, motivated entirely by wanting to help children. These people deserve better recognition than will be given if this negotiating body is closed down before it has had a chance to get going.
The second reason why it was important to set it up was to protect schools and employers from equal pay claims. I am no employment lawyer and I certainly do not want to start getting into the ins and outs of equal pay claims, but schools were vulnerable if they were not acting fairly and using the job profiles that had been developed by the negotiating body. They were avoiding that risk around equal pay claims which was an important part of persuading employers to come to the negotiating body.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I hope that no one in this House would for a moment argue that the value of teaching assistants is in any way diminished by what is happening. Because we value so highly teaching assistants and the work that they do does not seem to lead directly to the need for a national negotiating body for their pay. In fact, I would have thought that because of the wide variety of work that teaching assistants perform, there is a very strong argument for their being allowed to have different terms and conditions of service and different rates of pay according to the job that their employer wants them to do. As the number of academies and free schools is increasing, employers of such people will not be subject to national negotiations. Their employers will be the immediate school in which they are working. Most teachers value the opportunity to have flexible conditions for their teaching assistants so that they can use them for a whole range of things. As the noble Lord has just said, in some cases they are highly professional and the work that they do has national recognition. Others perform much more lowly roles. That is the choice of the school, the teachers the assistants work for and the employers who employ them. I would hope very much that we would recognise the value of teaching assistants more by allowing flexibility than by any rigid national code.
Baroness Walmsley
I agree with what has been said about the importance and value of support staff. There are several such people in my own family and I know what a good and important job they do. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree with that when he responds. I am a little surprised that the Government are ignoring the recommendation of the ASCL. That is rather unusual. I hope that my noble friend will explain how the proposed system will be better.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, as we said in Grand Committee, a debate about the value of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body should not be confused with a debate on the value of support staff themselves. We all agree that support staff have a vital part to play in the life of their schools. There is no disagreement on that score with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or the noble Lord, Lord Knight. However, we do disagree, as my noble friend Lady Perry set out, over whether we should set up a new piece of control machinery to determine the pay and conditions of school support staff or whether we should stick with local decision-making by employers, local authorities and schools which best know local conditions.
Organisations representing employers of support staff, such as the Local Government Group, take the latter view. The group draws its members from across the political spectrum and is a firm supporter of the Government’s decision to abolish the SSSNB. If we retain the SSSNB and act on any agreements it reaches, schools would be required to review the pay and conditions of more than half a million support staff, requiring a massive investment of time by schools. The impact assessment that accompanied the ASCL Bill suggested that this might take more than 200,000 hours of head teacher or senior leadership time alone—time that we think could be better spent on pupils and their learning.
We should also remember that for the majority of support staff working in community and voluntary controlled schools, there is already a national pay and conditions framework in place, the Green Book. This long-standing voluntary agreement negotiated by the Local Government Employers, UNISON, GMB and Unite is already used for those staff in all but three local authorities. Of course, in all schools, existing employment law ensures that individuals are treated equally with regard to their terms and conditions when assessed against their colleagues.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Walmsley asked whether the SSSNB could be allowed time to complete part of its work, believing that the results of its work would be useful if made available for schools to choose to use. In response to that and to her other point, the SSSNB process is not that flexible. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 sets out the process that must be followed once the SSSNB has reached an agreement. That process can involve many twists and turns, allowing the Secretary of State to request the SSSNB to reconsider agreements that it has submitted to him. However, ultimately it requires the Secretary of State to make an order that is binding on schools and local authorities in respect of how they determine the pay and conditions of their support staff. It is that rigid legislation that this clause seeks to abolish.
However, we agree with my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Perry that some of the materials the SSSNB has begun to develop could be a useful optional reference tool. We also know that the trade union members of the SSSNB are keen to continue to work with support staff employer organisations independently of government to complete a set of job role profiles for support staff. That is why we have already agreed to arrange for the intellectual property rights—in other words, the copyright—of all materials that are owned by the Department for Education to be reassigned to Local Government Employers. This means the materials can then be used freely by the unions and employers that made up the membership of the SSSNB.
When the Secretary of State met the three unions that represent school support staff—UNISON, Unite and GMB—on 12 October, he was able to confirm that unions, together with the other SSSNB member organisations that represent employers, already own the materials developed during the final months of the SSSNB activity. This means that they are free to work with employer organisations to finalise the job role profiles. This is the piece of work that unions and employers agree will be of most use to schools. Abolishing the SSSNB will spare schools from the burden of a wholesale review of support staff pay and allow them to keep the level of freedom they currently have in relation to support staff pay. It is right that we do all that we can to ensure that the good work that SSSNB member organisations have done so far is not wasted. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have reiterated the crucial role that support staff play in the classroom and the added value that they bring to the classroom. My noble friend Lord Knight made the particular point that they can often free up teachers to carry out other roles. Of course, they can also in themselves grow into and eventually qualify as teachers, so they do have a significant role in the classroom. My noble friend Lord Knight also pointed out the crucial work that the SSSNB was doing in protecting schools from equal pay claims. As he said, rightly, it is the luck of the draw as to how well people are paid from one school to another, from one local authority to another, and that cannot be right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others talked about the need for flexibility. I do not think that I was denying that need. This was never going to be something that was handed down from on high as a prescription. It was always meant to be a resource that schools could access. The Minister has said that there would have been a lot of time taken working through and implementing it. My answer to that is that that time is going to be taken anyway, and may even be duplicated over and over again if schools do not have this core resource.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, quite rightly picked up the point that the Minister seemed to quote whichever of the employers are in favour at the moment. I quoted the ASCL. The Government found another employer which is said to have a different view to quote back at us. I found that interesting. Without getting into a competition as to who is on top among the employers, there is nevertheless a need to complete this work. The Minister seems to me to be saying, “Okay, the copyright has been handed over to another group of people. If they want to, they can carry on that work”. My question is, why stop and start again? We are already half way on a journey, in a particular way of doing it. It seems unnecessary to stop and start again with a different group of people.
Nevertheless, I realise that I am not going to persuade a number of Members on this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Council
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps this might be an appropriate moment to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by the Prime Minister on the European Council. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Libya, and yesterday’s European Council.
Yesterday in Libya, after 42 years of tyranny and seven months of fighting, the National Transitional Council declared the formal liberation of its country. Everyone will have been moved by the pictures of joy and relief that we saw on our television screens last night. From Tripoli to Benghazi, from Misurata to Zawiyah, Libyans now dare to look forward, safe in the knowledge that the Gaddafi era is truly behind them.
This was Libya’s revolution. But Britain can be proud of the role we played. Our aim throughout has been to fulfil the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, to protect civilians and to give the Libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. With the death of Gaddafi, they now have that chance.
The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our Armed Forces for the role they have played—over 3,000 missions, some 2,000 strike sorties, with one-fifth of the total strike sorties missions flown by NATO. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has written this morning, it has been,
‘one of the most successful operations NATO has conducted in its 62-year history’,
and I believe it is something the whole country can take pride in. The decision to intervene militarily, to place our brave servicemen and women in the line of fire, is never an easy one. We were determined from the outset to conduct this campaign in the right way, and to learn the lessons of recent interventions. So we made sure this House was provided immediately with a summary of the legal advice authorising the action. We held a debate and a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We made sure that decisions were taken properly throughout the campaign, with the right people present, and in an orderly way.
The National Security Council on Libya met 68 times, formulated our policy, and drove forward the military and diplomatic campaign. We took great care to ensure that targeting decisions minimised the number of civilian casualties, and I want to pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for North Somerset for his work on this. It is a mark of the skill of the RAF, the British Army and other coalition pilots that the number of civilian casualties of the air attacks has been so low.
The military mission is now coming to an end, and in the next few days, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector will formally be concluded. It will now be for Libyans to chart their own destiny, and this country will stand ready to support them as they do so.
Many learned commentators have written about the lessons that can be learnt from the last seven months. For our part, the Government are conducting a rapid exercise while memories are still fresh, and we will publish its key findings. For my part, I am wary of drawing some grand, overarching lesson, and still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits and of thinking through carefully any decision to intervene in advance. But I hope it has also showed that this country has learnt not only the lessons of Iraq, but the lessons too of Bosnia. When it is necessary, legal and right to act, we should be ready to do so.
Let me turn to yesterday’s European Council. This European Council was about three things: sorting out the problems of the eurozone. promoting growth in the EU, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for governance, the interests of those outside the eurozone are protected. This latter point touches directly on the debate in the House of Commons later today, and I will say a word on this later in my Statement.
Resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the EU as a whole, and indeed the rest of the world economy. Britain is playing a positive role proposing the three vital steps needed to deal with this crisis: the establishment of a financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion, the credible recapitalisation of European banks, and a decisive solution to the problems in Greece. We pushed this in the letter we co-ordinated to the G20 and in the video conference between me, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama last week. We did so again at the European Council this weekend and will continue to do so on Wednesday at an extra European Council meeting.
But ultimately the way to make the whole of the EU, including the eurozone, work better is to promote open markets, flexible economies and enterprise. This is an agenda which Britain has promoted under successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers, but it is now an agenda which the European Commission is promoting too. We have many differences with the European Commission, but the presentation made by the Commission at yesterday’s Council about economic growth was exactly what we have been pushing for. It drove home the importance of creating a single market in services, opening up our energy markets and scrapping the rules and bureaucracy that make it take so long to start a new business. Both coalition parties are pushing hard for these objectives. This may sound dry, but if we want to get Europe’s economies moving, to succeed in a competitive world, then these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. These are arguments which Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place, and which every Prime Minister since has tried to push. I am no exception. If the countries of the EU were as productive as the US, if we had the same proportion of women participating in the economy and were as fast and flexible at setting up new businesses, then we would have the same per capita GDP as the US.
The remainder of the Council was spent on the safeguards needed to protect the interests of all 27 Members of the EU. The Council agreed that all matters relating to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states and that the European Commission must,
“safeguard a level playing field among all member states including those not participating in the euro”.
This leads me directly to the debate we are having in this House later today. Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things: stopping the passage of further powers to the EU, instituting a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for any such transfer of powers from this House, and bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster. All three remain Conservative Party policy. All three are in the national interest. In 17 months in government, we have already achieved two of the three: we have yielded no more powers to Brussels—indeed, the bailout power has actually been returned—and, of course, the referendum lock is in place. I remain firmly committed to achieving the third, which is bringing back more powers from Brussels.
The question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next Session of this Parliament to provide for a referendum, which would include a question on whether Britain should leave the EU altogether. This was not our policy at the election and it is not our policy now. Let me say why I continue to believe that this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong and how Britain can now best advance our national interests in Europe.
First, it is not right because our national interest is to be in the EU, helping to determine the rules governing the single market, our biggest export market, which consumes more than 50 per cent of our exports and which drives much of the investment into the UK. This is not an abstract, theoretical argument; it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families in our country. That is why successive Prime Ministers have advocated our membership of the EU.
Secondly, it is not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in/out referendum. When your neighbour's house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help him put out the flames, not least to stop the flames reaching your own house. This is not the time to argue about walking away, not just for their sakes but for ours. Legislating now for a referendum, including on whether Britain should leave the EU, could cause great uncertainty and would actually damage our prospects of growth.
Thirdly and crucially, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, including an in/out option, we miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone, and therefore the shape of the EU itself. Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming more apparent. We should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a parliamentary process for a multiple-choice referendum.
Those are the reasons why I will not be supporting the Motion tonight. As yesterday's Council conclusions made clear, changes to the EU treaties need the agreement of all 27 member states. Every country can wield a veto until its needs are met. So I share the yearning for fundamental reform and I am determined to deliver it.
To those who are supporting today’s Motion but do not actually want to leave the EU, I say to you this: I respect your views. We disagree not about ends but about means. I support your aims. Like you, I want to see fundamental reform. Like you, I want to refashion our membership of the EU so that it better serves this nation's interest.
The time for reform is coming. That is the prize. Let us not be distracted from seizing it. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement by the Prime Minister.
On Libya, I join him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the British Armed Forces. Over the last seven months in Libya, once again our service men and women have been a credit to our nation. We take pride in their role and in the role of NATO. We on these Benches have maintained that, after UN Security Council Resolution 1973, there was not just a right but a responsibility to act—a responsibility to the Libyan people and a responsibility to uphold the will of the United Nations. That is why we have supported the Government in their actions.
If I may, through the Leader of the House, I commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played in taking the right and principled decisions on this issue. It is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but they must do it in the knowledge that the international community, including the European Union, stands ready to provide support. Do the Government agree that alongside the responsibility to protect is the responsibility to help rebuild and, in particular, to provide the expertise that the new Libya will require? We all have great hopes for the future of Libya, and its people rightly have high expectations and aspirations. Does the noble Lord agree, however, that embedding institutional and structural change in Libya will take time? We must not be too impatient.
I now turn to Europe. We in this House all know that the other place is today debating the question of a referendum on remaining in the European Union and on other related matters. It is not our job in this House to replicate either the arguments within the Conservative Party over Europe, which have sharply re-emerged, or the political arguments of the other place. However, we on these Benches are clear, and we have been consistently clear, that getting out of the European Union is not in our national interest. Does the noble Lord the Leader agree that cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for Britain? The overwhelming majority of British business, whatever their feelings may be about this or that aspect of the EU, knows that too. What is more, at this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years to debate an in/out referendum is something that, frankly, our country cannot afford.
The context for the debate about Europe is the huge dangers facing the UK and eurozone economies. Growth has stalled in Britain since the autumn and is now stalling in Europe. Unemployment is rising—a particular concern is youth unemployment—and we now face the threat of a new banking crisis. That is why acting together is so important. We need to stop standing on the sidelines. I welcome the commitment in the Statement that all decisions relating to the single market should be taken by the 27 member states; that is right. It is important, though, that Britain should at least be present in all discussions pertaining to the European Union. My fear is that, with a strong inner core, Britain is going to be sidelined in discussions generally, not just those relating to economic policy.
We should have been arguing for weeks, probably for months, that the problems of Greece were not being met by the austerity solution. We should have been pointing out the need for the recapitalisation of the banks. We should have been arguing for a plan for growth in Europe. So I have some questions for the Leader of the House.
On banking, do the Government believe that the amount of recapitalisation being discussed is sufficient to ensure financial stability across the European banking systems? In particular, can the Government explain why the estimates of recapitalisation at €100 billion by the European authorities are half the €200 billion that the IMF suggested was needed?
On Greece, do the Government believe that the lessons of previously announced Greek bailouts are being learnt and that this bailout will provide a genuinely sustainable solution?
On growth, do the Government understand that Europe will not get to grips with its debt problems until it gets to grips with its crisis of growth? What actions will the Government be taking to work with colleagues across the European Union to ensure growth across our continent?
Jobs and growth must be our priorities in the EU. We do not believe that it is in Britain’s interests to see the Conservative Party—not, significantly, the coalition as a whole—trying to resurrect its old issues of trying to get out of the Social Chapter, to withdraw employment rights and to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU. This matters because in December the Prime Minister is likely to be negotiating with our European allies on the nature of treaty change and what Britain wants out of this. We say that it is not in the interests of Britain for us to spend our political capital trying to water down employment rights by getting rid of four weeks’ paid holiday and maternity leave provision. That will not help jobs and growth in Britain.
Instead, the completion of the single market—CAP reform, budget reform, reform of state aids policy—should be our priority. The Government’s job is to act in the national interest and in the interests of Europe and the world economy. With globalisation, isolation cannot be the answer. Our national interests have to be considered in the wider economic context. As the debate in the other place is showing today, the Government are entangling these interests with the interests of the Conservative Party.
The issues facing Europe are serious—too serious to see Britain’s national interests being caught up in party interests. We on these Benches urge the Government to put their party interests aside and act in the national interest, because by working with and within the EU we will then be able to deal with our crisis of jobs and growth. We urge the Leader of the House now to make a clear statement that it will indeed be jobs and growth that will be the real priority for our Government in the European Union.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for the tribute she paid to the people of Libya who have fought so bravely over the course of the last seven months, and some for far longer, against the tyranny and dictatorship represented by Colonel Gaddafi. I also thank the noble Baroness for what she said about our Armed Forces and for commending the Prime Minister. I very much agree with what she said. I also agree that embedding change will take time and that the process will be long and difficult. We, the European Union and many others will be involved in that. Libya is an important country and we have been much involved with it. It is right that we should continue to help and support the National Transitional Council and the new regime, whenever that comes, for as long as they want us.
On the European Union, the noble Baroness began by saying there was no need for this House to replicate the debate happening today in the House of Commons. I agree with that, although I am sure that there will be an opportunity in the next 20 minutes or so of Back-Bench time to deal with some of these issues. The noble Baroness reminded us that the Labour Party is opposed to leaving the EU. She did not tell us about its line on joining the euro, but I am sure that that was an omission. The noble Baroness shakes her head, so I presume that means the Labour Party would not join at the moment. That is a good thing indeed.
The noble Baroness said that we needed to act together. I agree with that. It is the same reason why we are opposed to an in/out referendum. We need to act together. Major decisions are being taken about the single market—both this weekend and again on Wednesday—which is something that successive British Governments and British Prime Ministers have been championing since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The single market is an immensely important mechanism for us. The fact that the single market is not yet complete is something that should concern us; the fact that the European Commission now wishes to complete it is something that we should welcome enormously. I also agree that these decisions should be taken by the 27 member countries and not by a small group. The noble Baroness fears that we may be sidelined during the course of this process if there is a core eurozone caucus, for want of a better word. We would very much like to avoid that, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about.
The noble Baroness asked some specific questions, particularly about the amount of recapitalisation that has taken place in the banks and whether it is enough to ensure future stability. That was exactly what the ECOFIN meeting was about on Saturday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent 10 hours in the meeting to ensure that the system in place was proper and correct. As far as whether lessons have been learnt from previous bailouts, decisive action has been taken and it was right to do so.
Where I agree most with the noble Baroness is on growth. This has slowed in Europe and there are a number of structural reasons for that, such as bureaucratic centralisation. We will not get to grips with many of the financial problems without addressing the growth issues. That is why we support what the European Commission is doing on growth, particularly on completing the single market. What is also required is real political leadership. I am pleased that in this country at least, in the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, we have a united leadership developing the way forward.
I will not join the noble Baroness in her praise of the Social Chapter. I take the view that all those things that the noble Baroness thinks are important are important, too, but they could just as well be decided in a British Parliament by British Members of Parliament and, indeed, British Peers.
The noble Baroness finished by saying that these are serious questions, which is right. The issue of Europe is always taken immensely seriously, not least in this House. I like to think that we always put the national interest first; that is one of the reasons why I am a member of this Government. These are extremely difficult and complicated times, and it is vital that we put the national interest first to get the solutions that we need.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the House’s question about the euro, I remind the House that it was my Government who decided not to go into the euro and that they did so in the national interest.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept my warm welcome for the extremely determined way in which the Prime Minister led this action with President Sarkozy? However, could he perhaps clear up one area that slightly baffles me—that is, the statement about not acting on the basis of any overarching principle? My understanding—perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—is that we were in Libya, doing what we were, because we subscribed to the responsibility to protect people whose citizens cannot or will not be protected by their own Governments. That was something that we, with 191 other UN members, subscribed to in 2005. If that is correct but it is not an overarching principle, I am not sure that I would recognise one when I saw it.
Secondly, on Europe, it now sounds very likely—although the decision has not yet been formally taken—that there will be negotiations in an intergovernmental conference, and that this will probably be decided at the European Council in December. Is it not crucial that this country goes into such a conference with a positive agenda to secure all those points that the Prime Minister rightly made in his Statement about the primacy of the single market, the need to ensure that decisions are taken by the 27 member states and the need to protect our own position? A positive agenda will be needed to secure that, if action is also being taken to set up, for example, a restricted group of members in the eurozone to take certain decisions on economic and financial policy. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now drawing up some positive points to make at that intergovernmental conference, and not focusing on a long list of the sort of points that, in 1974 and 1975, led to a pretty humiliating negotiation and not a single word being changed in any European treaty?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his warm welcome to the Prime Minister’s discussions with the President of France on Libya. One can look at what happened in Libya in a variety of ways, including seeing it as following a great principle of defending the interests of civilians, which I regard as a noble principle. However, in his Statement this afternoon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, “I am wary of drawing some grand, overarching lesson—still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits; of thinking through carefully any decision to intervene in advance”. That is right. There were other important principles at work in Libya: the passing of the United Nations Security Council resolutions; the support of the Arab League and the neighbours of Libya; and the immediacy with which civilians were likely to be murdered on the streets of Benghazi. All played a part, so the Prime Minister is right not to see it as a template. The noble Lord is also right in saying that it is important that where civilian life is endangered, we should move swiftly to ensure that that is not the case.
I also agree with the noble Lord about the Government having a positive agenda on Europe. They do have a positive agenda, particularly as regards what he called the primacy of the single market, to complete all the provisions of the single market, of which there are directives outstanding that have a direct effect on and implication for British financial services, commerce and industry, particularly some of the financial directives, and to maintain these and many other things to be decided by the 27 member states. We are in a process of discussion and negotiation against a background of volatility—indeed, some financial turmoil—in the markets. It is important to get these decisions right.
Lord Newby
My Lords, on Libya, does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the important thing now is to secure the peace? Will he give an assurance to the House that the Government will give whatever support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other bodies in the UK request in order to help the new Administration in Libya to draw up a new constitution and move towards elections? On the EU summit, does he agree with me that the most worrying event of the weekend was the spat between the Prime Minister and the French President, which demonstrated the danger to the UK of being seen as irrelevant to the major decisions being taken in the EU? Will he therefore give the House an assurance that the Government are giving systematic consideration to ensuring that any moves towards greater common activities in the eurozone which have an implication for the UK will take place with the UK at the very least sitting at the table during those discussions and when those decisions are being made?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, of course we are delighted that we are seeing a semblance of peace in Libya, and long may that continue; and of course we will do everything we can to support the growth of that stability and, indeed, in the longer term, of democracy. I have answered questions before on the Westminster Foundation, whose aims and objectives we fully support. We wish to see that body continue to function and to work not just in Libya but in many other countries as well. As far as the EU and the French President are concerned, I am not sure whether “spat” is the right word, but we think that we are in a position to explain to some of our European colleagues our viewpoint on what is happening in the eurozone and to underline the seriousness of it. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that it is not in our interests for the euro to founder; it is very much in our interests for it to succeed. I do not think that we are being sidelined. We are doing everything we can to explain and to get our colleagues to understand that we are playing a full part and—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—a positive part in the development of the EU.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have just returned from the World Economic Forum in Jordan, where most of the Governments of the Arab League were represented. It is worth noting that they were all relieved and pleased that the Gaddafi era is over, as I am sure we all are. However, many of my interlocutors expressed concern—some publicly, some privately—about the way in which Gaddafi met his end. Their feeling was that if the changes in the Middle East are to become embedded, they have to be rooted in the rule of law. The rule of law would have meant that Gaddafi went on trial in an open trial which everybody could see, and was then subject to the sentence of a properly constituted court. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House assure us that this is also the Government’s position and that extrajudicial killing—in the heat of the moment people in many parts of the world may at times have sympathy with it—is wrong in principle and that standing up for the rule of law is important, whoever is the victim?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always good to hear from the noble Baroness first hand about her activities in Jordan and her discussing this with other Arab countries. I agree with the point that underlines her remarks. The UK was a strong supporter of the ICC and led the drive to refer the situation in Libya to the ICC in UNSCR 1970. We have always maintained that the ideal solution involved Gaddafi being arrested and standing trial in The Hague and getting to the truth of the many events that occurred over the course of the past 40 years. Ultimately, the fate of Gaddafi was in the hands of the Libyans. The process should have been rooted in the rule of law and we will certainly make sure that the NTC understands that. It is now for it to decide how it plans to investigate the events that led to Gaddafi’s death.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, will my noble friend assure me that he is aware of the proposal that the 17 members of the eurozone should meet outside the Council of Ministers and decide among themselves by a majority upon economic policies that would affect this country, which they would then support as a bloc in the Council? Would such an arrangement constitute a substantial transfer of powers from this country such as to trigger a referendum?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not think that, as my noble friend explained his scenario, it would, because it would not necessitate a treaty change. My noble friend raises a question that we would not necessarily like to face, and at this stage we are not sure that it is something that we necessarily need to beware of. On Wednesday there is another European Council—an emergency Council—which will draw conclusions, and we will be in a far better position to see the outcome of these talks at that stage.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I speak as someone who is a little wary of parliamentary procedures that lead directly from a petition to an automatic debate in Parliament, and would not have supported those procedures had I been in the Commons when they were decided. None the less, does the noble Lord agree that if a petition asks one House of Parliament to debate something and to express Parliament’s view, it rather destroys the point for all three party leaders to insist that Parliament should respond in a particular way? I would not have thought that that is the best way of discovering Parliament’s view. Secondly, in respect of a part of the Statement that I fully support and endorse, where the noble Lord reminds us that Parliament held a debate on the proposed conflict in Libya at the earliest opportunity, what does he think would happen if this were an elected House? Would this House—in the event of a proposition for armed conflict—also be required to express a view?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says that he is suspicious—he did not quite use the words “new-fangled parliamentary processes”, but he might have done—of the role of e-petitions and of the Back-Bench committee of the other place that decided on what should be debated. I do not think that there is any real tension between that and the three party leaders taking a view. It may be that the Back-Bench committee thought that something was important to debate and the three party leaders took a different view. It is certainly a less tidy process, but it may be that people feel that by joining in these petitions they have debates brought to the Floor of the House. Those who signed up to this e-petition will no doubt be very pleased with its results—at least I hope they will be.
It is very tempting to get into long debates with the noble Lord about the role of a directly elected second House. I have no view as to whether a directly elected senate would wish to vote on whether we went to war. What the noble Lord did not ask, but what he meant, was about what would happen if those two bodies disagreed in some fundamental way. Many of these questions would be ironed out once an elected senate were in place and in a position to negotiate these matters with the House of Commons.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Can the Leader of the House say whether Colonel Gaddafi’s second son and nominated heir is still alive and, if so, whether every effort will be made to capture him alive and to make him stand trial? Such a trial might cast a flood of light upon both the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of WPC Fletcher.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not know whether he is still alive but, on the basis that he is, our role would be to stick to UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and to protect civilians in Libya. We would certainly expect the Libyan regime—the NTC—to work within the rule of law; and if he were arrested he should be brought to trial so that we could find the answers to these questions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Perhaps we might hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and then move to UKIP.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, will the Leader of the House possibly correct the attempts of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to rewrite history? Will he perhaps remind her that the decisions on which countries joined the euro, and at which parities, were made well before the 1997 election? At that time, the decision by the Conservative Government not to join the euro was severely criticised by both John Smith and Gordon Brown.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always good to hear my noble friend, and he has of course put the record entirely right.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the talk in the Statement about scrapping EU rules and bureaucracy, bringing back powers to Westminster and reforming the EU generally is all just a dishonest red herring, because he will be aware of the requirement for unanimity among all 27 member states before a single comma can be retrieved from the treaties? Secondly, why does he yet again come up with the often-repeated propaganda that somehow millions of British jobs depend on our membership of the European Union? Can he tell us why a single job would be lost if we left the political construct of the EU? After all, EU countries sell us much more than we sell them, and Switzerland and 62 other countries have free-trade agreements with the European Union. If we are to continue these debates, can we please drop this obvious propaganda?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I usually admire the noble Lord’s questions but I cannot follow him on this occasion. On repatriating powers, we believe that an opportunity for the British Government to negotiate may well arise in a positive way. I say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that repatriating powers to the United Kingdom may well strengthen the whole EU. There is a clear role for the nation state. However, at the moment, we are at a very early stage and we do not know whether there will be a treaty change and, if there is, how big it will be, exactly what it will refer to and so on. I do not think that anyone should get overexcited about this, but any future treaty change will—partly because of the rule of unanimity—give us the opportunity to advance our national interests, which is of course what the Prime Minister and the Government will always wish to do.
Secondly, I cannot join the noble Lord in his attack on what he called propaganda about the single market. The single market is an immensely important part of British interests and the British economy. I will not list all the figures now. One reason to be on the inside is that all the countries that he mentioned did not have a say in writing the rules of the single market. One of the greatest advantages of being a member of the EU is that we are part of the process under which these rules are made.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The Prime Minister stated only a couple weeks ago, much to the annoyance of President Sarkozy, about the crisis that they—presumably, the eurozone—ought to sort it out. In a sense, I am responding to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House think that that is what the Prime Minister meant?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I must say that I am not entirely certain that I followed the noble Lord’s views. The eurozone is in an immensely difficult situation. There is a huge problem which will impact not just on eurozone countries but on our economy and perhaps even wider than that. It is up to them, I suppose, to sort it out, but we can all play a part in sorting it out because it is so important to all of us.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are out of time and we should move to Report.
Education Bill
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:35 - Division on Amendment 57C - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 57C disagreed.
17:51 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 58 disagreed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Enforcement powers
(1) Part 7 of ASCLA 2009 (the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 151 (power to give directions), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to Ofqual that a recognised body has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition to which the recognition is subject.”
(3) After section 151 insert—
“151A Power to impose monetary penalties
(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to Ofqual that a recognised body has failed to comply with a condition to which the recognition is subject.
(2) Ofqual may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised body.
(3) A “monetary penalty” is a requirement to pay to Ofqual a penalty of an amount determined by Ofqual in accordance with section 151B.
(4) Before imposing a monetary penalty on a recognised body, Ofqual must give notice to the body of its intention to do so.
(5) The notice must—
(a) set out Ofqual’s reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and(b) specify the period during which, and the way in which, the recognised body may make representations about the proposal.(6) The period specified under subsection (5)(b) must not be less than 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is received.
(7) Ofqual must have regard to any representations made by the recognised body during the period specified in the notice in deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty on the body.
(8) If Ofqual decides to impose a monetary penalty on the body, it must give the body a notice containing information as to—
(a) the grounds for imposing the penalty,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.151B Monetary penalties: amount
(1) The amount of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised body under section 151A must not exceed 10% of the body’s turnover.
(2) The turnover of a body for the purposes of subsection (1) is to be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Subject to subsection (1), the amount may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
151C Monetary penalties: appeals
(1) A recognised body may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision to impose a monetary penalty on the body under section 151A;(b) a decision as to the amount of the penalty. (2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the penalty is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the penalty;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as Ofqual could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the penalty, or any matter relating to that decision, to Ofqual.151D Monetary penalties: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised body is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised body may make an appeal under section 151C in respect of the penalty, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 151C in respect of the penalty is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the penalty for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the penalty.
(5) Ofqual may recover from the body, as a civil debt due to it, the unpaid amount of the penalty and any unpaid interest.”
(4) In section 152 (power to withdraw recognition), for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Ofqual may withdraw recognition from the recognised body in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) a specified qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the body is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the body is recognised.”(5) After section 152 insert—
“152A Costs recovery
(1) Ofqual may, by notice, require a recognised body on which a sanction has been imposed to pay the costs incurred by Ofqual in relation to imposing the sanction, up to the time it is imposed.
(2) The references in subsection (1) to imposing a sanction are to—
(a) giving a direction under section 151;(b) imposing a monetary penalty under section 151A;(c) withdrawing recognition under section 152.(3) “Costs” includes in particular—
(a) investigation costs;(b) administration costs;(c) costs of obtaining expert advice (including legal advice).(4) A notice given to a recognised body under subsection (1) must contain information as to—
(a) the amount required to be paid,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal, (e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.(5) The body may require Ofqual to provide a detailed breakdown of the amount specified in the notice.
152B Costs recovery: appeals
(1) A recognised body may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision under section 152A(1) to require the body to pay costs;(b) a decision as to the amount of those costs.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the costs is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the costs;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as Ofqual could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the costs, or any matter relating to that decision, to Ofqual.152C Costs: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of an amount of costs that a recognised body is required to pay under section 152A(1) is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised body may make an appeal under section 152B in respect of the costs, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 152B in respect of the costs is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the costs for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the costs.
(5) Ofqual may recover from the body, as a civil debt due to it, the unpaid amount of the costs and any unpaid interest.”
(6) In section 153 (qualifications regulatory framework), in subsection (8)(e), for “152” substitute “152C”.
(7) In section 262(6) of ASCLA 2009 (orders and regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) an order under section 151B(2);”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, government Amendments 56 and 57 are a response to concerns first raised by my noble friend Lord Lingfield and echoed by others of my noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, about whether Ofqual has a full range of effective and proportionate powers that it can use to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
The context of the concerns expressed was the events of this summer, where we saw numerous errors in awarding bodies’ exam papers; many of those appeared even after Ofqual had required awarding bodies to go back and check all their papers. We all know how hard most children work for their GCSEs, A-levels and vocational qualifications. After all that work, they should not be let down by exam boards’ mistakes; nor can we be sanguine about the credibility of our qualifications being brought into doubt.
The key point made by my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others in the Grand Committee debate on 13 July was that Ofqual currently has only two types of sanctions available to it: first, the power to direct an awarding body to comply with a condition; and, secondly, the ultimate—and rather nuclear—sanction of partial or full withdrawal of recognition, which in effect would prevent an awarding body from offering a qualification to maintained schools.
Obviously, those are strong powers. First, Ofqual can require awarding bodies to put things right by giving those bodies a direction; but that will often be only after they have gone wrong, so that is after the candidate has endured the two hours of stress that resulted from unsolvable problems in the paper they were sitting. Secondly, Ofqual can, in practice, strip an awarding body of the ability to offer its qualifications to the market. That certainly sounds like a strong incentive on awarding bodies not to make mistakes and to comply with Ofqual’s conditions, but taking such a step could have a very disruptive impact on the whole system, as schools and colleges would have to switch providers and the courses they are teaching. Ofqual is under a duty to act appropriately and proportionately, so, given this impact, it would be able to do that in practice only if faced with an extremely serious or extremely persistent breach of a condition.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Amendments 56A and 56B are in my name and both are amendments to Amendment 56. I tabled them because we, and I suspect other noble Lords, have received a fair amount of correspondence about this provision. Two issues arise from it. One, which is the subject of my amendments, relates to a very narrow issue—the 10 per cent of turnover to which the fine should be related and the question of whether that is the total turnover of the organisation or just that part of the organisation’s turnover that relates to its United Kingdom activities. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have effectively accepted these amendments, and I gather that the turnover will relate only to United Kingdom activities.
The other issue goes somewhat wider and relates to the whole process of consultation that took place. I understand that, as the Minister explained, the Government were anxious to get these powers on to the statute book because Ofqual had the choice of only either a fairly gentle reprimand or the nuclear option of withdrawing recognition of the examining board, and it wanted a further range of sanctions to apply, as is the case with other regulators. However, it is very unfortunate that the period of consultation was reduced to as little as 10 days and that the examination boards did not have a chance to respond to these proposals as fully as they would have liked. It is also unfortunate that a wider consultation with other people affected by the knock-on effects of this provision did not take place. Some of them may also have received a letter from the ASCL pointing out that a fine imposed on the examining boards is quite likely to be passed on to the schools, which pay considerable fees for their pupils to sit these examinations.
I recognise that we do not want our examining boards to make the serious errors in examinations that occurred this summer and that sanctions of some sort are not a bad idea. Nevertheless, the fact remains that an inquiry was set up to examine those errors and it is not going to report until the end of the year. Normally, one would expect to see some action taken after the inquiry reports, and I therefore ask the Minister whether it was really necessary to act as quickly as he did. Furthermore, I hope that full consultation will now take place with the examination boards. As the Government put flesh on the bones of the sanctions in this amendment, I hope that they will have proper discussions and consultations with all those concerned about how the sanctions should be imposed and implemented. This is not good practice and I hope that the coalition Government will not continue with the rapid pursuit of issues in the same way.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that, following my remarks, these clauses are to be inserted.
It is worth reminding noble Lords of the unedifying accounts in the newspapers a short time ago, when we saw complaints from parents, teachers and schools. A printing mistake by the AQA board led to some schools receiving GCSE maths papers, taken by 32,000 pupils, which included questions from a previous version of the examination. The OCR maths AS-level paper, with nearly 7,000 candidates, featured an impossible question worth a whole 11 per cent of the marks. OCR’s Latin paper mixed up a passage by Cicero and attributed it to Tacitus, and two characters were mixed up. Edexcel’s AS-level biology paper offered a selection of wrong answers to a multiple choice question, but the correct answer was not included. The OCR guide issued to staff marking the AS-level information communication and technology paper contained four errors—staff were required to mark down students who gave the correct answer. AQA’s AS-level business studies examination, taken by 41,000 students, asked about a fictitious company’s factory profits, but the adjoining profile information failed to show the profits, making the question completely unanswerable. Of course, there were other examples in earlier years. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who is in his place, carried out, as I am sure he will mention, a review that suggested that QCA was responsible for massive failures resulting in tens of thousands of children getting their SATs results late.
That is why I support these extra powers for Ofqual boards. I believe the penalties that are outlined seem a fair and useful way ahead, with the appropriate safeguards of notice and appeal that the Bill sets out. I hope that noble Lords will support them and they will lead to a diminution in the angst and difficulty caused earlier this year to pupils, parents and teachers after the examinations.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I warmly welcome the government amendment, and not only for the reason it means that one’s words do not always disappear into the ether for ever, although it is nice to see a bit of thought being given to them. Examining boards do an extremely difficult and complex job. Over the years, we have built for them a system that requires too much, and too much complexity. We are now rolling back from this, and that is the right direction. However, examination boards which, for the most part, have done this very well, do fail from time to time. They fail in ways that are serious and, as we have heard, are deeply upsetting to schools and candidates. It is therefore right that Ofqual should have the capacity to assert some discipline over them.
As has been suggested, I have seen in great detail—more than I ever want to see again—the complexity of the procurement process for a national set of examinations. If Ofqual were committed to its only sanction being to reset the process in motion, we would have the wrong system. Under this amendment, Ofqual will have different alternatives. I say to my noble friend Lady Sharp that this should have been in the original powers of Ofqual rather than being put through at this stage. I welcome the amendments and hope that the House will support them.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I do not object in principle to the proposals. They were consulted on in 2009 by my Government. We decided at that stage against moving in this direction. I agree that the impact on students when these errors occur is very bad. I agree, too, with measures in general to drive up performance, although it is interesting to contrast them with the approach of this Government to driving up performance in schools, which is to absolve them of every possible requirement, whereas in this instance further financial sanctions are being sought. It is a moot point whether Ofqual needs these powers or whether the existing powers that the Minister has referred to of withdrawing accreditation or giving a direction are both more appropriate and more effective. The Minister agreed that these are strong powers.
I will make three points and will be grateful if the Minister will respond to them. First, I echo some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the rushed nature of this publication. It begs the question of whether the detail has been properly thought through, with only eight days for providers to have any kind of discussion with Ofqual about how it might work. Consequently, no information is available on a number of important questions. For example, in what circumstances will the financial penalties be imposed? What level of apparent errors will be the threshold for financial penalties to kick in? What will be the levels of penalties and how will they be determined? What will the maximum penalty be? What will be the mechanism for an independent appeals process for providers, and what safeguards will there be that it will be a fair and transparent process? Will the Government issue guidance to Ofqual on how it should conduct itself? The Minister may say that Ofqual will have a full consultation for 12 weeks on some of these questions, but as noble Lords are being asked to consider the measures now, it would have been helpful to have had some indication of the Government's view about how this will work.
My second question is: are financial penalties appropriate? We have heard that Pearson has replied with some comments, but I am more concerned with the majority of exam boards, which are charitable, not-for-profit organisations. Seventy-five per cent of all GCSEs and A-levels are delivered by not-for-profit organisations. There is already in the system a degree of potential financial instability for the exam boards, because government policy decisions, for instance on changing the structures of GCSEs, have an immediate financial impact on them. Therefore, there is a danger to the not-for-profit organisations that this may further jeopardise their financial stability. As we have heard, schools, too, are concerned that if the not-for-profit organisations take any financial penalty, ultimately they will have to pass it on to schools; they will not necessarily be able to absorb it.
Finally, I am concerned that there are clear parameters and guidance on how Ofqual must use the powers in ways that will protect it from having to respond to what will inevitably be media pressure and perhaps the appearance of political pressure concerning the way it implements these decisions and applies financial penalties. What safeguards does the Minister envisage to ensure that protection? One not-for-profit exam board has suggested that Ofqual should deal with these matters through a more distant complaints procedure, so that it will be clearly separate from government and shielded to some extent from the barrage of perhaps understandable media pressure that will accompany these issues.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lingfield and Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for their broad welcome for the measures, and the recognition that this responds to a need.
On the speed of the consultation, referred to by my noble friend Lady Sharp and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, we responded to the points that were raised in Grand Committee. A legislative opportunity presented itself with this Education Bill and we had before us the failures of this summer. I know that the previous Government consulted. Our case would be that, with the legislative opportunity there and the evidence of the failures that we had this summer, which the previous Government had not had, it was sensible to act while the opportunity presented itself, but I take my noble friend’s point about the importance of consultation. Ofqual will consult on the detailed implementation of its powers, which will be a full 12-week consultation.
In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, Ofqual will publish a statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework, which will set out how and in what circumstances its powers will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectations that only serious or persistent breaches could lead to a fine.
On the question of appeals, there will be an appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal, in line with other regulators. I know that concerns were raised about fines being passed on to schools, effectively. Ofqual will have powers to cap those fees if it thinks that it is necessary to do so. I understand the point that obviously some of the big awarding bodies are charities, but some of them are charities with very large tens of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover. Our basic point is that a pupil or student on the wrong end of a duff examination paper is not too bothered whether that paper has been set by a charity or a commercial organisation. That is why we think that it is appropriate to give this extra power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, is right that there are two powers but we feel that in essence they are not sufficiently nuanced. Giving this additional power we hope will lead not to large amounts of fining but to better and more accurate examination papers.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am reassured that there will be extensive consultation with the boards concerned on the implementation of these things. I just want to reiterate my general feeling that it is important for consultation to take place before rather than after legislation as a general principle. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Enforcement powers of Welsh Ministers
(1) Chapter 2 of Part 5 of EA 1997 (functions of Welsh Ministers: qualifications and the school curriculum) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 32A (power to give directions), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
“(1) Subsection (1A) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition subject to which the recognition has effect.
(1A) The Welsh Ministers may direct the recognised person to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the conditions subject to which the recognition has effect.
(2) Subsection (2A) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person who awards or authenticates a qualification accredited by them has failed or is likely to fail to comply with a condition subject to which the accreditation has effect.
(2A) The Welsh Ministers may direct the recognised person to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the conditions subject to which the accreditation has effect.”
(3) In section 32A(5), for “32B and” substitute “32AA to”.
(4) After section 32A insert—
“32AA Power of Welsh Ministers to impose monetary penalties
(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person has failed to comply with a condition subject to which the recognition has effect.
(2) The Welsh Ministers may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised person.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if it appears to the Welsh Ministers that a recognised person who awards or authenticates a qualification accredited by them has failed to comply with a condition subject to which the accreditation has effect.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may impose a monetary penalty on the recognised person.
(5) A “monetary penalty” is a requirement to pay to the Welsh Ministers a penalty of an amount determined by them in accordance with section 32AB.
(6) Before imposing a monetary penalty on a recognised person, the Welsh Ministers must give notice to the person of their intention to do so.
(7) The notice must—
(a) set out their reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and (b) specify the period during which, and the way in which, the recognised person may make representations about the proposal.(8) The period specified under subsection (7)(b) must not be less than 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is received.
(9) The Welsh Ministers must have regard to any representations made by the recognised person during the period specified in the notice in deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty on the person.
(10) If the Welsh Ministers decide to impose a monetary penalty on the person, they must give the person a notice containing information as to—
(a) the grounds for imposing the penalty,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.32AB Monetary penalties: amount
(1) The amount of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised person under section 32AA must not exceed 10% of the person’s turnover.
(2) The turnover of a person for the purposes of subsection (1) is to be determined in accordance with an order made by the Welsh Ministers.
(3) Subject to subsection (1), the amount may be whatever the Welsh Ministers decide is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
32AC Monetary penalties: appeals
(1) A recognised person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision to impose a monetary penalty on the person under section 32AA;(b) a decision as to the amount of the penalty.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the penalty is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the penalty;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as the Welsh Ministers could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the penalty, or any matter relating to that decision, to the Welsh Ministers.32AD Monetary penalties: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of a monetary penalty imposed on a recognised person is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised person may make an appeal under section 32AC in respect of the penalty, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 32AC in respect of the penalty is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn. (3) The unpaid amount of the penalty for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the penalty.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may recover from the person, as a civil debt due to them, the unpaid amount of the penalty and any unpaid interest.”
(5) In section 32B (power to withdraw recognition)—
(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The Welsh Ministers may withdraw recognition from the recognised person in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) a specified qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised.”;(b) for subsection (4) substitute—“(4) The Welsh Ministers may withdraw recognition from the recognised person in respect of the award or authentication of—
(a) the qualification or a specified description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised, or(b) every qualification or description of qualification in respect of which the person is recognised.”(6) After section 32B insert—
“32BA Costs recovery
(1) The Welsh Ministers may, by notice, require a recognised person on whom a sanction has been imposed to pay the costs incurred by the Welsh Ministers in relation to imposing the sanction, up to the time it is imposed.
(2) The references in subsection (1) to imposing a sanction are to—
(a) giving a direction under section 32A;(b) imposing a monetary penalty under section 32AA;(c) withdrawing recognition under section 32B.(3) “Costs” includes in particular—
(a) investigation costs;(b) administration costs;(c) costs of obtaining expert advice (including legal advice).(4) A notice given to a recognised person under subsection (1) must contain information as to—
(a) the amount required to be paid,(b) how payment may be made,(c) the period within which payment is required to be made (which must not be less than 28 days),(d) rights of appeal,(e) the period within which an appeal may be made, and(f) the consequences of non-payment.(5) The person may require the Welsh Ministers to provide a detailed breakdown of the amount specified in the notice.
32BB Costs recovery: appeals
(1) A recognised person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) a decision under section 32BA(1) to require the person to pay costs;(b) a decision as to the amount of those costs.(2) An appeal under this section may be made on the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;(b) that the decision was wrong in law;(c) that the decision was unreasonable.(3) The requirement to pay the costs is suspended pending the determination of an appeal under this section.
(4) On an appeal under this section the Tribunal may—
(a) withdraw the requirement to pay the costs;(b) confirm that requirement;(c) vary that requirement;(d) take such steps as the Welsh Ministers could take in relation to the failure to comply giving rise to the decision to impose the requirement;(e) remit the decision whether to confirm the requirement to pay the costs, or any matter relating to that decision, to the Welsh Ministers.32BC Costs: interest and recovery
(1) This section applies if all or part of an amount of costs that a recognised person is required to pay under section 32BA(1) is unpaid at the end of the period ending on the applicable date.
(2) The applicable date is—
(a) the last date on which the recognised person may make an appeal under section 32BB in respect of the costs, if no such appeal is made;(b) if an appeal under section 32BB in respect of the costs is made—(i) the date on which the appeal is determined, or(ii) if the appeal is withdrawn before being determined, the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.(3) The unpaid amount of the costs for the time being carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (and does not also carry interest as a judgment debt under that section).
(4) The total amount of interest imposed under subsection (3) must not exceed the amount of the costs.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may recover from the person, as a civil debt due to them, the unpaid amount of the costs and any unpaid interest.”
(7) In section 54 of EA 1997 (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (2), after “section” insert “32AB(2) or”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provision) an order under section 32AB(2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, the amendments in this group aim to improve the careers advice to which young people would be entitled in the classroom. They cover different aspects of the provision that we think pupils have a right to expect. While each of our amendments has validity in its own right, they have also been consolidated into Amendment 57CA.
The Government’s proposals in Clause 27 amend the Education Act 1997 so that in the future maintained schools and pupil referral units would be required to secure independent, impartial careers advice for pupils aged 13 to 16. However, schools will be free to decide how best to fulfil this duty based on the needs of their pupils and as the Bill stands there is no guarantee that the advice would be from a trained professional, nor that it would be face to face. Our amendments would ensure that all pupils receive face-to-face careers advice from year 8 onwards. This is the year that the majority of pupils turn 14 and start to make decisions about their study options for GCSE, and it is vital that they understand the implications of those choices for their future careers.
Our amendments also require that advice is provided by a qualified provider, not a teacher to whom the responsibility has been given as an afterthought or someone employed by an accredited service provider who is none the less not personally qualified. This is vital to ensure a consistent quality of careers advice throughout the education system. We had an excellent debate on this subject in Grand Committee and noble Lords from all sides of the House recognised the need to drive up standards in careers advice for young people, and the need to influence them early enough to make wise choices about their course of study.
I acknowledge receipt, rather belatedly, of the Minister’s letter of 20 July, in which he tried to address those concerns. Regretfully, I do not think the letter goes far enough and I do not believe that his proposal of guidance to schools will give sufficient guarantees to young people who should have a right to these services. I do not believe that measuring outcomes via the destination of pupils or relying on a future Ofsted report, both of which would take time, gives pupils and parents sufficient reassurance about the provision that will take place now.
We all understand that careers decisions for young people are very complex these days, more so than when many of us were making our first career choices some time ago. There is increased competition for higher education places, a greater range of opportunities, including apprenticeships, and an awareness nowadays that jobs are less often jobs for life. Young people may need to equip themselves for a range of jobs and a degree of flexibility in their career plans. They also have to factor in the higher costs of staying on in education, which has not been made any easier by the cutting of EMA and the increase in tuition fees. Evidence shows that lack of information about the choices available is seen by young people as one of the main barriers to their participation post-16 and an even greater number see this lack of information as having placed constraints on their choices post-16. They need expert help and guidance on a regular basis to help them achieve their ambitions.
The Government believe it is sufficient to offer careers guidance by phone or online to the vast majority of pupils but we fundamentally disagree. Where a young person has access to a wide network of family and friends with a variety of careers, phone and internet advice might be helpful. Where a young person’s family is able to arrange internships and job trials for them, it might be helpful. However, phone or internet advice might be helpful but it is not enough. It does not meet the challenge of ensuring that young people get nuanced guidance, tailored to their talents, drive and ambitions. Of course, this is particularly true for young people who do not have access to a social network of people in a variety of jobs or who do not have role models in different careers, and even more so for young people from families where there is intergenerational worklessness.
Baroness Brinton
I shall speak to Amendments 58, 59, 60 and 61. I welcome the Minister’s letter of 20 October, which has given some helpful answers, but there are some further queries that I wish to raise in today’s debate.
With regard to Amendment 58, the letter from the Minister makes it clear that there will be robust standards and quality assurance—for that, we are pleased—through the Careers Profession Alliance and its proposed online register, which will also recognise those who have achieved a level 6 standard. This is very welcome, but I wish to ask the Minister for confirmation that statutory guidance will make it clear to schools that they must use this standard when commissioning.
Amendment 59 addresses the thorny issue of face-to-face advice, which we discussed at considerable length in Committee. In a perfect world, all schools would ensure that all pupils get at least one face-to-face interview, but the Minister’s letter makes it clear that that is not what the Government are looking for. Our amendment seeks to ensure that the most disadvantaged—the ones who were caught by the original inverted pyramid of the Connexions service proposals—would get face-to-face advice because it is extremely important that they do so. Let me explain why.
The Association of Colleges has recently surveyed pupils considering options for post-16, and while 64 per cent of young people considering their options know about A-levels, only a shocking 7 per cent can name apprenticeships as a qualification, just a quarter know about NVQs, and 19 per cent are able to name BTECs. Those pupils for whom A-levels are not the correct route will not know what they do not know. We have often talked about that in this House as a “Donald Rumsfeld moment”. On these Benches we remain very concerned that asking them to go on to a website and rootle around to find what might be appropriate for them is not going to be enough.
Schools will need to ensure that those most likely not to take A-levels or follow an academic route, some of whom may be at risk of becoming NEETs, should have access to face-to-face advice. Our amendment makes it clear that face-to-face advice must be offered to the disadvantaged. We have kept it as a fairly broad phrase, but for the avoidance of doubt we have included free school meals and those with SEN. But it is broadly inclusive so a school can look at its pupils and make its decision about where to draw those lines.
Amendments 60 and 61 cover the issue of when high-quality careers advice should start and end. I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had outside the Chamber about whether a 14 year-old, as stated in the Bill, is actually a rising 14. Our amendment would make it clear that young people should be getting advice when they are beginning to consider their options for years 10 and 11 at school. If it starts later than that, after they have chosen their options, whether they want to follow an academic or a vocational route, they could compromise their future pathway. That seems wrong to us, so I ask the Minister to be clear that this is for rising 14s; that is, that those in year 9 who start the year as 13 year-olds and probably end it as 14 years-olds will be covered.
We also want to ensure that some provision is made for post-16 advice, principally again—I repeat the point—for those who may not be taking an automatic route into A-levels at school and then on to university. An enormous breadth of vocational training is available, along with an enormous number of qualifications. I know from my own experience that when, as the chair of a learning and skills council, we tried to map out the vocational pathways in our county area alone, it was almost impossible to do so. How on earth we expect 15 and 16 year-olds to make headway on their own is, I think, unhelpful.
Finally, I welcome the Minister’s affirmation in his letter of 20 October that local authorities that are currently letting their careers staff go are continuing to deliver their responsibilities as regards careers advice until schools take this over next year. In particular, I welcome his comment that if local authorities prove not to be doing that at the moment, the Department for Education will take them to task.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, in particular those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The whole business of giving advice to children early is, frankly, crucial—and it is not just advice, but a rather wider range of intelligence about the world in which they are going to emerge. I recall my experience in the early days at the Equal Opportunities Commission when girls’ schools were not very good at giving the full range of possibilities, not least the range of likely earnings in particular careers. I think that some degree of inheritance remains that probably needs coping with. I would particularly want to target girls’ schools in this respect. I notice that they have not really been mentioned in any of the briefings.
The country’s need for skills at a particular time needs stressing. After all, those are the areas where you are likely to get jobs, although, frankly, it is not going to be easy in these economic conditions, whatever your age is. I have another worry about this whole area. Although I appreciate this business of wanting to give as much discretion as possible to local government in how it distributes its resources, it is important to see that some degree of uniformity is continued. Yet UNISON, having done its research, says that, of the 144 local authorities, only 15 are likely to maintain substantially what they are doing at the moment. There seem to be cutbacks everywhere. I, too, welcome the letter from the Minister of 20 October, in which he set out very clearly the Government’s aims, particularly for those with special needs, for whom there must be a very early introduction to the kind of possibilities that are available. Indeed, a great deal of encouragement still needs to be given to employers to provide the flexibility that is going to be required in many of the job and skills opportunities for the future.
I think that is enough from me, but I certainly think that we are going in the right direction in many of the amendments that have already been tabled and accepted by the Minister.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I think there is agreement across the House about the importance of the careers advice and guidance service. It has always been important, but never more so than now, when the world is very complicated. The more you give young people choice, the more you have an obligation to assist them in making effective choices. That is just the world in which we live.
A lot has been said about giving impartial information and advice. I agree entirely. I know that, certainly in the past, some schools and colleges who had a vested interest in keeping young people have not acted as professionally as they ought to have done in that matter. I am absolutely on board about that. However, we have spoken less about how young people make decisions. For me, that is one of the most important things. My experience tells me that giving young people accurate information does not mean that they will make a wise decision. I accept, in this age, and especially with young people and their ability to deal online with information, that we could indeed get a system where the facts of the case—accurate information about the options available to them— could be effectively delivered online. What you cannot do online is work with a young person to make the appropriate decision for them. That bringing together of their attributes, their aspirations, their strengths and their weaknesses and matching them to the information that you have is the essence of guidance and of counselling. I do not see that in either the legislation or the extra information that the Minister has offered.
If truth be told, I do not think that the careers guidance service has ever been as strong as it ought to be. I think it has always struggled to have its voice heard alongside the voice of quite powerful and strong heads over many years. It has always struggled to get in there with schools and hold its own. When I was a teacher, I remember very many caring teachers who did their best and acted professionally to work with young people and help them reach the right conclusion for themselves. To be truthful, when the careers guidance officers came into school and worked face-to-face with these young people, the quality of work that was done was seismically different from what was done with even the best teachers. Working with people, not just to give them information but to help them reach an effective decision, is a skilled job. I do not see how it can be done other than face-to-face, and I worry about it being done by someone without an appropriate qualification. For those reasons, I support the amendments.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I add my name to those supporting the group of amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I do so because the current provision for face-to-face careers advice preceded one of the dates mentioned in this debate. If I am right, it goes back to the Education Act 1973. It was more than just a passing of an intent; it placed a duty on the local authority to provide support designed to match the needs of the individual student. One of the problems with the Bill in respect of the provision of careers advice is that this statutory right has been downgraded significantly to access, basically, in respect of needs. There is no real provision for quality or indeed quantity assurances. It is a one-size-fits-all provision, based in some instances on an online system.
I see some difficulties in future years. As I understand it, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also promoting an all-age service of advice and career guidance. Again, though, it is faceless and has no interaction because it is online. It is predicated on a one-size-fits-all culture. The current system is tried, tested and respected. It enthuses and inspires confidence and provides a two-way interaction; it is a critical friend that challenges and motivates. That is as it should be. It is a system that extends parental support to the student who needs that sort of guidance, particularly in circumstances of a one-parent family. That is crucial.
I want to raise a point about the transition. As I understand it, the arrangements currently provided by Connexions end in March 2012 and the new provisions being canvassed in the Bill would not come into force until September 2012. So my question is an obvious one: how will the gap be filled?
We have heard much about social mobility. The only way to ensure that all young people have opportunities to raise their aspirations is for them to receive a first-rate education that enables them to achieve academically and to have access to independent, impartial careers advice and guidance that supports them to make the best decisions and helps them to apply for appropriate post-16 learning opportunities. It is for those reasons that I add my name to the group of amendments so ably spoken to by my noble friend.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for this chance to return to the issue of careers guidance and the Government’s proposal to give schools greater responsibility for securing appropriate support, based on the needs and circumstances of pupils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, we had a good and extensive debate on this in Committee, and I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly to my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp of Guildford, for meeting me and my honourable friend John Hayes recently to discuss some of the areas of their concern.
Perhaps I may briefly set out the context in which we are implementing changes to the delivery of careers guidance. We know that the single most important factor in making sure that young people carry on and prosper in post-16 education—which is what we all want to encourage—is that they do well before they are 16. Only one in 40 students who get five good GCSEs is NEET at any point after the age of 16, compared to one in six of those who do not get five good GCSEs. Without that bedrock of achievement, the potential of adding to that, even with the best advice and guidance in the world, is quite limited. That is why our focus is on what goes on in schools.
I say that to demonstrate why we have chosen to focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning in our schools, and on introducing the pupil premium to help improve the attainment of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, about whom we have already spoken. At a time of economic difficulty, we are moving away from centrally-directed services and have protected school budgets as much as we can. We have given schools greater autonomy and the flexibility to determine the best use of resources for every pupil.
We disagree with the party opposite in seeking to move the focus away from—in the jargon—inputs to outcomes, because we think that it is more important to know how a school or college does by its students than to know precisely what it does. That is the thinking behind the development of new destinations measures. We think that these will show parents and pupils how well a school or college does in helping its students on to positive destinations, whether it is in further education, higher education, apprenticeships or work. We think that those will act as a powerful tool to help those institutions to make sure they look at everything that leads to positive outcomes, from education through to, and including, careers guidance.
A number of amendments in this group touch upon the important issue of the quality of careers guidance and how we can help to ensure that what is available to schools is good quality. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about the importance of that. There is no disagreement between us. Careers guidance should be of the highest standard and offered free from the influence of any particular organisation. That is a point that was raised by a number of noble Lords who, I know, have been concerned that sometimes schools have steered children in a particular direction and not towards apprenticeships or other rival institutions.
The national careers service will be required to meet a robust high-quality standard and all providers involved in the service will be expected to be accredited to the standard by April 2013. It was recently announced that this quality standard would be the revised matrix standard, and that will assist schools in making well informed decisions about which providers they want to work with.
Alongside this, the Careers Profession Alliance is taking forward work to increase the professionalism of the careers workforce in response to the recommendations of the Careers Profession Task Force. An online register for members who have reached a level 6 qualification, have agreed to uphold a code of ethics and have demonstrated a strong commitment to continuing professional development, is expected to be introduced in April 2012.
We spoke in Committee of the need to reduce generally the burden of guidance from the centre. There were previously 169 pages of guidance on careers for schools, and we want to reduce that. However, having listened to contributions in Committee, I recognise that it is sensible to allow scope for focused guidance to be issued to schools to support them in fulfilling their new duty. After considering the concerns raised by my noble friends Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Brinton at a recent meeting, I want to go further and ensure that the statutory guidance highlights to schools how they can be confident that the external support they are buying in is of the desired quality. The guidance will contain a clear description of the quality standard for careers guidance for schools in commissioning independent advice and support for their pupils. I will certainly commit to consulting on that guidance.
Baroness Brinton
Is the Minister talking about statutory guidance here? He did not use the phrase “statutory guidance” at the beginning of the debate on this clause.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, it is statutory guidance. I thought I had used the phrase; forgive me. I welcome the views of my noble friends and other noble Lords, who I know feel strongly about this issue. We have also confirmed that a thematic review of careers guidance will take place following the commencement of these provisions. That will look carefully at the quality of provision and the extent to which this has an effect on pupils’ understanding of the options available to them as they progress through school.
The second main area of debate has been the question of how careers guidance is delivered. While recognising that young people receive advice from many different sources, and the fact that many young people say that they prefer to get information online, I accept the case made this afternoon by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Pupils can benefit enormously from support offered in person that raises their aspirations and guides them on to a successful path. This is particularly true of those young people who are disadvantaged and may not have access to a social network of people in a range of jobs, who come from a background of intergenerational unemployment, as has been mentioned, or who have special needs or are learners with learning difficulties or disabilities.
Given that, I am also happy to commit to highlighting this issue in statutory guidance and making it clear to schools that young people have much to gain from a face-to-face exploration of their skills, abilities and interests, which can help them think through the learning and career options available to them. I understand the point that was made about apprenticeships in particular, and the lack of knowledge about them. We are all keen, on all sides of this House, to encourage take-up of apprenticeships. We will place a clear expectation on schools that they should secure face-to-face careers guidance where it is the most suitable support, in particular for disadvantaged children and those who have special needs or are learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. These messages in the guidance will be further strengthened by the sharing of effective practice and evidence about what works. Underpinning both the quality assurance of careers guidance and our statutory guidance to schools will be a clear, outcome-based measure of the effectiveness of schools in meeting their new duty. Those are the destinations measures that I talked about earlier, which will provide a powerful incentive to provide high-quality advice.
We have also talked about the age range, which is important. Clause 27 requires schools to secure access to independent careers guidance for their pupils from the start of the academic year in which they turn 14— year 9—to the end of the year in which they turn 16, year 11. The case has been made by a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House that we should extend this age range upwards to include young people studying in school sixth forms and colleges. It has also been suggested that we should extend the age range down to year 8. There is a clear case for independent careers guidance for 16 to 18 year-olds in schools and the further education sector, particularly as we move towards the raising of the participation age. We have committed to consulting on extending the age range upwards. We can make that change through secondary legislation once the consultation is complete.
Similarly, I accept that an argument can be made for commencing the duty from year 8, when the first major decisions relating to post-14 options are taken. Again, I make it clear that we will consult fully on this issue and we will be able to make changes through secondary legislation once that consultation is complete. Just to be clear, that consultation will be complete in time to extend the age range of the duty by regulations from September 2012.
As regards the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, we are working with local authorities and others on the transitional arrangements. It is clear that we want them to carry on with those until the new duty is put in place in September 2012.
I know that I will not be able to convince all noble Lords about the course of action that the Government are taking, but I hope that I have reassured them about some of the steps we have taken to respond to those concerns. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he address the point I made that careers advice for girls should be as wide-ranging as possible?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for not responding to that point. We clearly want to see high-quality careers guidance for girls as well as for boys. We expect schools to want to do that. The noble Baroness’s particular concern may be to make sure that some of the career options that schools have not traditionally thought of as being suitable for girls get full consideration. I agree with her that one would very much want to see that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, once again we have had a very good debate on careers. I think that noble Lords from around the House have recognised the need for us to provide an improved careers service for young people, particularly in the current economic climate. However, we have some disagreements that the Minister has not fully addressed. The case was very well made about the great advantages of face-to-face counselling for young people. As my noble friend Lady Morris so ably said, that is very different from providing information, which you can, of course, do online. Guidance and counselling need to be done on a face-to-face basis. Regrettably, the Minister did not sufficiently address that issue. We argue that it is a fundamental right for all young people. It is very hard to differentiate and start picking out categories of those who are disadvantaged or at risk as being the only categories who are entitled to that face-to-face counselling, which is such a big issue in terms of young people’s future prospects. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that in a perfect world we would all have face-to-face provision. I do not think that we need to talk about a perfect world here; it is too big a fundamental right for young people. It seems to us that it is reasonable and necessary rather than something to which we are foolishly aspiring.
As regards qualifications, the case has been that the provision of careers advice should be regarded as a skilled job. I accept what the Minister has said about organisations being accredited in the future. However, he did not address the point that I made about the people employed by those organisations. If we do not require everyone who is providing the face-to-face careers advice to have a qualification, I very much fear that, as I said, this task will be tagged on to the duties of teachers or will be carried out by people employed at short notice or who are on temporary contracts, although the organisations which employ them are accredited. Again, I argue that the Minister has not addressed the fundamental issue of qualifications.
As regards the guidance to schools, the Minister has, as we have said, written to us about the advice that he is going to send out. He has said that he will consult on that. However, the letter asks schools to consider providing face-to-face guidance for pupils who are disadvantaged and talks about,
“working with local authorities to identify young people who are at risk”.
To my mind, that does not provide any guarantees for any of those categories. We are being asked to jump blindly into a careers guidance provision on which we do not have sufficient guarantees and which is not sufficiently robust.
There is too much at stake here. We feel that we have had too few guarantees. There is too much reliance on research and on data about how the new careers advice service will be monitored in the future, but young people need a provision and guarantees now. They need guarantees that they will have access to someone on a personalised basis and that they will be given advice by a qualified practitioner. We do not accept that the Minister has given sufficient guarantees. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57C.
“( ) is provided by a person who attends the premises, and has a relevant qualification in careers guidance who meets such quality assurance standards as the Secretary of State shall require,”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend Lady Brinton is not moving this amendment, I should like to do so in her place. The amendment raises fundamental issues, which we debated previously, about the need for someone to be on the premises and to have a relevant qualification in careers guidance. We believe that those are both fundamental features and should be provided. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Avebury
“Collective worship
(1) Section 70 of SSFA 1998 (requirements relating to collective worship) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subject to section 71—
(a) each pupil in attendance at a foundation or voluntary school of a religious character shall on each school day attend an act of collective worship;(b) community, foundation or voluntary schools which are not of a religious character and Academies that are not religiously designated may hold acts of collective worship at the discretion of the governors.(1A) Governors should be under an obligation to consider representations made to them by pupils and the parents of pupils as to whether or not schools or Academies hold acts of collective worship under subsection (1)(b).”
(3) In subsection (2) for “community, foundation or voluntary school” substitute “foundation or voluntary school of a religious character”.
(4) In subsection (3) for “required” substitute “permitted”.
(5) In paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 20 to SSFA 1998 (collective worship) for “required” substitute “permitted”.”
Lord Avebury
I declare an interest as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, to which I am greatly indebted for its advice on the amendments. First, I must thank the Minister and the Bill team for the time and efforts that they have devoted to correspondence and meetings on the collective worship issue since we discussed it in Committee three months ago—although there has been no meeting of minds since we began this process.
The Minister's main argument for the retention of this provision is that it is a long-standing school tradition. That is indeed so. It goes back at least as long as the Education Act 1944 and, as far as I know, even further than that. That underlines the fact that England is a very different society today from what it was towards the end of the Second World War. Eighteen per cent of the population now reports having no religion. Of the 72 per cent who identify themselves as Christians, fewer than one-third say that they actively practice their religion; that falls to just over one in five among those aged 16 to 29. The number of people who attend church at least once a month has declined every year from 2004 onwards. Even more telling, the number of confirmations has slumped from 140,000 in 1950 to 25,000 in 2009.
It is time for the long-standing tradition which no longer reflects the beliefs of more than a tiny fraction of the people to be jettisoned. The Minister goes on to say that the act of collective worship makes a valuable contribution to the spiritual and moral development of all young people and that that view is shared by many parents who still expect their children to understand the meaning of worship. That children should learn the moral and ethical standards which are common to mankind is unarguable, but that they should be linked to particular rituals based on obeisance to a supernatural being for which there is no scientific evidence lessens the respect and credibility of the standards themselves.
Humankind should have advanced to the stage where moral principles should be seen as essential in themselves, without the need to be reinforced by threats or rewards from above. We need kindness, compassion, toleration, right speech, action and livelihood so that we can live in harmony with each other and mitigate the unsatisfactoriness of the human condition. The ills that we suffer are the consequences of neglecting those truths, not because we have failed to pay respect to God or Allah.
That is not to say that if a majority of parents still want to have an act of worship at the beginning of the school day, their wishes should be ignored, but the converse is also true. If the majority would prefer that morals be taught without an accompanying religious ritual, they should be allowed to have their way.
In a poll commissioned by the BBC in September, 64 per cent of parents questioned said that their children did not attend daily worship and 70 per cent of them said that they were not in favour of enforcing the law which prescribes that act. The most recent Ofsted report on collective worship eight years ago found that 40 per cent of the schools inspected did not comply with the legal requirements and that in the remainder there were tensions and difficulties. It states that few secondary schools met fully the legal requirements for collective worship. Indeed, detailed examination of the evidence from 96 full inspections revealed that not a single school complied fully with the letter of the law. Revealingly, one school in Greater London was highlighted where, instead of having to exercise their legal right to withdraw their children from worship, parents were asked to opt in, resulting in 800 of the 900 pupils withdrawing from collective worship.
It is no wonder that Ofsted has not returned to the subject since then. It was already embarrassing enough to have to reveal such widespread non-compliance with the law, and if a similar inquiry was conducted today, no doubt the finding would be even more remarkable. In 2004, David Bell, then head of Ofsted, abandoned asking inspectors to take provision for worship into account in their reports after running into what he called a firestorm of protest from schools over the issue. He claimed that 76 per cent of secondary schools were failing to provide the daily worship. The Minister said that where schools’ non-compliance with a statutory duty is considered to be having a negative impact on pupils' spiritual or moral, social and cultural development, inspectors will reflect this in their assessment of the school. The fact that none has done so in the last eight years must indicate that inspectors are unanimous in concluding that the absence of worship has not had a negative effect on pupils’ development.
An analysis of SACRE reports undertaken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in 2004 similarly found that compliance with legal requirements for the daily act of collective worship was “a significant problem” for secondary schools. They reported a sense of impotence, as there appeared to be neither any way of ensuring compliance nor of changing the law. There was a common concern that having unworkable statutory requirements puts schools in an impossible position.
We have ignored this situation for too long. As far back as 1994, a National Association of Head Teachers survey of 2,346 schools found that seven out of 10 heads said that they were unable to satisfy a requirement to hold a daily act of Christian worship in their schools. The NAHT stated that,
“schools cannot be expected to accept responsibility for promoting daily religious observance when parents themselves do not practise it” .
A member of the association’s executive went further, saying:
“The law is being flouted. We are living a lie and the nation is living a lie”.
Without the ability to opt out of worship head teachers, acting in the best interests of their pupils, are being forced to act outside the law. Despite this, obviously there has been a high level of non-compliance, particularly in community secondary schools, for the best part of 20 years.
Such widespread flouting of these outdated and discriminatory obligations brings the law itself into disrepute. The first of these amendments proposes therefore that governors should be free not to hold acts of collective worship, taking into account representations made to them on the matter by pupils and their parents. This will enable us to comply with the spirit of both Article 18 ICCPR and Article 9 ECHR on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which are violated by ramming worship down the throats of non-deist pupils in community schools.
There would still be acts of collective worship in schools where the majority of parents and pupils want them. And the second amendment—Amendment 61B—makes these acts optional so that the minority of pupils who do not believe in worship are not forced to attend them. The legal requirement for pupils to take part in collective worship on every school day is a clear breach of young people’s rights under not only the ICCPR and the ECHR but also under Article 14.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If my noble friend cannot defend the imposition of religious behaviour on a child who disagrees with it, he has no option but to accept this amendment.
The third amendment, Amendment 61C, is an alternative to the second, and less satisfactory in that it extends the opt-out from collective worship available to sixth-form pupils at mainstream schools and maintained special schools only to pupils with sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to make an informed decision about whether to withdraw themselves. That was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which pointed out that the UK is under an obligation to assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him or her and to give those views due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
This obligation finds expression in UK law in the concept of Gillick competence, according to which a child should be treated as legally competent to make their own decisions if they have “sufficient maturity and intelligence” to understand the nature and implications of their decision.
I do not imagine for a moment that the Minister will be able to accept any of these amendments, knowing from our correspondence that he is not prepared to give an inch. In any case he will be on a tight rein from the Secretary of State, who showed his colours when he wrote in the Catholic Herald that Catholic schools should avoid “unsympathetic meddling” by secularists if they converted to academies. So even if he was convinced by the arguments, my noble friend could not make the smallest concession. Recognising this, but respecting my noble friend as someone who is fair-minded and rational, I ask him to seek the views of teachers, parents and pupils on the reforms that we are debating today, and to come back with amendments of his own at Third Reading if he finds that my arguments are overwhelmingly endorsed by those who are being forced to take part in rituals they do not agree with.
By all means continue the valuable tradition that assembly is a time for considering the moral and ethical values of our civilisation—and for emphasising in particular the values of inclusion, tolerance and respect mentioned by my noble friend in his letter. Let us do that in a way that is itself inclusive and not one that requires children and teachers to participate in behaviour that excludes many of them at the beginning of the school day. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury in the amendment he has just moved. As he has pointed out, the law as it stands is the legacy of a society unrecognisable from the pluralistic Britain today where citizens hold a wide variety of religious beliefs—including no religious belief. This Bill presents an opportunity to reform an outdated and overly prescriptive law. The amendments, which I think are reasonable and moderate, are intended to offer greater freedom and choice in regard to worship in schools.
While parents have the right to withdraw their child from collective worship, for many parents this is not a satisfactory option as they feel it is unfair to exclude and separate their children from classmates; children often do not realise while they are being excluded, so it is not always a very good solution. Children themselves have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under both Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is not for the state to impose worship on children, regardless of whether the school they are attending has a religious ethos or not—particularly if it does not have a religious ethos. The amendments would at least ensure that conducting an act of worship was made optional for schools without a religious designation. Amendment 61B would make the attendance at worship optional for children.
Amendment 61C would lower the age at which pupils may withdraw themselves from collective worship—from the sixth form as it is now to a default age of 15. That would at least bring the law closer to the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our arguments for older pupils’ self-withdrawal were accepted in principle by the previous Government, but they set the age limit at sixth-form pupils. The amendment uses age 15 as a default age, but does allow this to be overridden in exceptional cases. That seems to me to be a more reasonable age than sticking to the sixth form as provided for in current legislation.
Particularly in multicultural areas, the holding of any kind of religious activity is bound to upset someone. We have been informed of at least one head teacher who resigned because of being unable to reconcile the demands of the parents of many religions on the one hand and the law on the other. The amendments would not impinge on schools of a religious character. We are simply seeking in the amendments of the noble Lord to try to ensure that there is in future a proper and reasonable choice in regard to worship in schools. I commend these amendments to the House.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I was married to the headmaster of a Methodist boarding school for many years, including during the 1960s, which was not exactly an easy time for any teacher to be associated with boys—or girls for that matter. There was daily chapel for all the pupils and I remember that, following a governors meeting, to which of course I was not invited, some of the governors came up to me and asked whether I favoured having non-compulsory chapel every day. I replied—and I have not changed my view since—that it did not matter if pupils were bored, did not like going to chapel or were not interested in religious matters at the age of 15, 16 or perhaps even 17. That daily event gave each pupil a background to which they could return in later life. It was very important to have that little base of knowledge of which they could make use when they had really grown up, and I hold that view today.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for their characteristic clarity in putting their arguments. However, as someone who frequently attends collective worship in both religious foundations and community schools, I have to say that the picture they have presented of our education system today is simply not one that I recognise.
These amendments, were we to pass them, would create a rift between schools with a religious foundation and those which do not have such a foundation, and that is inimical to the whole way in which the maintained education system in this country has been established. Indeed, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 61A seems to withdraw the right of parents to remove their children from worship within a school with a religious background, and I would deeply regret the withdrawal of that right. I believe that there should be a right to withdraw pupils from collective worship and, if that right were removed, Church of England schools might be less able to encourage local community integration—something on which I believe they have a very good record.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke about how our society has become much more multicultural over the last generation. One way in which that has been encouraged and supported has been through the work of faith schools. Many Church of England schools have significant numbers of Muslim pupils. Indeed, in hundreds of them more than 80 per cent of the pupils are Muslim. Through the constructive and positive use of the law as it stands, they have been able to integrate those pupils with pupils from Christian backgrounds and pupils from families with no faith background. The danger is that, if we split community schools from those with a religious foundation, we shall create a more segregated system within our country. Most Church of England schools are not in any way segregated; they are primary schools which work with their local village. The fact that a very small number of children are withdrawn from worship seems to indicate that parents, including those who do not themselves take part in Christian worship or worship in the tradition of other faiths, are willing for their children to be present at worship. They see it as being important to the life, development and growth of their children.
So far as worship in community schools is concerned, Ofsted reports high levels of compliance with the law and high levels of quality of worship, particularly in the primary sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that is less the case in the secondary sector, and the Church of England stands ready to provide whatever help it can to improve the quality of acts of worship within that sector. There is a good deal of excellent practice that can be pointed to, although it is certainly true that secondary schools find the situation more difficult than do primary schools.
We do not want to marginalise worship or spirituality within the life of our schools. We recognise the need for, and place of, worship within our own proceedings at the beginning of each day here in this House. When the nation faces a time of crisis or indeed of joy and delight, it tends to do so in terms of prayer. Children need to know what prayer is about, and one of the best ways for that to happen is through the worship that takes place in both church schools and community schools.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that Amendment 61C was undesirable. It seems to speak of an extraordinary decision which someone has to take regarding whether a 15 year-old has the maturity to decide whether he or she should attend worship. That seems to be completely unworkable and we should certainly not go in that direction.
Lord Avebury
I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate. I said that Amendment 61C was less preferable than Amendment 61B but the reason for tabling it was that it was in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
I still think that the amendment is undesirable and I think that the noble Lord does so, too.
The main point is that within the maintained sector we have a dual system in a country where more than 70 per cent of people describe themselves as Christian, and it serves very well the duality of purpose in terms of the whole development of the child. It is a system that has led to significant degrees of integration within our communities, and much of that has been led by faith schools. I hope that we shall reject these amendments and that we shall do so in the cause of community integration.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I should like to make a few points on this subject. I think that we should turn the issue round a bit and ask ourselves what the 15 year-old derives from morning collective worship. I heard what the right reverend Prelate said about primary schools. It is much more likely that children at primary school will accept whatever is said to them, but these days in secondary school children are open to a lot of experiences, which was not the case, say, 20 or 30 years ago. I think that we need to see whether morning collective worship is still relevant to children. The question regarding these amendments is: are they relevant to young people? They are of course relevant to a Christian country but at the moment the practice of Christianity in this country is not really in your face. Falling levels of church attendance and so on are happening all around us.
From my days at school I remember that we always met for assembly in the morning. Everyone had to go. We did not have worship. We had something that taught us about life, behaviour, ethics, and right and wrong, but it was not geared to a particular faith. I still believe it would be far more useful if all the young people in a secondary school came together and discussed issues that are relevant to their everyday life, not something that is many steps away from them.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we seem to be repeating the arguments we had in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has taken the argument a little further. His description of forcing worship down throats was exaggerated and perhaps, on reflection, the noble Lord might think it was not worthy of him.
Currently, it is a legal requirement that all schools should have a collective act of broadly Christian worship. Parents who wish to withdraw their children from this collective act of worship have a legal right to do so if they wish. I can speak only from the perspective of Catholic schools in this country. Thirty per cent of pupils in Catholic schools are not Catholic, yet only 0.05 per cent of the parents of these children ask for them to be withdrawn from the collective act of worship in school.
I remember at Committee stage saying that the collective act of worship was a visual recognition of the Christian heritage of this country. It enables children, whether of faith or not, to engage and understand the history of this country because, whatever we might say, the history of this country is very much connected with our Christian heritage. That is a fact whether you are a Christian or not. England remains a multifaith, mainly Christian, country. Imposing a secularised approach to assemblies would mean a minority would now decide on these matters. With great respect to the noble Lord, who told us at Committee that he is a confirmed secularist, we all have to co-exist—those of faith and those not of faith. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to allow the existing law to continue, and people who do not wish their children to take part in the collective act of worship need not let them do so.
The right reverend Prelate made a point in his speech about the fact that in this House we have an act of worship—we had one at 2.30 pm. If it is good enough for Members of this House to take part in a collective act of worship, why should the children of this country not take part in a collective act of worship? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also said that no one should be forced to take part in rituals they do not agree with. We had two new Members introduced to the House this afternoon. Afterwards I heard a few comments from people who said, “Isn’t that awful? Shouldn’t we get rid of this old ritual?”. Yet we all take part in that ritual in order to get into this House. We have to maintain our standards here. If a collective act of worship, from which you can absent yourself if you wish, is acceptable for Members of your Lordships’ House, then it is certainly acceptable for schoolchildren in this country.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I would like briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, just said. We had a very interesting debate in this House last week on the teaching of history in schools. There were divergent views, but there was a general consensus that we owe it to our children to ensure that they have a reasonable grasp of the history of their country. We also owe it to our children that they should have a reasonable grasp of the literature of their country and the civilisation of their country. Ours is a Christian civilisation, which has moulded so much of our literature and our art and which is, indeed, the very fabric of the soul of the nation. In the 2001 census, over 70 per cent of people in the country said that they considered themselves to be Christian, whereas fewer than 20,000 said that they were atheists.
We do have a duty to expose our young people to what I consider to be the truths of the Christian religion but what we must all consider to be the bedrock of our civilisation. If when they leave school they choose to reject that, that is, of course, entirely up to them. They can do so on the basis of mature judgment and of knowledge; one cannot make a decision on the basis of mature judgment and ignorance. Therefore, it is crucial that we give our children the opportunity to know what living in a Christian country is like—a Christian country, the hallmark of which is, and always must be, tolerance and understanding of others who take a different point of view.
We would be moving in a very dangerous direction if we were to accept the amendments, which were so mellifluously moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for whom I have considerable respect, as I have for the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Lord Touhig made a point about our own act of worship. What was interesting, when we briefly debated this a few months ago, was that sitting by me was one of our Members who is a Hindu, and he particularly said that he felt this was a most important part of the parliamentary day.
I do not like to take the name of a Member who is not present, but there is no more staunch defender of the establishment in this country than the Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, who on many occasions has put it on record that he believes that the maintenance of the Church of England and the established church is very important to this country. He believes, as I do, that the teaching of certain truths, certain values, and certain issues is of equal importance. We would be taking a wrong step if we were to be seduced by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, while I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, I cannot think that in state-funded schools to have a collective act of worship of one faith is the way to implement that. It seems wrong that, again in state-funded schools, the collective assembly should be so devised that some children will be excluded. Worship is not inclusive: it is different for different faiths. Morality can be inclusive. Ethics can be inclusive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, the way we live our lives must be included and must reach all children. It seems to me wrong that we should have arrangements that automatically exclude some children. Therefore I support the noble Lord’s amendments.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships’ House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I want to make a few remarks in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
No one is suggesting that the teaching of Christianity should be banned from school. That is not the point at all. The question is whether people should be required to take part in worship. It is all very well for the right reverend Prelate to say that pupils can be excluded, but being excluded puts them aside, apart from everyone else, and makes them feel outcasts. That surely cannot be the intention. One final point is that all sorts of things are taught in school—Greek mythology, for example—but nobody expects people to believe it.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can help me. In his speech he mentioned the universal values that are common to mankind, and also the moral values of our civilisation. Can he tell me where I can find those values set down clearly? This is a very relevant issue. The various revealed religions of the world set out a set of values, whether you like them or not. I have been trying to find a clear definition of the responsibilities of parenthood. I cannot find it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I, too, apologise for arriving late through inadvertence. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Touhig and the right reverend Prelate said. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that it is not the teaching of one faith but of the faith that has run like a thread through our history, literature and language. To deprive our children of what may be their only opportunity to learn about that faith—
Baroness Whitaker
I agree with everything that my noble friend says. I have nothing against the teaching of faith. My remarks were directed solely at an act of worship.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend. I thought I heard her refer to the teaching of “one faith” as if it were just one among many. Surely the key point is that it is essential for us as British people to learn about our civilisation and history and about the intertwining of the religion that has been sometimes a cause of internecine conflict but always of late something that promotes tolerance and makes us perhaps some of the most tolerant peoples in the world. I hope that it will be recognised by the House that if children were to be deprived of what may be their only opportunity to learn an essential part of their history and of their very being as British people, it would be a very sad day.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
I do not know why my noble friend repeats the story that we are trying to stop people understanding the background, history and traditions of this country. Nothing is further from the truth. We are saying that of course one should be able to teach all faiths at any time; we have no problem with that. However, we should not insist on collective worship from which some people are excluded.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the rules on Report. Members may speak only once to an amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I will say one thing briefly. It is important that we all remember that the Church of England is the established church of this country. That is why we have the Prayers that we have every day. It is appropriate that that should be recognised in schools.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, surely those who regard religion as an infectious and dangerous condition should, in the modern idiom, wish to immunise their children with the mildest possible form of the disease.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I will intervene briefly. I, too, apologise for arriving late. I was bending my energies to limit and eventually, I hope, rub out the use of cluster munitions—of which by far the greatest number of victims are children of the age we are talking about, so it was very germane. I understand that the amendment is not designed to stop the teaching of religion but to stop the demonstration of religion as part of the organisation of an institution; namely, the school in which the children are. That is a very valuable practice. The development of habit in early life can be enormously important in later life. I was carried through the most difficult patch of my life by the habit of going to church every Sunday. The impetus of that was enormously valuable. The institution of regular corporate worship, properly conducted, is enormously beneficial to the young. I deplore any attempt either to discontinue it or, as some of these amendments would do, make it impractical.
Baroness Paisley of St George's
My Lords, there are thousands of parents in our country today who do not have a Bible in their homes and who do not read it to their children. School is the only place where these children are given any light at all into the word of God. This is the 400th anniversary of the printing of the King James version of the Holy Bible in the English language. We are a Christian country and it is our duty and responsibility to see that the word of God is placed in schools for the benefit of the children. The Psalmist David said:
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”.
If people want proper guidelines for life, they are to be found in the word of God. I leave that with your Lordships tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I will clarify one point if I may. I have not spoken before. We on the Bishops’ Benches sometimes look alike; I promise that it goes no further. There is a very clear distinction between collective and corporate worship. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to corporate worship. That is not what is provided in schools. The act of collective worship is appropriate to the collection of people who are there. It needs to be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. In practice, schools with significant numbers of members of other faith communities have managed to work within the degree of flexibility that the law allows, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds suggested. It is very important to realise that this is not ramming worship down people’s throats. That is not what school worship is like. It is part of an educational experience and preparation for life. You never know when you will go to a Remembrance Day service, a wedding or to many other places. When the regiment based in Chester came back from Afghanistan for the presentation of medals, the soldiers wanted an act of worship. It was collective worship in the context of the Armed Forces. There are many contexts in life where some experience of collective worship earlier in life is an important preparation.
My second point is that the amendments are too tarred with secularist intent. Probably there is a case at some point for a cool, considered look at the provisions of collective worship. However, it must be done in a way that enhances the spiritual experience of education. This goes much further than religious experience, but religious experience is part of it. The amendments push too quickly in a particular direction. There is a case for a proper review and full consultation in due course. However, let us not be misled. Collective worship is exactly that: worship appropriate to the collection of people who are present.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for coming to see me and talk about this and other issues that we will come to later on Report. I thank my noble friend also for setting out the issues and his position with his customary clarity and from a position that we all recognise is one of high principle. He knows from the conversation that we had where the Government stand on these issues, which is pretty much where the previous Government stood. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, our starting point is that the requirement is long-standing. It is difficult to dissociate that from the history of the country and the role that the church has played over a long period in individual schools and also collectively in society.
The Government believe that the experience of collective worship makes a contribution to the spiritual and moral development of young people, not just for those who attend religious schools. Collective worship in schools is different from the worship people choose to attend in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship. The purpose of this requirement is not to force pupils or school staff to worship a deity but rather to understand and experience the benefits that joining together, inspired by the positive values found in Christianity and other religions, can bring to the individual and to the community. The guiding principle is that these arrangements should be flexible and fair to pupils and parents, as well as manageable for schools.
It is a matter of historical fact, as argued by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Anderson of Swansea, and by my noble friend Lord Cormack, that the Christian traditions of our country have influenced and underpin our systems of law, justice and democracy. It is true, as has been said, that they have inspired and supported a tolerant and inclusive culture that welcomes and celebrates diversity. In the British Household Survey of 2010, more than 70 per cent of people said that their religion was Christian, and we think it right, therefore, that these values should underpin the ethos of our schools.
The law requires schools to provide collective worship that is relevant to all pupils, no matter what their background or beliefs, which should ensure that collective worship is presented in a way that benefits the spiritual, moral and cultural development of all children and young people. The requirement is for “broadly Christian” provision. It does not preclude the inclusion of other religions or consideration of the values that inform the practice of worship, which are common to many religions, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, rightly pointed out. Schools have the freedom, under the Education Act 1996, to apply for a determination from the local authority if they judge that it is not appropriate for the requirement for collective worship to be of a broadly Christian nature to apply to their school. That safeguard is in place. The Government respect the right of parents—
Lord Avebury
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but can he confirm that there cannot be a determination to have no act of collective worship at all where the majority of parents would wish to have that?
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is the case. I probably will not get the precise words right but my noble friend Lord Avebury accurately sums up the clause; they could make arrangements for provision to encompass a different religious belief. Parents can withdraw their children—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Are there precedents for a majority of parents asking that there be no collective act of worship?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am afraid that I do not know specific figures. I understand that overall there appear to be few cases of parents triggering such a thing. If we have better particulars I will send them to the noble Lord.
Parents can withdraw their children from collective worship if they wish to do so. Sixth-form pupils, as we have discussed, have this right. We think that the balance in allowing sixth-formers to decide for themselves whether to attend in line with their increasing maturity and independence is about right. We think that parents should be able to exercise those rights on behalf of children of compulsory school age. We would expect that, in exercising this right, parents would take their child’s views into account.
It is a sensitive area in which schools have to balance the rights of parents to have their children educated according to their religious or philosophical belief and those of children who have the right to manifest their own religious belief. They also have the right to express their views on matters that affect them. In practice, we think that schools are able to balance those competing rights and we would expect both parents and schools to take account of the views of children in making such decisions. We believe that schools can and do use the current system for collective worship to make provision for a variety of different perspectives. The situation we have arrived at, which I recognise is unsatisfactory to my noble friend Lord Avebury, is one that successive Governments have considered fair and flexible, and this Government continue to take that view. With that, I hope that my noble friend Lord Avebury will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, it would be quite impossible to do justice to the extensive discussion that we have just been having, but it would be remiss of me not to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with whom we had a similar discussion in Committee. Noble Lords have raised many different questions related to the collective worship issue, which has enabled us to make it clear that we are not talking about teaching about religions and the knowledge that children should have of the history of this country and the Christian background that we all share. That is part of religious education and we are not arguing that that should not be continued in the same way as it always has been and that it should not be underlined as part of the heritage of this country.
We are talking about a specific issue: whether people should be asked to pray to or worship a particular god at the time of the assembly that takes place at the beginning of the school day. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I would say that most schools—probably a majority—already have discussions on moral and ethical issues at assembly that do not involve prayer or worship. They are breaking the law and do so in a way that conforms to the spirit of the legislation in that children can imbibe knowledge of the background of moral and ethical issues that underline our civilisation. I shall not give a sermon on what those moral and ethical issues are but it is fairly obvious that they include tolerance, kindness, compassion, respect for others and inclusiveness. By imposing the act of worship on children who do not believe in God or who do not wish to take part, we are not being inclusive but are deliberately excluding all those pupils who have a conscientious objection to acts of subjection to a supreme being.
I know that we have not reached the end of this discussion but we are at an intermediate stage when it would be proper for me to ask to test the opinion of the House on this subject. I beg to move.
“Technology in schools
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a plan detailing the delivery of the use of technology to aid teaching across all subjects in the curriculum, for pupils of all ages, in all maintained schools and Academies.
(2) The plan must be published and laid before Parliament by July 2012.”
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I thought we were voting. I wish to speak to Amendment 61D standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight.
It is rather odd that we have just had a debate about an issue that has divided opinion since the establishment of early state education with the Forster’s Act of 1870 and we still have an enormous amount of confusion as to whether the debate on this amendment is beginning.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
For the sake of clarification, the last vote was nullified because no one called “Content” at the three-minute point, and the Not Contents have it. We are now moving on to Amendment 61D, which my noble friend Lord Willis is moving.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, the history of moving amendments on technology is fraught with danger. It seems rather odd in your Lordships’ House that we can have an hour-long debate about whether we should have collective worship and yet in the most technologically advanced nation on earth we cannot decide whether we have had a vote. Nevertheless, we will move on.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise again to my noble friend, but there is so much noise in the Chamber that it is quite difficult to hear what he is saying. I invite noble Lords either to come in and listen to the debate or perhaps to leave quietly so that we can continue with Amendment 61D.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I am very grateful to my noble friend. The fact that the House is so packed to hear this amendment on technology brightens my soul.
When the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight, and I raised this amendment in Committee, we were hopeful that the Minister would reflect on the issues raised and the importance of technology in our schools, and bring back government amendments on Report that indicated that this Government listened to one of the most important technologies driving our education system, our society and our economy. However, there is not a word in this piece of legislation about how we empower our young people to enter a technological society where they can take full advantage of all that pertains.
In responding to the debate in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said:
“We are talking to a number of interested parties—school leaders, professional bodies, educational charities, industry, academics and other experts—about how the department should take forward its thinking about technology”.—[Official Report, 13/7/11; col. GC 306.]
Sadly we have not had a single word about where those discussions have led. We have not had a single idea from the Government as to whether technology has a place in a modern UK education system in the 21st century. It is enormously disappointing that we still have from the Government a view that technology, particularly information communications technology, is a distraction from the central aim of raising standards. It is absolutely essential to the raising of standards to have proper technology and technology policies in our schools.
We are not promoting the case for ICT as an alternative to conventional subject matter or pedagogy but as an integral part of delivering a world-class, 21st century curriculum. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, recently reminded us that,
“Lewis Carroll didn't just write one of the classic fairytales of all time. He was also a mathematics tutor at Oxford. James Clerk Maxwell was described by Einstein as among the best physicists since Newton—but was also a published poet”.
Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, who sadly died very recently, said:
“The Macintosh turned out so well because the people working on it were musicians, artists, poets and historians who also happened to be excellent computer scientists”.
This amendment is about digital inclusion. It is about encouraging schools to meet their responsibilities to generations of young people who access ICT as both a tool and a discipline, and not to disadvantage themselves—or indeed the nation—as they move forward. However, it is so much more than just a pious and well-meaning amendment. All the evidence from studies from the Royal Society, the EPSRC, the Times Educational Supplement, the Government’s own department, major corporations, and charities such as futurelab and the e-Learning Foundation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and I are privileged to be the respective chairs, emphasise the link between the use of ICT, educational motivation and achievement and future economic success and well-being. Not a single reputable study points to our young people or our society being disadvantaged as a result of access to high-quality ICT. You have to go to parts of the United States to get that view.
However, some 4 million people in Britain today are not online and are usually the most disadvantaged. Forty-nine per cent of those without access come from the lowest socioeconomic groups, and 70 per cent are in social housing. Thirty-eight per cent of those who are currently unemployed are not online, despite the fact that 70 per cent of all jobs are advertised online. That is a very cruel deception. Ministers must understand that the majority of those households will have children, who, without our support, will be part of tomorrow’s statistics.
One million children in our schools today cannot get online at home. Yet so much of the work they are being set in schools, and so many of the projects which they are being asked to complete, rely upon them being able to get online and do their work in that way. By encouraging schools to be proactive—particularly in recognising that an IT policy must extend into the home, where often the greatest disparity exists—the Government can make children and their schools part of a solution to support a wide range of government objectives.
This amendment is not a plea for special funding. I have not mentioned funding once, and nor have my noble friends. Encouraging schools to use their pupil premium would go a long way to meet both school and home access requirements. However, it requires the statutory authority of this amendment to say to schools, “Technology should be at the heart of what you do, and you need to report every year on that to the Secretary of State, as well as to your pupils’ parents and to your governors”.
Finally, this amendment would also address one of the real challenges facing our schools and colleges: that of addressing the shortfall in the number of students studying computing across the UK. According to the current Royal Society study, from 2006 to 2009 we saw a fall of 33 per cent in the number of students studying ICT at GCSE level. There has been a similar fall since 2003 of one-third of students studying ICT at A2-level. We have also seen a 57 per cent reduction in A2 level students studying computer science. Such dramatic falls in numbers of students going into our universities to study computer science are having a seriously detrimental effect on our ability to produce the sort of graduates we need for our modern economy. That alone is a reason for us to put ICT and technology at the heart of delivering the 21st century curriculum.
I hope that, as this will not cost the Minister anything but will win him friends throughout the nation, this is one amendment about which the Minister can simply say to the House, “I accept the wisdom of your words”. I beg to move.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for keeping this ball on the park. Like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, I have a number of interests in the education sector, all of which appear in the register of interests.
The omission of a clause such as this in the completed Bill in my judgment—and I put this to the Minister—would be literally mind-blowing: not a small omission, not something that has just slipped by, but a truly mind-blowing omission. That is why I support what I think is a very modest, simple and very easily deliverable objective, as laid out marvellously by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
My contribution will concern the very serious issue of employability, possibly pre-empting one or two debates that will come up later on Report about jobs. During the summer break, I read a book by Jim Clifton, the chair of Gallup, entitled The Coming Jobs War. It is drawn from the largest survey Gallup had ever undertaken in its history. The view expressed in the book, and the conclusion that Mr Clifton comes to, is that the relationship between ICT skills and jobs in the developed world is absolutely everything. There will be winners and losers, and unless this Government —this was to an extent true of the Government previously—get a real grip on this issue, we can only be among the losers in the next 10 to 20 years.
I would like to offer a few statistics that may alarm the Government. If they have different statistics, I would be very happy to hear from the Minister. Only 9 per cent of ICT classes in this country are taught by teachers with any relevant qualifications. That means that 91 per cent of young people in this country are being taught so-called ICT by teachers with no qualifications whatever in the subject. I am not sure what other subjects fall into this category. I cannot believe that there are very many, and I cannot believe that a civilised nation would let this go on for very long when it knows that its entire employability framework for the next 10 to 20 years is reliant upon success in this area.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment. I have a six year-old American grandson, and I have read his kindergarten report. He was making good progress with the computer and the iPad when he was not yet six. We have to keep in touch, and we have to be there. It is very important that this amendment should be supported.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I support this amendment. In doing so, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests, as I have a number of clients who work in this area.
We are world leaders in this country in the use of technology in education. That is why more than 70 education Ministers from around the world come to the largest conference of education Ministers that happens annually anywhere in the world, held in London, alongside the BETT fair. It is hugely important that we sustain that position, as others are catching up, and are catching up very fast.
I welcome some of the comments made recently by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, around technology, in particular what he said about iTunes U and the Khan Academy and how they are, in his words, transforming what is going on in the classroom. That is welcome because over the past year or so, those working in the field of technology in education have been worried that the Government have taken their eye off the ball and want to see some leadership. What this amendment is calling for in respect of a plan from the Secretary of State will give, not a formal direction but a lead, to schools about how they use the money that has now devolved to them in this area.
As we have heard, ICT is hugely important. We managed to justify the £300 million the Treasury needed to part with on the country’s behalf for programmes such as the Home Access Programme that I was responsible for in government by using data from, for example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That showed that access to a computer at home increases performance in science GCSEs by two grades. PISA did some analysis on the use of technology which shows that over time it has increased maths scores in countries around the world. As a result of the Home Access Programme and the evaluation that the department quietly published a few months ago, we have seen the impact in terms of extended learning at home. By having access to technology at home, people are spending longer on their homework and find doing their homework more engaging. I would point noble Lords who are interested in this towards the example of the Essa Academy in Bolton, which has now got every child an iPod Touch and is rolling out more iPads. The learning that is going on in that academy has led to its results over the two years it has been in place for five GCSEs at A* to C rise from around 40 per cent to 100 per cent, and if you include English and Maths, from 28 per cent to 56 per cent. So some significant gains have been delivered in part thanks to technology. The academy certainly attributes technology to its success.
It is important that the Government should continue to extend their activities around the training of teachers and leaders because we know that if they are not in place, any investment in technology does not get you anywhere. You absolutely have to have them in place. The development of resources, home access and how best practice and next practice are spread are also important. Currently, we have a vacuum. Very early on, Michael Gove decided to abolish Becta, the agenda that provided a lead in this area in securing significant savings. That is his prerogative and fine if he wants to do it. But it meant that there was a hiatus in which people felt that there was no leadership in the area, although we may be beginning to see it now. At the same time, the role of local authorities has diminished and their funding to provide a lead on this locally has also fallen. Authorities have largely let all their IT specialists go, which means that they have now all become self-employed IT consultants. A profusion of people are knocking on headteachers’ doors offering advice, but often with vested interests around particular technology solutions. It is difficult for heads to get through the confusion that follows, and certainly to secure the procurement savings that Becta was able to deliver.
A plan is also necessary not just to fill that vacuum, but to point us towards the potential new ways of working which technology has delivered efficiently in so many different industries. In a challenging fiscal environment, if we can deliver more efficiencies in education, I am sure that that is to be welcomed. Assessment takes up a significant part of any school’s budget, and all sorts of innovations in this area can be secured through technology. As I mentioned, in procurement we are seeing the expansion of digital educational publishing. That can be encouraged or not, depending on whether we see some leadership. My noble friend Lord Puttnam talked about resources that are freely available through the TSL Education site, and there are other sources too. A rapid explosion is taking place that is rooted in this country. We are exporting our education around the world, but we really need to take advantage of it here.
There are all sorts of things that can be done in terms of school system improvement on the supply side, and that is what the Government feel comfortable with because that is what they control, but we can also stimulate much more self-sustaining school improvement through a demand-side set of reforms. It is not just about choice and the decision about which school your child will go to, made once or twice in their school career, it is also about giving parents a voice. You do that by giving them information and data that keep them in touch in real time with what is going on in the school. That can only be done on a viable basis using technology, and if that technology is fairly distributed with inclusion across the range of homes.
In respect of new ways of working, we are at the tipping point on this in schools. We can move away from IT suites and trolleys of laptops and towards people bringing in personal devices that their parents are already buying them. A recent Ofcom study showed that 100 per cent of teenagers, who they defined as 12 to 15 year-olds, had access to a computer somewhere, although as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, told us, many do not have access at home. We are also seeing a rapid rise in the ownership of smartphones, while 10 per cent have tablets, and those figures are changing all the time. There will come a point when we embrace these personal devices, even if it means mobile phones with rules about how they are used. That is because in children’s hands, they are very powerful computers which can aid learning. In turn, it means that schools will spend less on IT, less on recharging devices overnight, less on paper and less on textbooks. They can deliver an educational case around the use of data for performance and differentiation of learning, delivering more learning at home, delivering the softer skills of collaboration and communication that employers need, and the pupil engagement between home and school that we know is so important.
I strongly endorse what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said in respect of the economic case. If noble Lords are interested in how it might work, I recommend that they look at Apps for Good that CDI Europe has been delivering in schools and which young people find hugely engaging. That engages them in the world of work as well as in the world of technology. I also endorse what my noble friend said about coding and the need for more programming being learnt earlier on in school. I tried that, against a lot of push from officials. I even had to write it into the galley proofs before they were sent to the printers and they were not looking. I tried to get ICT as a basic skill at the primary level so that we could make sure that children were plug-in-and-play ready when they started secondary school. They should be able to use technology across the curriculum. Unfortunately, while the Rose review did deliver on what that might look like, it was pulled during the wash-up between Administrations. We never managed to get that shift of IT learning into the primary sector, which I think would have been extremely valuable. There are challenges in this. It will need an evolving pedagogy. It will need someone, ideally the Government, to offer guidance around the interoperability of devices in classrooms, along with procurement advice and possibly the curriculum changes that I have talked about. But the prize is a great one.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned the death of Steve Jobs. I ask noble Lords to think about what a Steve Jobs school would have looked like. For the staff, certainly it would have been one with a hero head model, someone solidly leading the school and delivering not what the children wanted, but what they needed. There would probably be a fairly flat staffing structure, but to the world outside it would not be the Steve Jobs school, it would be an Apple school: beautifully designed and one in which people just wanted to learn. It probably would not even have school rules, just as the iPad does not have any instructions, because it would be so engaging. That is what technology can give us: really engaging education that sucks learners in and makes them want to find out more and educate themselves more rather than just the flat, didactic one-way learning that is the tradition which some would like to see revived. I think it belongs in the Dark Ages.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I also declare an interest in that I work with a Malaysian company, YTL, in a plan to take ICT provision into every Malaysian school. That background gives me a little insight into what is happening here. Their Ministers and senior civil servants wanted to come here to see what we were doing. I can assure the noble Lord that his officials were very helpful in showing what Britain can and does do in this area. I cannot match their eloquence, but I stress one point that I think has not been stressed sufficiently. This is not simply enabling people to look something up in Wikipedia or whatever and get a few quotes for their essays. This transforms schools completely.
I took these Malaysian visitors—Secretaries of State and so on—to schools here in Britain to see what was happening. It transformed whole schools, not simply the teaching patterns, but all the relationships—with the parents, with the governing body, between the pupils and between the pupils and the teachers. It changed discipline. It took a failing school to one now where there are five applicants for every place. There were other factors, but the headmistress—am I allowed to say that these days?—or the lady who is in charge of the school, the principal, told us that ICT, properly used, was one of the key ingredients. So I think it is important that the Government have a policy that becomes a strategy.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am enormously supportive of everything that has been said so far. I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said about the TES. Government after Government have tried to find ways of spreading good practice in education. I was looking at an example the other day—the Harkness table, which is a way of teaching. It started in America in 1930. It is still trickling into schools over here, because information and experience do not move until teachers move between schools, and it is a very slow process. ICT has made it possible to do this better and at a greater speed, but I have not seen it happening yet. I did not know it was happening in the TES and I am very pleased to hear it. It ought to be the sort of thing that the Government are grabbing at ways of supporting.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, about personal devices. An element of this Bill is about enabling schools to ban them more effectively. Actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, they ought to be finding ways of using them more effectively, of incorporating them and of enabling those children who do not have access to a good enough device to participate. That takes the kind of transformation that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has seen in only a few schools, but they have done it, they have done it successfully, and it shows what is possible. Clearly this is going to challenge the whole way of teaching. Everybody can now have the best teacher in the world, or at least for a substantial part of the time. The transformation of teachers from people who are supposed to know everything, however inadequate they are, to people who are going to be good guides and really do know everything, is one to which I look forward with great excitement. It is going to take some getting right. I am looking forward to a very supportive speech from my noble friend on the Front Bench because I am a great supporter of what this Government are doing.
In the bits of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, with which I did not agree, he was celebrating his role as a great frog sitting in the middle of the department, croaking while everybody else listened to his croaks. Now we have ponds all over England full of tadpoles and no great frog. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, may claim to be the father of the tadpoles, but this Government have liberated education and have made things possible that, under the Stalinist bureaucracy of the QCA and its successors, was never possible. All the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is looking for would not have been possible under his way of doing things because the centre insisted on having things done its way and reaching its own decisions before it allowed other people to take action. That has been done away with. I meet people who used to work for Becta who are out there now doing wonderful things. They no longer have to wait for Becta to take decisions. They are out there spreading the word individually and making businesses and lives out of it. I think it is part of the transformation that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, celebrates that we have been through a period when there has been a dispersal of ideas. Now, instead of one great oak, we have a lot of acorns sprouting, and I think that is the right place to be when it comes to technology.
I celebrate the particular acorn that this Government have allowed me to sprout, something called Behind the Screen, which, to my great surprise, was adopted as government policy with the help of David Willetts, who must have briefly reincarnated himself as the Minister for Education. The idea is to take computing—in particular, coding—back into school in a serious way, to work with industry in doing that and to work on real-world projects with real-world software. The aim is to have no limits as to how wide it goes, to be able to invade other bits of the curriculum, to have no limits as to how far it goes, indeed to be able to involve oneself in university-distance learning, if that is where a particular idea takes you, to work collaboratively within and between schools, to research, to problem-solve, and for teachers and their partners in industry to be pupils’ guides rather than their instructors. Furthermore, it should get going immediately; the first projects start in November. We are going to write the whole curriculum—to the extent that you can write a curriculum for something that changes every six months—around the schools and industries involved. The whole thing is being generated from the grass roots and not from the middle. The way to tackle technology in education is to let all that expertise and interest and involvement, which is out there around the country, be the source of enlightenment for those of us who sit in the middle.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, celebrates Apple. I curse my iPad every day for its limitations and for the rules that have been imposed on it from the centre. It will not get Flash. I try and do things with the iPad and it kills me half way through because the website has chosen to do something in Flash and Mr Jobs has said no. I do not want that to happen. I do not want monopolies to spring up and one voice to be the controlling voice when it comes to getting technology into schools. I want diversity. I want lots of different people to try to do it, and I want to see who does it best. That is the way that I think we will come through to a successful technology education system.
So I celebrate what this Government are doing for me and for many others. I celebrate, too, Nick Gibb in the middle of that. This may not be his natural style but he knows that, at the end of the day, anything I do has to come up to his standards. That is an Olympic-level challenge and I welcome it. Where you are allowing a lot of different systems to compete to see which is best, the important role for the Government is to be in the middle making sure that what you have is rigour and quality and is not subservient to fashion and ideas of the moment. I know that I can rely on my honourable friend for that.
Baroness Paisley of St George's
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I had two wonderful experiences recently. One was on board a ship that was visiting Belfast. On a tour of that ship we were shown an operating theatre. The captain said to us, “There is the theatre”. It was a beautiful operating theatre, and the captain explained, “There is a computer in the wall, and in mid-ocean we can perform life-saving operations on board this ship directed from shore hundreds of miles away”. I thought it was wonderful to see how technology had advanced to this degree. In other times this could not have happened.
The other experience I had was in my own family. My great-grandson, who is two and a half, went to the computer, put in a DVD and waited until it came up on the screen. He knew which buttons to push to fast-forward it to pass the adverts to the part that he wanted to see, and of course he knew how to reverse it back if he missed something. If a two and a half year-old is able to do that, I think there is great hope for the future for technology and I support this amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Willis and those who have spoken in favour of this amendment. There are two issues that are important. One is that this is not just about access to hardware. Yes, we are going to move to a situation where you no longer have a suite of computers within a classroom but instead young people have iPads and technology that is mobile around the classroom and around the whole school, and that will make for a much more flexible atmosphere within the school. Access to the technology is important. I think it was my noble friend Lord Willis, or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who made the point that many of the disadvantaged do not currently have access to broadband or to mobile technologies, both of which are quite expensive. For those existing on a weekly jobseeker’s allowance of £90, it is one of the items that they have to forgo. It is vital, therefore, that our public libraries are open and available to such people so that they can have access through the public library system.
My second point is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, the pedagogy is changing rapidly. The technology is interactive and when you use this interaction, because the learner can respond, you get a different and much more motivational form of learning. It is vital that our teachers are trained to use this pedagogy, recognise its development and move forward with it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we had a very good debate on this issue in Grand Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight for distilling our earlier debates into what we might label a call for action that can be included in the Bill and would ensure that the Government took some of these important issues forward.
Before I go on, though, I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is completely wrong on the previous Government’s record on this. A lot of the groundwork and preparation for what now gives us a launching pad was laid down by the previous Government. We have been given mixed messages so far by the current Government: they do not have technology or ICT in the English Bacc or in their plans for the core curriculum. I understand that Michael Gove has been saying some warm words on the issue, but the gauntlet has now been thrown down to the Government to actually follow this up and act upon it.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam has faced us with the challenge of employability for the next generation if we do not get this right, while both he and my noble friend Lord Knight have once again inspired us with what is possible in terms of revolutionising teaching if we do get it right. The fact is that some schools are already way ahead of the game, and our challenge is to make sure that every child has access to the advantages that technology can bring to the classroom. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who said in Committee that,
“to deliver a 21st century curriculum we have to have 21st century methodology and 21st century equipment”.—[Official Report, 11/7/11; col. GC236.]
There is a massive range of benefits. The most obvious one is that if you have sophisticated equipment as a teaching aid, children’s knowledge of technology applications is enhanced. However, it goes much further than that. Children’s research skills are improved and their access to information multiplied. Homework becomes easier and quicker. They no longer have to rely on the availability of often scarce books in the library. As we have heard, it is transformative, engaging and enthusing. Even the most isolated schools can be linked up with others to share learning experience and to interact. Teachers can be linked together to share best practice, swap teaching modules and experiment with and improve materials. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam rightly pointed out, this change can be delivered at scale across the sector.
When we last debated this, and indeed in the debate we have had today, the importance of computer access for all was a strong theme, and I am sure that we can all agree with that. There is still a worryingly high percentage of families that do not have access to a computer at home and are therefore becoming more isolated and excluded. It is also true that we need to address the training of technology teachers if we are to reap the potential benefits that could come from all this.
There is a tendency to look at this problem in terms of narrow unit cost, whereas we should really apply a much broader cost-benefit analysis that compares the advantages of providing high-quality technology in the classroom and in the home with the damage done if a generation of young people is outsmarted in the global information and communication race. I very much support the amendment and hope that the Minister is able to give the simple commitment to delivering the technology plan by 2012 that the amendment requests.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Willis for raising this important issue. We agree entirely with him, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that the effective use of technology is critical to education in the 21st century and indeed to employment.
In his speech to the Royal Society on 29 June, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State outlined the importance of technological innovation in supporting good teaching and how successful ideas need to spread rapidly through the system. The role of Government in this area is to encourage schools to take better advantage of opportunities presented by digital technologies to engage pupils, improve teaching and deliver education more effectively and efficiently—and, from the messages in this debate, more excitingly as well. The Secretary of State will say more on this later in the year and I cannot pre-empt what he plans to say in that speech.
We know that many schools and teachers are already making excellent use of technology to help deliver their educational aims, and we need to learn from them. As noble Lords have set out so eloquently today, though, there is room for more widespread and innovative use across the system. Some teachers also need more knowledge about how to use technology effectively to support their practice, and we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Paisley, how the very young are often far more proficient in technology than their teachers, parents or, dare I say, grandparents.
However, we should not seek to dictate how schools use technology or seek to plan this centrally. We should allow schools to innovate, working in partnership with industry and other experts. Schools need to respond to these opportunities, making informed decisions about whether and how to adopt new approaches in the best interests of their pupils.
We have spoken to many interested parties including school leaders, professional bodies, educational charities, industry, academics and other experts about technology in schools. The department is also taking forward work to help ensure that schools can get best value when purchasing technology—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned procurement as one of the issues here—and we are working with industry to agree data standards for educational systems. It is at this level that we feel the department should be involved in supporting schools to make best use of technology.
There is no doubt that the effective use of technology can support good teaching and help to raise standards. We welcome the noble Lord’s commitment to the potential of technology to improve education and are grateful for all the ideas that have come forward in this debate and in previous ones.
Lord Puttnam
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I have a question before she sits down. Do the Government conceive it possible that a school might be considered successful that was unsuccessfully delivering ICT, coding and all the other things that this debate has thrown up as being fundamental? Again, my experience of education, having worked in the department, is that heads will react and respond to what they consider will win them brownie points, and the ultimate brownie point is to be deemed a successful school. Could she possibly give us a firm commitment that schools that fail in this area could not be deemed successful?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
It would be almost impossible to deliver the curriculum successfully in a 21st-century school without the effective use of technology. I would have to come back to him on chapter and verse, but I cannot think that it would be possible for a school to deliver the curriculum successfully without a good use of technology.
The ideas in today’s debate and previous debates will be passed back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I said, later this year he is planning to say more about technology in schools and the role and work of government in this area. We have had a typically constructive and diverse debate today that has taken in acorns, tadpoles and apples. These issues are under active consideration and I hope, in the light of this, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the contributions of noble Lords on all sides of the House in what has been a fascinating 45-minute debate on a subject which your Lordships clearly feel incredibly strongly about. In his question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, put his finger on the pulse of this issue: can a school be successful if it does not have ICT and technology at the heart of delivering a 21st century curriculum? The Minister was generous enough to admit that she did not believe that it was possible. In spite of all the research that she might do, she will not be able to point to a single school in the whole of the United Kingdom that is successful without using technology to deliver its curriculum.
I was interested in the short speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It was telling. She said that her grandson was making good progress with his computer and iPad. Sadly, a million children do not have access to either an iPad or a computer, and they are the ones who are the most disadvantaged. The great sadness about the Minister’s response to this debate is that these children will remain disadvantaged unless a benevolent head teacher in a benevolent school decides that ICT is going to be a priority for that school. Unless it is part of the league table culture it will not be part of it at all.
I am not worried about whether or not it is part of the English baccalaureate. I am much more interested in ICT being the electricity—the energy—that delivers, motivates and turns youngsters on to a high-performing education system.
I leave the House with three comments. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, quite rightly talked about employability and I mentioned that most jobs are advertised on line, yet those that need them most cannot access them online. The educational case was made strongly by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas, whose passion for technology and ICT knows no bounds. I loved his description of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, sitting on a toadstool somewhere, with frogs all around him spawning. It was a wonderful analogy.
However, my noble friend was fundamentally wrong when he talked about there being only two ideologies: Stalinist or laissez-faire. There is another way and this amendment was neither Stalinist nor laissez-faire. It says to the Secretary of State, “Please take your duties seriously about creating the sorts of framework that allow schools to operate and on which we will judge you”.
This has been an interesting debate. I believe that we will not get much further on this occasion. We have been told that the Secretary of State will make an announcement from on high later. Perhaps he will become the Steve Jobs of government. Or perhaps he will become part of the Amish sect. We will see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Animals: Experimentation
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, over the past 50 years there has been a profound shift in the way we view our relationship with animals. The ethical framework for that relationship has been changing and that process has become highly contentious and a matter of deep concern for millions of people in this country. At the most extreme, it has led to lawbreaking and violence.
The impact on public policy has been far reaching, as recent debates over hunting with dogs and over circus animals have shown. Perhaps the most important and difficult area is the use of non-human primates in research because it is the area with the most serious and far reaching consequences and because of these animals' evolutionary closeness to us.
There are many who believe that research involving experiments on animals is not justifiable in any circumstances. Others believe that it can be justified only if specifically directed towards medical need, while some believe it can also be justified in the investigation of more basic scientific research. However, it is now widely accepted that scientific and medical research should be carried out only if there is a clear potential benefit and if there is no other means of achieving it. So, for example, following bans introduced by the previous Government on the use of animals to test cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients in 1997 and 1998, the use of animals to test cosmetics or their ingredients is now banned throughout the European Union. This remains a deeply contentious area of public policy, with a wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations in play, passionately held beliefs on all sides, and in a scientific field which is developing at an extraordinary rate.
In these circumstances, it is the Government who hold the ring, balancing these competing views, and it is important that they do so. If the public believe that animals are being cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then public consent is likely to be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, and potentially valuable research will be lost.
Clearly, the Government's task is not an easy one. The Bateson review, published in July this year, found that in most cases research involving animals was now generally productive and of good scientific quality which may lead to the understanding and treatment of a wide range of human diseases. It also found that in 9 per cent of the research programmes reviewed, no clear scientific, medical or social benefit had emerged. The Minister will be aware that there is growing unease now on all sides about what might lie ahead.
Scientists feel beleaguered, as the Minister will have detected, for example, from a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in your Lordships' House. I see the noble Lord is due to speak later in this debate and perhaps we will hear more from him then. Those who advocate higher standards of animal welfare and the cessation of experiments using non-human primates are also worried. It is these concerns that I now wish to address in the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers and reassurance to all sides.
Immediate concern is being caused by the implementation of the new EU directive on animal experiments. The Minister will be aware, for example, of the RSPCA's lobbying on this issue and that it is generally accepted that in many ways the EU directive requires standards weaker than current UK ones. I recognise that the Home Office consultation on how to implement the directive has only just closed so the Minister will not yet be able to set out any firm conclusions. However, his department took a 25 per cent cut in its budget in the spending review, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that the Government will not use implementing the EU directive to reduce the number of Home Office inspectors and the number of inspections they carry out each year.
The Minister will be aware how important these inspectors and their inspections are to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. These are not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; they are vital guarantors of high standards of animal welfare in experiments. While the great majority of scientists carrying out such experiments act ethically and with scrupulous regard to the highest standards of animal welfare, the Minister will have been briefed that there have been notorious cases where distinguished scientists have ignored such concerns and argued they were entitled to do so in pursuit of their research. Given the closed and hierarchical nature of some universities, it can be difficult for those charged with upholding animal welfare standards on site to stand up to such academics. This is particularly important as around 70 per cent of scientific research involving animals is carried out in non-commercial academic institutions, which are self-regulating apart from the role of the Home Office. So Home Office inspectors and inspections represent a crucial protection against such concerns for animal welfare being ridden over roughshod.
There have also been concerns that the ethical review process should not be scrapped but retained and improved; concerns that the EU directive should not permit higher levels of animal suffering; and concerns about newly permitted methods of killing animals which are likely to cause public concern. I should welcome any reassurance the Minister can give on these issues.
Transparency is a crucial aid to good governance. I understand that the Government have accepted that the EU directive requires reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still commit an offence. However, if an FOI request went to the Home Office, the Home Office could then release information provided other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests, such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of the names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out what consideration the Government have given to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
Looking beyond the EU directive and its implementation, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. Last year, I understand that some 2,649 non-human primates were used in scientific and medical research in the UK, under strictly regulated conditions. While there may be no immediate substitute for the carefully regulated conditions that I have described, that should not be an argument for not continuing to seek such substitutes in the future. The Weatherall report, which was published five years ago in 2006, noted:
“There is an impressive body of work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in research. There have been remarkable advances in recent years in molecular and cell biology, non-invasive imaging, computer modelling and systems biology approaches, as well as techniques for human studies”.
I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships tonight that the Government will encourage and support such work continuing. In the long term, this can be done, and broad public support for the use of such animals in experiments maintained, only in the context of the national strategic plan called for by the Weatherall report five years ago. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what progress is being made in drawing up such a plan and when he expects a draft to be published and put out to consultation.
In maintaining such public support, it is also crucial that there should be a clear potential benefit from such experiments. As I mentioned earlier, it is now generally accepted that their use in testing cosmetics does not result in such benefits. Therefore, the European Commission is now consulting on a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. I understand that while other European countries have supported such a ban, the UK Government have still to make their views known. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House whether the UK Government will support such a ban and, if not, why not.
As long as it is accepted that animals may be used in experiments, questions will arise about the acceptable limits of such experiments. Here it is becoming accepted that it is the lifetime experience of the animal that is of paramount importance. Project licences detail only individual procedures that cover only direct suffering and ignore contingent suffering, such as conditions of housing, husbandry and transport, and the period of time over which such direct and contingent suffering occurs. If the Government are to maintain a broad public consensus on the use of animals in experiments, this must include maintaining a broad consensus on acceptable levels of cumulative severity of suffering. This cannot be left to self-regulation. The maintenance of public consensus is a job for government. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to address this issue in the context of the new world into which we are now moving.
Finally, the coalition agreement pledged that the Government will,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.
The Minister will be aware that there are many who wait anxiously to see some practical results from this pledge. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, for example, has submitted more than 30 proposals for ways to make progress in fulfilling this pledge. I should be grateful if the Minister could say when the Government will respond to these suggestions. This is a particularly difficult and contentious area of public policy, involving as it does profound ethical issues, potentially invaluable research into the treatment and cure of human disease, valuable commercial and economic interests and the passionately held beliefs of millions of people in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions of distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House to this debate, informed as they will be by their extensive experience in this field. I also look forward to answers from the Minister to the questions that I have asked tonight.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate, even though there has been a great deal of time between his proposing the debate and our having it in the dinner hour.
I say to your Lordships how important it is that, in using animals in science, whether medical science or elsewhere, the highest levels of transparency are always maintained over how animals of all species—not just non-human primates—are used. It is important across the whole spectrum in the furthering of scientific knowledge. I declare an interest as the chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents some 126 medical charities that are involved in medical research. I make it clear that AMRC is a member of the UK bioscience sector coalition, which has made a co-ordinated response to EU directive 2010/63, which governs animal research. However, several of our members have made separate responses to the directive because of their own interests.
Our starting point as a coalition was to ask the following questions. Will the directive improve standards of welfare for laboratory animals across the whole of the EU? Will it improve the quality for procedures permitted on animals across the EU? Will it drive down the requirement for animal procedures in line with the world-leading NC3Rs initiative? Will it help to maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading bio and medical science destination? The answer to all four questions was an emphatic yes. We believe that it will. However, given the high standards that exist in the UK, the question rightly being asked by several organisations—the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made reference to this—is: will the directive reduce standards in UK laboratories and open the way for less acceptable procedures, as is claimed by many of the opponents to the directive? I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord did not raise this in his opening speech.
The response from the coalition could not be clearer. As we said in our evidence, our priorities are: to promote high-quality science and patient benefits; to ensure high standards of animal welfare; to apply the principles of the three Rs; to harmonise EU regulatory requirements so that we do not have different levels in different countries; and to promote public confidence in humane animal research, which can be done only through openness and transparency. The idea that such a wide range of organisations as are part of the coalition, of which only two represent commercial interests, should wish to see standards lowered is quite offensive. Indeed, it would be counterproductive. You cannot achieve world-class research unless you treat your animal models with respect and care.
Seeking to strip away needless bureaucracy that does little for science or animal welfare is a positive, rather than negative, move. We are convinced that giving a greater emphasis to inspection, and making recommendations from inspections the basis for improvement, is far better for science, patients and the interests of animals than sheaves of paper-based accountancy, which is what we have at the moment. Transparency is about what goes on in the breeding centres, animal houses and laboratories; ensuring that research programmes are carried out to the letter of their remit; and, where there are changes, that those changes are themselves transparent and approved. Let me make clear that the myths and distortions spread by Animal Aid and others do little to encourage the quality of debate to which we have grown accustomed over the past 10 years when discussing animal procedures and science.
Let me take a number of those myths and distortions head-on. Animal Aid claims that the coalition wishes to scrap the ban on the use of great apes. That is completely untrue. The UK bioscience sector coalition can see absolutely no circumstances in which there would be a requirement to use great apes in medical research. They have not been used in the UK for the past 25 years and there is no reason that they should be in the future. However, it was stressed in our response to the directive that recent deaths in wild gorillas due to human viruses mean that there is a serious threat posed to that species. It would be quite wrong for us to say that we would not do any work on great apes or any other species that was endangered. That would be a nonsense, and yet that is exactly what we are being accused of doing.
The second area of concern is about stray cats and dogs. It is claimed that we,
“wish to lift the prohibition on the use of stray cats and dogs”,
and that we could re-establish the historical link between UK pet thieves and animal researchers. This does not only a huge disservice to medical science but makes the whole proposal laughable. The idea that you would use feral animals for experiments to get reliable results is utter nonsense and needs to be quashed. What does this directive aim to do? Certainly, harmonisation is at the centre of it. We do not deny that there has been an increase in the number of animals used in procedures, particularly in the past couple of years, with some 3.7 million being used in 2010. However, 47 per cent of those include animals that are bred to be used in laboratories, particularly transgender mice. It also includes the production of zebrafish on which to experiment. When you look at the figures more closely, you see that the use of dogs has gone down by 2 per cent, rabbits by 10 per cent, cats by 32 per cent and guinea pigs by 29 per cent. We need to have a rational debate on this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, rightly said, without clear transparency, openness and the sorts of response he rightly seeks from Ministers, people who have a genuine interest in medical science and who want to see animals treated well during these procedures will not get the answers they deserve. However, frankly, those who scaremonger should get the results that they deserve.
Lord Winston
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Wills on securing this debate I declare an interest. I have held a licence to carry out animal research for more than 40 years. I may be the only Member of this House to do so. I still have an active licence and, indeed, went to see the Home Office inspector only two weeks ago. I am also chairman of a company that is involved in transplantation work using pig organs. I recently had to go to the Home Office for revalidation. I have a certificate from the Institute of Biology hanging up in my lavatory. Unfortunately, that institute does not have a typewriter that works terribly well. The certificate states:
“This is to certify that Professor Robert Winston is licensed to operate on mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster and rabbi”.
No rabbi has visited my house to inspect the certificate, which is probably just as well. I replied using a typewriter which had all the “t”s missing; I felt that was the only way in which I could reply.
I am not sure that this matter is as deeply contentious as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, says it is. Let us face it: 95 per cent of us perfectly happily wear leather shoes. We should put the animal rights lobby into some kind of focus. I regularly speak at all sorts of public meetings around the country and I do not get the impression that animal research is so contentious. Of course, various issues still need to be addressed, but I fear that we might exaggerate the public response to this, which serves no good purpose.
My field has largely been that of in vitro fertilisation and reproductive biology. It is interesting to consider that more than 1 million babies could not have existed without the research that has been carried out on rodents. That is true of my work in the screening of embryos for genetic disorders. This has been a revolution in reproductive medicine. It means that women can embark on a pregnancy knowing for certain that they will be free from having a baby which will die in the first few years of life. That was made possible purely through extensive animal research. Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field, whether it be the liver, heart, brain or kidneys, or neuroscience or any major discipline. Last year’s Nobel prize in my field was won as a result of medical research on animals, as has often been the case with many Nobel prize winners.
I am now involved in the field of transplantation. One of the interesting issues is that organ failure is extremely common. Around the world every 15 minutes or so a new person is put on an organ transplant waiting list. I work at Imperial College London. Using mice initially but also pigs, we are trying to modify the cell surface antigens of the pig so that they are not recognised by the human immune system, so that when an organ is transplanted—a kidney, heart or liver—it may not be rejected. That is an ethical imperative. It saves human life in a way that no artificial organ appears to be capable of doing. We may talk about bionics in our society but I think that it will be at least 20 or 30 years before an artificially made organ is remotely possible. However, xenotransplantation now has a real possibility of saving vast numbers of lives and improving medical care.
I do not think we can argue that there is any substitute for animal research. Of course, reduction is possible but I do not think that substitution is. I give an example. Much has been made of the use of cell culture to replace animal research. I speak with some knowledge of cell culture, having worked in that field for a very long time with my embryos and with other tissues. However, the problem with cell cultures is that they produce huge numbers of aberrations which are not produced in the intact animal. In the intact rodent we are able to study cell signalling in a way that goes completely awry in a cell culture. The epigenetic changes that occur in cell culture mean that genes often do not express in the way that they would do normally in the intact animal. Of course, even organ culture will not do that either. It is a very technical issue.
I have worked with animals in the United States, in Belgium for a year, in France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. In Britain, the overall standard of inspection, control and regulation as it stands—with or without the European directive—is remarkably high. We should, however, try to improve our animal houses; that would be a great help. The problem, of course, is that universities often do not have enough money to do that.
We need to say very clearly that it would be unthinkable to take any drug which has not been tested on an intact animal. In fact, there is a case for having legislation to make it clear that a particular drug has only been possible for human consumption because of animal testing. This could be stamped on the packet, rather like a cigarette packet. With the medical advances, and the advances in animal well-being which have resulted from animal research, we should not lose focus on the overall picture. I urge the Minister to consider those in his deliberations in Europe.
Finally, one of the key issues is public engagement. It is a matter of great disappointment to many of us that, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, which has so much at stake in this country, and which contributes so enormously to our economy, has not been much more forward in trying to point out that it uses animal research. It is quite shocking that every university in this country does not admit that we have an animal house where we do animal experiments. If we do not say this very clearly to the public, if we do not make that message clear, then of course people will start to think there is something clandestine or something to be ashamed of in our research programmes. I really do not think that is true. Overall, from what I have seen in 40 years, the standards in animal care, improving as they are, are remarkably better than in almost any other jurisdiction, except for the circumstances in animal houses, which are sometimes not as good as they should be because of the financial limits in what we can provide for their housing.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are having a great debate, but can we please watch the clock?
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I want to make three points. First, the United Kingdom has a very good record on concern about animal welfare in animal experiments. However, the process has in the past been bureaucratic. In 2002, the Select Committee of this House, of which I was a member, observed that the best form of regulation was not necessarily the most bureaucratic form of regulation. We had an example of one very eminent scientist, who was very experienced in the use of animals, who had to fill in a form in order to obtain a project licence of some 300 pages. The situation has improved—I understand that a good new form for project licence applications was introduced at the end of 2010—but there is a variation in the attitudes of the inspectors. Some inspectors are very niggling in their requirements for information and others are very helpful. I hope that the Home Office will see to it that there is some sort of uniformity and a respect for best practice.
The second point I want to make, very briefly, is about the European directive. I gather that its origins lie in the fact that some of the European countries do not have proper regulations. It is very welcome for that reason. It is welcome also because it simplifies applications for licences. However, I am told by my scientific friends that there is one thing that has to be watched—there is more emphasis on checks and reports. It is a somewhat prescriptive directive and could become onerous; or it could be perfectly tolerable, depending on how it is translated into UK law. Our record in translating EU directives into UK law is not always exemplary. In many cases, a very bureaucratic interpretation is given to it, with details that are not insisted on by other countries, which places this country at a disadvantage. I am sure that the Government will consult very carefully and widely and will listen to the observations which are made.
My third point is a more general one. There is no doubt that there is an increase in the public understanding of the need for animal research, and I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that one exaggerates the degree of the concern these days. I think that something like three-quarters of all people, when asked by opinion polls, say that they have no objection to animal research if it is for the benefit of medicine and science. However, it is claimed that the situation is deteriorating and that there has been an increase in the use of animals. This has mainly been an increase in the use of mice, and mainly—as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has pointed out—because of the breeding of mice. Since the increase in knowledge of the genome, there has been more breeding of mice with changed genes, which enables more focused and productive research.
It also has to be realised that another recommendation in the committee’s 2002 report, for a special emphasis on the three Rs, has been successful. I was somewhat sceptical about this because there has always been a huge incentive for scientists not to use animals unnecessarily or cruelly, because stress is a great disadvantage in experiments. However, I understand that there has been success in the promotion of replacement, reduction and refinement. For example, the Ames test to determine whether a chemical has potential to cause cancer now uses bacteria instead of rodents. Some tests now use less complex animals than previously. In the case of pyrogens, blood cells from the horseshoe crab replace tests on rabbits.
Public support is of course important—as many previous speakers have pointed out. The progress made in the three Rs also plays a part in this, and there is no doubt that there has been better education, but it could still be improved. I would add to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that it would be beneficial if every general practice surgery displayed a notice stating, “All the drugs used or recommended in this surgery have been tested on animals”. It has also been true that the activities of animal rights terrorists have been countered by much more effective police action and by some severe sentences imposed by the courts. This is one instance in which severity in sentencing can be proved to be effective.
It is for the sake not only of the health of human beings but of the welfare of animals that we continue to be vigilant to ensure that animal research proceeds effectively and with due care for the animals affected.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Wills for initiating this debate. It is good that there is so much agreement across the House on such an important topic. Like others, I start from the premise that medical research has saved or improved the lives of millions of people and that we should do everything possible to avoid harming its progress.
From my previous experience in the university world, where a substantial proportion of medical research is conducted, I know that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are required and adhered to. That is as true in research involving animals as in other areas. Research using animals has been the fundamental basis for many of the medical advances that we now rely on. I do not think that I can do better than quote the Wellcome Trust, one of the most important funding charities in this field. It said:
“The use of animals in research has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and led to the development of nearly every type of drug, treatment or surgical procedure in contemporary medical and veterinary practice”.
There is a long list of diseases and treatments where these advances have had an impact—tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, stroke, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and anaesthetics. In the area of organ transplants, in which I have an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, heart and kidney transplant techniques, together with vital anti-rejection medication, were developed using animals—as my noble friend Lord Winston described so vividly. In the financial year 2009-10, 3,706 people received major organ transplants through the NHS.
Using sentient animals in research places a huge responsibility on researchers and Governments. Regulation is therefore essential. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to protect research animals by law, in 1876. The UK is now widely regarded as having the tightest legislative control on medical research in the world, together with a reputation for high animal welfare standards. Perhaps even more telling, in order to obtain a license to experiment on animals, researchers must demonstrate to the Home Office that their research cannot be done using alternative non-animal methods.
This nevertheless remains a highly controversial area—as has emerged from each contribution to the debate. Certainly I recall that university campuses experience more publicity, campaigns and sometimes violent protests about animal rights than they do over any other activity or difference of opinion. The moral debate on this issue continues, and I would argue that there is a need and a responsibility for those involved in research, and even more those funding it, to explain their methods and to constantly reaffirm to the public the benefits of their work. As others have said, although that is clearly desirable, it is not always easy. The protests on campus can be targeted at individual scientists and sometimes their families. Identifying individuals or promoting their work could make them vulnerable to attack. There have been sufficient of these incidents in the past to make universities wary of opening up this work to a wider audience through the media.
Although the level of activity has reduced in recent years, the methods have changed. Communication technologies mean that universities can be disrupted more easily with no notice and for longer periods. Indeed, Universities UK, an organisation of which until recently I was chief executive, is one of several bodies supporting an organisation called support4rs, which provides advice and support to individuals and organisations who use animals in biological and medical research to help them deal with animal rights extremism. There is always the concern that those activities could have a chilling effect on legitimate university research.
However, universities are becoming much more open about the use of animal experimentation, which is an important step towards ensuring that there is a well informed and healthy debate. The Minister, in a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, earlier this month, referred to the three Rs: replacement of animal use, refinement of the procedures used, and reduction of the numbers used. This policy approach has certainly gained support in the university sector and, most importantly, is becoming embedded in research training.
I said that this area is controversial, but people in the UK have positive views about animal research. Surveys show that about three-quarters of them accept the need to use animals in research to make medical progress, and nine out of 10 do so as long as certain regulatory conditions are met. So the UK's commitment to regulation has paid off handsomely in terms of public confidence.
Within the research community, however, a major concern is that the UK's controls are too complex and bureaucratic . In an excellent briefing that I received from the UK Bioscience Sector Coalition, it expressed the hope that the new European directive governing animal research, to which other noble Lords have referred, could be an opportunity to remove some of the unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy, which, I agree, benefits neither science nor animal welfare.
Every speaker in this debate has emphasised both the importance and the benefits of research using animals, alongside the rigour of its regulation. The Minister himself did the same only recently in this House. In conclusion, therefore, I simply ask him to confirm that the new regulations will be transposed in a way that will maintain the UK's high reputation and enable the UK to become a world leader in the biosciences sector.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I also express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for enabling us to discuss this important and, on some occasions, emotive issue. We are a nation of animal lovers, and if we believe, rightly or wrongly, that animals are suffering as a result of the deliberate actions of humans, including carrying out experiments on animals, we tend to react.
In the light of the revised EU directive governing animal research being adopted, the regulation of animal research in the United Kingdom is under review, as the directive must be transposed into UK law by November 2012, with the majority of the provisions of the revised directive implemented in UK legislation from 1 January 2013. As I understand it, the mandatory standards of care and accommodation will not have to be implemented until 1 January 2017.
It was of course an earlier European directive that led to the current regulations on animal research, which have statutory force under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The 1986 Act states that animal research or testing procedures can take place only in research facilities that have been granted a certificate of designation, where the procedures are part of an approved programme that has been given a project licence, and where they are carried out by experienced and trained people who have a personal licence to undertake such activity.
The revised European directive appears to have been received with rather more enthusiasm by those who believe that our controls are too complex and strict than by those who are concerned that harmonisation on the basis of the revised directive could lead to a watering down of some of our standards on animal research and testing—to the detriment, not least, of the animals involved.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Wills sought a number of assurances from the Government. Included among those were: an assurance, in the light of the financial cuts, that the Government will not reduce the number of Home Office inspectors or the number of inspections; an assurance that the ethical review process will not be abolished; and an assurance that the revised EU directive will not be allowed to weaken our existing standards and lead to an increase in animal suffering, including the cumulative severity of suffering. He also asked whether the Government had given consideration to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to increase transparency, and for an assurance that the Government is giving support for work on developing alternatives—in particular, to non-human primates—in research.
My noble friend referred to the Bateson review, which I believe was published in the summer, and its finding that, while in most cases the use of non-human primates was justifiable, in just under 10 per cent of cases there appeared to be no significant scientific, medical or social benefit. Among other things, the Bateson review proposed: that all applications for funding to use non-human primates should be subject to rigorous review; that there should be a full examination of the justification for choosing primates as the test species, including whether human subjects could be used as an alternative; and that the potential for using alternative approaches should be pursued. The review also stressed the ethical imperative that maximum benefit should be derived from experiments using primates and that all data should be shared, even if the results are negative, to prevent unnecessary duplication of work.
My noble friend also asked whether the Government would support the proposal in a European Commission consultation for a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. He also referred to the Government's own commitment to,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”,
and in effect asked what decisions had been taken, and were likely to be taken, towards fulfilling that pledge.
I am sure that the Minister in his reply will be seeking to respond to the many direct questions asked by my noble friend. This is not an easy issue and no one wants to pretend that it is. Many important advances to the benefit of mankind have been achieved as a result of experiments on animals, and no doubt further much-needed advances will be achieved in the future. There is, however, a natural revulsion against any inhumane treatment of animals and there is an objection to experiments being carried out if they appear to have little or no obvious benefit. There is also a feeling that advances in science and in knowledge should result in the need to use living animals less for research; that surely should continue to be an objective.
Changes in a European directive should not lead to any lowering of our standards covering the use of animals in research. Where our standards and procedures are higher than those called for in the directive, we should, as we are entitled to do, retain those higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances on that point and on the other issues raised by my noble friend, on a subject matter which we all accept is not straightforward but which, if not addressed by government—any Government—in a humane and careful manner is likely to increase hostile feelings. If that happens on any significant scale, as my noble friend said, we could risk losing the consent of the public for the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, with potentially valuable research being lost. No one would want us to end up in that position.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for reminding us that this is not an easy issue. That is almost the most important point he made in the course of his address. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing this debate and attracting such a wide range of expertise to speak in it. I thank my noble friend Lord Willis, who is the chairman of the Association of Medical Research Charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who has held the licence from the Home Office for some 40 years—I apologise to him on behalf of Home Office Ministers some 40 years ago who had a typewriter that did not have any “t”s in it. I will make sure that is corrected in due course and the appropriate licence is issued, but no doubt the noble Lord has the appropriate licence. I will say a little more about what the noble Lord had to say later on; he made some very important points.
We also heard my noble friend Lord Taverne, who again has a great record in this area. I was very encouraged that he reminded the House that we have a very good record in this country and it is something that we should be proud of. However, it is obviously something that we must get right. Again, I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with her experience as a former chief executive of Universities UK, talk about the importance of research in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about the need for the Government to hold the ring to provide balance. I am not sure that “holding the ring” is necessarily the right analogy—I cannot remember quite where it comes from—but let us just talk about providing balance, because I think that balance is important.
I start by saying—here I echo the expert remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—that animal experimentation continues to be absolutely vital both in developing the improvements in healthcare that we have seen over the past hundred or however many years it is and in ensuring that all our health services continue to function effectively with the gains that have been provided to us over the years. I was very grateful for everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said about IVF and the number of Nobel prize winners whose research had been involved and so on. I was also grateful for what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said about the need to ensure that there is appropriate public engagement in these matters. Again, it is very important that the right message about what we are doing is put across to everyone.
Having said all that—this is where I add my “but”—we have a moral obligation to ensure that effective arrangements are made for the protection of animals used in that work. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was right to talk about a balance. I have used the word “balance” virtually every day that I have spoken for the Home Office in this House, but this is one area where balance is absolutely vital—a balance between the need for research and the need for effective protection.
The regulation of animal experiments and testing is of significant public interest—a point emphasised by all noble Lords. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals used for scientific purposes.
That brings me to the transposition of the new European directive, mentioned particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but also by my noble friend Lord Taverne. We believe that getting the transposition of the directive is absolutely vital. It provides a valuable and timely opportunity for the United Kingdom to review all its legislation governing experiments on animals. It also provides an opportunity to confirm the best aspects of current regulation and to make improvements where we can do better. We believe that the new directive will help us to promote the further development of alternatives to the use of animals. It will also allow us further to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—where it exists and to streamline our existing processes where this will not adversely affect animal welfare, building on the significant improvements that we have already made in the day-to-day implementation of current regulations.
Concerns have been expressed that the transposition of the new directive will lead to a weakening of United Kingdom standards. I emphasise that my understanding was that the Commission looked to this country more than any other to check the standards because we are the model. However, I give an assurance that we will certainly not be looking to reduce our standards in any way whatever. Further to that, Article 2 of the directive provides a mechanism that we can use to retain current higher UK standards, and we intend to use that mechanism wherever necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked a number of questions. I hope to address them more or less in the order that he put them and, in the process, to deal with some of the other points raised by other noble Lords. I start with the inspectorate. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Rosser, that we will maintain a strong and properly resourced inspectorate. The relationship among inspectors, establishments and licence holders is crucial to the effective implementation of the regulatory framework and we will not jeopardise that. The inspectorate will continue to carry out a comprehensive programme of inspections.
In their present form, local ethical review processes in licensed establishments—which have made a very significant contribution to animal welfare and the reduction, replacement and refinement of animal welfare procedures—will continue. Again, I was grateful that noble Lords stressed those three Rs. The new European directive requires each breeder, supplier and user to set up an animal welfare body with similar functions but less extensive membership. The recent public consultation has shown that there is widespread support from all sectors in the United Kingdom for animal welfare bodies to have a broader membership and a more extensive role than that set out in the directive. I assure the House that we will take full account of those views when we conclude our transposition of that aspect of the new directive.
Turning to the question of transparency raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, we will also continue to encourage the full publication of a range of information about animal research to assist public understanding of its purpose and value. That was something that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was concerned about. To this end we will aim to publish non-technical summaries for all licensed projects. We will also consider how we might adapt Section 24 of the 1986 Act—the statutory bar to disclosure—to enable more information to be disclosed, again ensuring that proper safeguards are included.
I turn now to the use of non-human primates. First, I can assure my noble friend Lord Willis that we do intend to continue the current ban on the use of great apes and likewise we will continue the ban on the use of stray animals that he asked about. There are particular concerns about the use of non-human primates. Research using non-human primates is a small but currently vital part of work to protect and improve human lives. I assure the House that the Government will continue to be supportive of all work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in scientific research.
The Weatherall report provided a valuable contribution to this issue. I would like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on one aspect. It did not actually call for a national strategic plan, but made 16 valuable recommendations, which are being taken forward by their respective constituencies. In terms of public support for the use of animals in scientific research, the most relevant recommendation was for scientific journals to incorporate details of animal welfare and the steps taken to ameliorate suffering, when publishing papers that involved non-human primate research.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—the national centre for the 3Rs—has developed guidelines for the publication of research using animals, which specifically include the requirement to describe husbandry and welfare associated measures. These guidelines have since been taken up by a large number of journals, including Nature and associated publications. Although we know from the most recent RSPCA survey of journal policies that there is more the sector could do, we are pleased with the direction of travel.
Following the Weatherall report, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be aware, we had the report of Professor Bateson, which reviewed medical research projects conducted over the last 10 years using non-human primates. His report noted that the research under review was generally of good quality and was highly cited, while some was of outstanding quality. The review panel was, however, concerned about the small proportion—about 9 per cent of research programmes—from which no clear scientific, medical or social benefit emerged. The Medical Research Council has responded that all research involves testing new ideas and that it is inevitable that some of it does not work out. The MRC will continue to work to ensure that all grant recipients using non-human primates are clear about the expected scientific, medical or social benefits and, if these are not realised, that the reasons why are explored to ensure that lessons are learnt for the future.
I am beginning to run low on time. I will move on to the points raised about a cosmetics marketing ban, which is a much more complex matter than it first appears. The marketing ban is being phased in and took effect in 2009 for all cosmetics and ingredients except for those used in tests for the most complex human health effects. The full marketing ban was always conditional on there being full and validated replacement tests in place. We know that such tests will not be available by the 2013 deadline referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact were the ban to go ahead in 2013. We take the issue very seriously and will work with the Commission and others ahead of an expected decision at the end of the year. We will take into account all available evidence before reaching a United Kingdom position.
I have two minutes to touch on the comments that the noble Lord made about the coalition commitments. The coalition agreed to include a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. We will look closely at all suggestions to deliver on that commitment, including those from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and others, and will respond in due course. The commitment will be delivered through a science-led programme led by the national centre for the three Rs. The national centre was selected because it has provided exceptional leadership and is internationally recognised as a world leader in this area. It will closely involve all government departments and agencies, including the Home Office inspectorate, research communities in both academia and industry and others with relevant animal welfare interests.
This has been a very useful and thought-provoking debate. The transposition of the new directive and the revision of current UK legislation is a complex task, and in the course of the debate it has been possible to cover only a small fraction of the issues involved. However, it has been useful and I hope that it will help us to prepare for the task ahead. I thank all noble Lords who spoke.
Education Bill
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:44 - Division on Amendment 63A - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 118 - Amendment 63A disagreed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, in Grand Committee we debated at some length the merits of Clause 30, which covers the duty to co-operate. Following the debate, I undertook to reflect further with my ministerial colleagues on the issues that noble Lords had raised. I also had an opportunity to discuss things further with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and others over the summer. I am grateful to them for their time and advice. As a result, we tabled amendments to the effect that Clauses 30 and 31, which were linked, should not stand part of the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, accepted that the Government were in favour of schools working together, that we felt that they did not need a duty to do so, and that a number of schools had made that case strongly to us. However, I also accept the point that he and my noble friend Lady Walmsley made that at a time when the Government have recently announced pathfinders to test and work through our SEN Green Paper proposals, which seek to encourage greater partnership working, we should not risk sending to this sector any confusing messages about the importance of partnerships. I took their advice and decided that the simplest thing to do was to delete the relevant clauses. I believe that that move will be welcomed by many noble Lords, including those on the Front Bench opposite, who I know shared the concerns that were raised. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have worked with me over the summer. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for listening to our views and responding in the way that he has. It is quite rare in our proceedings to find a government amendment that has names from those on all other Benches attached to it. In this case the accolades and plaudits that the Minister will get from all noble Lords are well deserved.
In the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, of 6 October, the Minister said:
“While we work through with interested parties as to how the proposals in the Green Paper on SEN and disability will promote better collaboration, we are happy that the duty to co-operate should remain”.
When the legislation comes before us, which will result from the SEN Green Paper undoubtedly—I assume that will be some time next year—can my noble friend assure us that the duty to co-operate will not be deleted in that legislation without consultation with those of us who have expressed the wish to keep it in this legislation?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
The Minister knows how much I welcome the amendment. I have not been part of the formal consultation but have managed to speak to him on a number of occasions informally and impressed on him the importance of local authorities and schools working together, simply because in doing so they learn each other’s minds. One area that has always improved is the safeguarding element between them because of working together. I thank the Minister for what he has done and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope that he will maintain that co-operation in the legislation throughout our future debates.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment—or everybody’s amendment, really. It clearly is right and proper that schools and children’s services play their part within the broader community. In a recent survey of almost 1,000 governors, carried out by the National Governors Association and the TES, a significant majority of governors agreed that schools should play a key role in the provision of children’s services in the area. Indeed, that makes sense, and is surely what the Government were aiming to do—to get everybody involved in children’s education to work together for their benefit.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the government amendments not to repeal the duties in Clauses 30 and 31. The Minister probably had to do some convincing back at the ranch, so to speak. It would be rather surprising if he did not, but I am certainly glad that those provisions will remain on the statute book.
I have a few questions about the situation now. Despite the measures in the government amendments, there is some confusion about the Government’s commitment. I perhaps echo something of where the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is coming from. Amendment 62 restores Section 10 of the Child Care Act 2000—the duty to co-operate to improve well-being. That Section 10 refers to “academy” as one of the schools on which the duty is imposed, but as we know, Clause 52 of the Bill creates three different types of academies: academy schools; 16 to 19 academies; and alternative provision academies. First, for the avoidance of doubt, is it the Minister’s understanding that the duty to co-operate will apply to those three types of new academies, as well as the generic term in the Child Care Act?
Secondly, there has been a revocation of regulations that were introduced some time ago to apply the duty to pupil referral units. The Government have already revoked that requirement. Can the Minister assure us that he will now overturn this revocation and bring pupil referral units back into the duty to co-operate, as was originally the case before the Government acted?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for the response from noble Lords. The accolades predicted by my noble friend Lady Walmsley were not heaped on me in quite the numbers I might have hoped for, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, but I am grateful for the ones that I received. I am grateful to noble Lords for helping me get to this position.
In response to the point made my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which also picks up on one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, yes, with regard to future legislation to do with SEN and trying to bring about greater partnership, there clearly would be consultation with noble Lords in the way that my noble friend suggested were any future change to be proposed. Whether it is or not, I do not know. Time will tell, in the context—which I think noble Lords welcomed—that we should look at this issue in the round, in terms of our plans for trying to encourage greater partnership working. That is something we are keen to do.
On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about academies, I can assure her that it will apply to all the types of academies. On the guidance, it was our view that the 100 or so pages of statutory guidance, and, indeed, the regulations around the children and young people’s plan, were overly proscriptive. Those requirements went last August, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said. I am not certain that their departure has been enormously noted. The key point is that, with the duty now in place, local authorities will be able to develop effective plans with partners that reflect local priorities. The Children Act 2004 sets out the overarching requirement for the local authority, schools and other partners to co-operate to improve children’s life chances—through joined-up planning, for example. We think that local areas will be able best to judge what should be in their plans.
I know that there were a couple of other important points that the noble Baroness raised. As I do not want to get anything wrong, I will, if I may, follow that up with her in correspondence.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “requirements” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.
( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “other matters” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 63A and 66A, which relate to Clause 34, on the subject of admissions. Amendment 63A would require the code on school admissions to have a duty to ensure fair access to opportunity for education. Amendment 66A would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education and training. We regard those two amendments as consequential, one on another.
Let us remind ourselves briefly of the very important debate we had in Grand Committee. Many concerns were expressed about the provisions in the Bill, and the way the Government were changing the arrangements on admissions. As it stands, the Bill introduces a number of changes to admissions. These include reductions in the powers of the school adjudicator. The Bill removes the power of the adjudicator to direct a school or a local authority to change those of its admissions policies which breach the code. It removes the power of the adjudicator to look more widely at school admissions and practices when they receive a specific complaint. It also abolishes local admissions forums, which can resolve parents’ issues locally and avoid complaints going to the adjudicator.
The Government have brought forward some minor amendments, which we will discuss after this group. I thank the Minister now, as I will later, for his Keeling schedule, and the efforts he has made to explain those amendments. They are important, but they do not address the subject of the amendments in the current group. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education, and to ensure that the admissions code also required fair access to opportunity for education.
So why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because academies are their own admissions authorities and as the number of academies grows, which is the Government’s intention, to a point where most or all of our 20,000-odd schools are academies, parents making applications will face a bewildering and inconsistent patchwork of different admission arrangements at different schools.
In fact, there is already information that this is the case in some boroughs where the majority of secondary schools are academies. For example, someone might live very close to a school, but that school does not have as one of its admission criteria proximity of the pupil’s home to the school, so the pupil could not satisfy that criterion. But the same child may live too far away from the next nearest school which does admit pupils on the basis of proximity. There is a real problem for parents in the future as more schools become academies. Schools that are highly performing are often very popular and it is crucial to ensure that access is fair so that children from all backgrounds can benefit. Even the most articulate parents and those who know the system best might struggle in a borough in which every single school operates a different set of admissions criteria, but for those for whom English is a second language or who feel they can navigate the system less well, the risk must surely be that their children simply end up in those schools that are undersubscribed and where others choose not to apply. However, since it is not yet the case that every school is an outstanding school, parents’ ability to choose a school in a transparent way within a fair and consistent admissions system is even more important.
In Grand Committee, I noted that the new draft admissions code contains the word “fair” 26 times, including in the line:
“The purpose of the Code is to ensure that all school places for maintained schools … and Academies are allocated and offered in an open and fair way”.
But using the word “fair” so many times does not give the code the duty to ensure that fairness, and that is what these amendments would achieve. They would also hold the Secretary of State accountable for ensuring that access is fair. This goes to the crux of the debate in Grand Committee because, leaving aside the detail of the Government’s arrangements, there is a great deal of concern that responsibility for ensuring fair access should be built into the arrangements on admissions. Some similar amendments to those I am putting forward today were tabled in Grand Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that what concerned her was that someone should have oversight as to whether fair access is going on. I agree with her, and I note that the noble Baroness and her colleagues have tabled similar amendments.
In Grand Committee the Minister told us that the draft admissions code is designed to ensure fair access and local authorities are under a duty to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring fair access to opportunity for education and training. But in an increasing number of cases, particularly at secondary level, whereas I have already said that there are no or few schools in which the local authority is the admissions authority, because they are all academies, it is difficult to see how this will protect parents and children. That is because so far as admissions are concerned, the local authority is irrelevant. So Amendment 66A would give the Secretary of State a duty to promote fair access, while Amendment 63A would ensure that all admissions authorities, when setting their criteria, would have to set them so as to ensure fairness of access. The Liberal Democrat amendment also tabled in this group would have the same effect as our Amendment 66A, but we have used the term “promote fair access” while they have used the words,
“to ensure fair access … as far as is reasonably practicable”.
I do not think that there is much to choose between them.
This is not a debate about the detail of the Government’s proposals. It is an argument that says: given the changes the Government are making—dismantling to some extent the checks and balances in the current system on admissions—and the ambition that every school should be an academy and therefore its own admissions authority, it is vital, in our view, that there is an overarching obligation on the admissions code to ensure fair access and that the Secretary of State has an overarching duty to be accountable for promoting fair access overall.
As I said in Committee, it is not that we are not in favour of more freedom and autonomy for schools, but we believe in trying to achieve a balance between the interests of schools on the one hand and the interests of parents and children on the other. There should be a duty outside the school system itself—that is, in the admissions code and with the Secretary of State—to ensure that that fairness is really built into the system and that the system is really operating in that way. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I hear the expression “fair access”, but it is possible to develop arguments for different kinds of fairness. Is “fair access” clearly defined anywhere? We are turning this legislation on the assumption that we all agree about fair access. However, fair access might be for the poorest children, or for the children with the greatest educational need, or for the cleverest children, as they are the children who are most likely to profit from an excellent education. Can we have a definition of “fair access”?
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is exercised by his inability to define what a parent’s responsibilities are. Along the same lines, he is looking for us to define what “fair access” is tonight.
I would like to speak to my Amendment 70 in this group. It is identical, I think, to the one that I tabled in Grand Committee when I raised this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said, we are making some changes in this legislation to the powers of the adjudicator. I was concerned that, since the adjudicator cannot look at wider issues but only at the complaints put before him or her, there was nobody who could take a view across the piece and see whether injustices were arising in different places in the country. Indeed, if one could see a pattern emerging, somebody ought to do something about it.
I followed up our debates in Grand Committee by raising the issue with the Secretary of State. I pointed out that we on these Benches do not usually want to give additional powers to the Secretary of State, but in this case we thought that it was necessary, partly because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, the schools landscape is becoming more and more complex and diverse and many schools are now their own admissions authorities. So I am pleased to say that, along with my noble friend the Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of the view, as I understand it, that he already has these powers and duties. The only reason I tabled my amendment again was to give my noble friend the opportunity to put it on the record under which statutes the Secretary of State already has these duties. If that is perfectly clear, I see no reason to press my amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I support the amendments and I, too, look forward to the Minister’s reply. I learnt last week that I cannot speak after him, so I may as well speak now in anticipation of what he might say.
I think that this is a really tricky issue. My noble friend was right to say that if more schools are becoming their own admissions authorities, that is when the problem sets in. The system can just about cope with one or two schools being their own admissions authorities, but, to recall a bit of history, the reason why the legislation that is now being repealed and changed got on the statute book in the first place was that some London boroughs were already in a position, mainly through the predominance of church schools, to make their own admissions arrangements. The sort of situation that my noble friend described of some children always missing out on the oversubscription criteria, through no fault of their own, is not something that he imagined; it actually happened in some of the London boroughs. That is why what I can see might look like a fairly complicated system of controlling admissions came about. It could be even worse if we move to a situation where nearly every school is its own admissions authority.
I have two or three points on this. I do not speak for my party on this because I know that this is not my party’s position but, frankly, I have never seen why being your own admissions authority is a freedom that one should have. Heads need freedom to run their schools but not to select the students who should go through the gates and enrol on the register in the first place. That has always been my view, even when my party was in power. Maybe one could live with it then because there were not as many schools with their own admissions arrangements, but I really cannot see the point of it. I cannot see what advantage there is to a child or a child’s parent.
The reason why this is so important is that we all know the trauma that some parents and children go through when unable to secure an appropriate place at the age of 11. We have all seen children whose start at secondary school is blighted by the fact that they did not get the place that they wanted. We have to live with that; life is not fair and not everyone can have their first choice. Imagine this, though: we create a situation where some child gets to the age of 11 and cannot get a suitable place because they do not fit the rules. That is not the same thing as not getting your first choice. No one wants you, and you end up getting your fifth or sixth choice, all because of this contradictory oversubscription criterion.
I come to the same conclusion as others, despite my relatively strong views on this. I do not say that this is a freedom that schools ought to be granted but, if I accept for a moment that that is to happen, I honestly cannot see how the system will work unless there is a referee in the middle putting down some ground rules. The amendments, containing an overarching duty to ensure fair access, are right.
My last point is this. Let us be clear: schools will play these rules for all they are worth. All the history of schools being their own admissions authorities shows that some of them—not all, but a good number—will seek to admit the children who they want to admit, and they are not usually the poor, the dispossessed and those who do not like turning up to school. I am not just making this up. There is no greater advocate or defender of teachers than me in almost all ways but all the evidence shows that, when the admissions arrangements can be controlled, the schools tend to do so in the schools’ favour and not in the pupils’ favour. We are not on a level playing field here. Schools will not play fair without some overriding principle, and the one that is in the amendment would suit the purpose very well. I support it.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, in some ways there is not much more to add, but I want to reinforce this point. I understand and have sympathy with a model of school system improvement that builds on the international evidence by the likes of Michael Barber, through his work at McKinsey and elsewhere, on the importance of school autonomy, even if it is autonomy collaborating with others, as part of driving forward school improvement. If you go for that big time, as this Government have done with the rapid expansion of autonomous schooling through academies and free schools, there are certain fundamentals that we have to be clear about the Government retaining responsibility for.
I suggest that the core functions that the Secretary of State has to hang on to and be held accountable for in this Palace are fair funding, fair admissions and objective inspection. We can argue about some of the other stuff, such as how much of a curriculum there should be and the teaching of history in school—we debate that beautifully and with much erudition. At the core, though, it is those three things that the Government should be concerned about in order to ensure that the operation of the market, which is almost what autonomous schools become, does not disadvantage those who are least articulate, least advantaged and least able to help themselves. It is a struggle for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to define fairness in this context but for me fairness is ensuring that no child or family is disadvantaged by who they are, where they live and what their income is, and that they have equal opportunity to access good schooling.
As has been said, the growth of autonomy leads to growth in the number of schools that are their own admissions authorities. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lady Morris; some co-ordination by local authorities in administering admissions makes it much easier for parents. However, I recall that in my day it was the schools, rather than the local authorities that were admissions authorities, that were most likely to fall foul of the admissions code. I do not think that it was anything to do with the fact that they were largely faith schools or with their faith foundation; it was the fact that they were their own admissions authorities. Some aspects of the code were quite complex and they did not have the expertise in-house or within the school to ensure that they were compliant with the code. We found some gross non-compliance with the code, which is why things were toughened up.
In many ways, I do not have a problem with the Government’s code. What I have a problem with is ensuring that there is proper regulation of the code, with teeth. To remove the admissions adjudicator’s ability to direct schools and the adjudicator’s power to look at the admissions arrangements is to remove teeth. The Government are still unable to answer this through their amendments which we will discuss later. The code has to be independent to protect the Government from charges of political interference, because sometimes these issues become quite political at a local level and Members of Parliament are asked to be involved.
This amendment is the minimum that the Government could get away with. If they are not minded to accept this amendment, we should think again about introducing something tougher at Third Reading and, if we need to, restoring some of the adjudicator’s powers.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I agree with the three definitions that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, came up with: fair funding, fair inspection and fair access. These are the three principles that we need to uphold as we develop our academy policy. I will return to that in a moment. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am told that, perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a statutory definition of fair access. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, came up with a definition, and I suspect that it is like the elephant—we know it when we see it.
I take issue with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the extent to which the Government are seeking to change the admissions arrangements. The changes which we are proposing are relatively modest. I accept entirely the need for strong and effective safeguards and these are in place. As I go on to explain what some of them are, I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that that is the case.
As I said when we discussed similar amendments in Committee, and reiterate now, we see our commitment in favour of fair access, and protecting and promoting the opportunities of the disadvantaged and vulnerable, as part of our broader agenda. We talked earlier about extending early years education to disadvantaged two year-olds, the funding we have put behind the pupil premium and our efforts to tackle underperforming schools. I would also argue that this commitment can be seen in the changes that we are making on admissions. We have revised the statutory admissions code, which we think over the years—in a well-intentioned attempt to cover every eventuality—had become a bit unwieldy. In revising the code, although we have retained the key safeguards for looked-after children and children with statements of special needs, we have also added new measures to improve access to good schools. These will, for example, allow academies to prioritise children receiving the pupil premium. We have expanded infant class size exceptions to include twins, multiple births and children from our Armed Forces families. I should add that much of the feedback that we have had from the consultation is that, in making it simpler, more concise and more focused on the things that admission authorities must do, parents and their associations who have responded feel that it would be easier to hold schools and local authorities to account.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
I see that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I entirely accept what he said about the Secretary of State having powers to take action to ensure that a school’s admission arrangements are fair. I accept that and I think that the Minister has made that point on a number of occasions. However, the problem arises as regards co-ordinating different schools with different oversubscription criteria. In a local authority area each school could be applying the admissions criteria fairly but a child could still be unfairly ignored by the system because of the way in which each of the separate rules apply to him. In that case, who has the power to go in and sort it out?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point. One way to tackle this might be to ask the chief adjudicator to look at the concern that has been raised about what happens where there is a range of admissions authorities. The chief adjudicator would be the right person to look at that, report on it and comment on it in his annual report so that people can see what is going on. I will follow up that point with my right honourable friend to see whether that might be a way of addressing those concerns.
As I said, local authorities have a duty to refer any arrangements that they suspect may be unfair to the adjudicator. That role gives them oversight of all arrangements, be they at maintained or academy schools. In carrying out all of their functions in the provision of education local authorities have a duty under Section 13A of the Education Act 1996 to ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training. We think that the duty should be at that level.
Ensuring fair access was the reason for the introduction of the admissions code and is central in its current revision. We hope that the new revised code, which was consulted on over the summer and will be laid before Parliament shortly, makes the code easier to understand while protecting and extending safeguards for vulnerable groups. The changes in this Bill extending the adjudicator’s remit to include academies and free schools, and the government amendments which will allow anyone to object to the adjudicator, are aimed at achieving and promoting fair access. We think that sufficient safeguards are in place to make sure that the oversight to which noble Lords have referred is in place. The changes we have made will help the admissions arrangements, not weaken them as the noble Baroness suggests. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, he was trying to be helpful. However, a number of issues are still outstanding. I also thank other noble Baronesses and my noble friends for contributing to the debate as well. It is somewhat disappointing that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she tabled her amendment to enable the Minister to say what he had to say, as she spoke with great conviction in Committee about the necessity for an overarching duty precisely for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out; namely, that this issue—
Baroness Walmsley
Perhaps I may clarify the situation for the benefit of the noble Baroness. I have been convinced by my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the duty is there and that it is no longer necessary for me to press my amendment. I have been satisfied on the issue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
As I hope to point out, I did not hear the Minister say anything which suggested that that duty already exists in statute. He said that it is not strictly necessary. I will try to unpick what I think he said. I am surprised that the noble Baroness is satisfied by that.
Lord Avebury
Perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear the Minister say that he will write to my noble friend giving her the statutory reference. Is not that enough?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I do not have a statutory reference. I am just responding to the words that the Minister himself chose to use. If I might get to that point, I will perhaps explain what I mean.
My noble friend Lady Morris rightly said that, even in the context of trying to free head teachers to run schools, it really does not make sense to enable each school to decide which pupils to admit and which to reject. In a local system, this atomisation of admission decisions by individual schools means that some children will be left out and that the interests of children as a whole will not be protected. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth gave some good examples from his experience of how some schools will not abide by the admission codes and will not comply. The examples we have seen of that confirm the need for a duty or power outwith the system. That is the point that we were trying to get across to noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Morris said it should be a referee; I would say a guardian of the rights of children and parents in this system. The Minister said that the duty on the Secretary of State was not strictly necessary, but when he went on to talk about what powers and duties the Secretary of State has in law, he said that the Secretary of State had full oversight of admissions through the school adjudicator. This gets to the principle of the role of government. We are seeking an active agency within government to make sure that admissions are fair across all children—not to have oversight through the adjudicator only. That is not an active requirement on the Secretary of State, either through the admissions code or directly on the Secretary of State himself. Yes, the Secretary of State has the power to ask the adjudicator to investigate, but that is not the same as the Secretary of State having the duty to satisfy Parliament that he is pursuing by every means possible the principle of fair access.
The Minister also said that he thought that the right level for that duty was the local authority. As I said in my opening remarks, local authorities will have a co-ordinating role on the admissions code, but that is a co-ordination in relation to the administration of the admissions, not to the actual decisions that schools will make. That is not where the qualitative decision lies; the local authorities have no power at all under the proposed arrangements to challenge. They will have a power to refer to the adjudicator if they think a school is not in compliance, but they do not have that overall duty, at least where most schools are academies, to ensure fair access. There is nobody actually holding that ring in the system at the local level or nationally. That is why we feel very strongly, on a point of principle, that it is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of children and parents. That is where democratic accountability lies in this regard, in our view—to protect) the interests of citizens who are, in this case, children and parents. Given the ambition of the Government that every school should be an academy and be its own admissions authority, and given the other changes that the Government are making to the system, we feel that these amendments are necessary. I wish to press the amendment.