Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, in view of the immediately previous remarks, I have to declare an interest. I was involved in founding Ofsted, and therefore in bringing in a type of accountability that some have reservations about. So be it. So be it.

Twenty-three years ago this year, the first school to be declared “failing” in England was named. That was 23 years ago. I had to sign the order in question, so you can imagine that there was detailed scrutiny of the evidence and the grounds for making such an order. The consequence was immediate and decisive action: something was done. Something needed to be done. However, the order was vigorously resisted by the head teacher, teachers, governors, the local authority and a few of the parents. They did not like their school being labelled in this way. None the less, I believe that the decision was right and I stand by it 23 years later.

I avoid the phrase beloved of politicians—as a Cross-Bencher I can—so I am not going to say that it was the right thing to do, but it was the right decision. It was made, and it was hard. There had to be good evidence. This Bill, if it is justified—and I believe it is, in principle—will serve the same interest that we were looking to 23 years ago: the interest of the pupil. The others were ranked against such a decision; it was in the interests of the pupils that this failing school was shifted and turned around. That has to be the judgment about this Bill: whether it is in the interests of the pupils.

There are, of course, differences between 23 years ago and now. One of them—a very important one that we will spend much time on—is between “failing” and “coasting” schools. We will have to unpick that in quite some detail, I have no doubt, but it is very important. I have two passing comments on this. One is that it is interesting to me that the current Chief Inspector of Schools, Michael Wilshaw, has done a great deal to identify this middle range of schools that are not progressing but not necessarily failing. They are not failing in the technical sense, but if they are coasting they are failing the needs of the pupils who go to them, because these pupils deserve more. I echo what previous speakers have said: the pupils deserve more than to be flat-lining in a school for a period of time. I commend, therefore, Michael Wilshaw and the inspectorate for beginning to identify this. It is a sign of how we have moved on. At one time it was either “failing” or “improving”, and now we realise that improvement in schools involves a much greater middle ground on which we have to work. This Bill is an attempt to do that. It is not perfect, and doubtless we will uncover that as we go through.

The second difference is that “coasting” is best recognised in a more even process than the judgment of “failing”. The Bill, therefore, makes provision for this. In particular, it does not rest on the judgments of Ofsted alone but looks for an analysis of three years of data. I will come back to that later. It is right that more is required than a single judgment based on perhaps one or two inspections. We have to learn how to calibrate that data; it is important to collect it. As I said, I will come back to that.

“Coasting” is a subtle term. It is a subtle judgment and, as we will see very clearly, a contestable judgment—and it has been contested already—both in general and in specific cases, and we have to learn to deal with that. Whatever the accuracy and precision of the term, a great deal lies behind it. I have grandchildren who were looking for schools—I will not say where—but a large proportion of the schools in their area were clearly coasting. The children knew which schools were not coasting but were testing their pupils. We have to deal with that, and this Bill attempts to do so.

One of the ways in which it tries to define the notion of coasting is through the introduction of three years of data. I do not want to major on that, but I will come back to it. Can the Minister confirm that this notion of three years of data, which I believe was introduced in the Government’s illustrative regulations produced during the process of the Bill in the other place, involves a real and significant number? That is important, whatever view you take of it. There are three ways in which I want to raise questions about this issue.

First, the process of change that the Bill envisages—that is what the Bill is about: changing things—requires three years of data. It requires an introduction or run-up to that, and I would say that at least a year after that is required for the process triggered by these data to be put in place. That, according to my very minimal mathematics, leads to a period of nearly five years. That is one of my chief worries. I am not sure that there is a way round it, because you have to balance the process of being fair to the school—and that means evidence, which, rightly, has been stressed already—with the needs of the pupils who are in the school now.

I pay tribute to the Minister for the story that he told us about his own interest in the needs of pupils in Pimlico. They have benefited from this. However, if you say, “Sorry, we have some sense that there’s something funny about this school. We’re analysing the data and it’s going to take five years”, that is an educational lifetime for many children. It covers the ages of 11 to 16 and they will be gone. That is not good enough for pupils. I can get quite angry on that point and I will not go on about it, but it is not good enough to wait for five years in the hope that a process will kick in. Where there is an immediate need for action, I hope that there will be ways of taking that action. Would the Minister care to comment on this five-year period?

My second point may cause a bit of distress on some Benches. There is clearly a balance to be struck in the school getting a fair judgment between the needs of the parents, the governors and the head teacher. That is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to many, many teachers and the ways in which they perform their role. It is no part of my agenda to attack teachers—we desperately need and depend on them. However, if there is a potential delay of four or five years, we must make sure that we do not allow other delays to be put into the system. I have read the material that has been sent to me by the faith schools about possible ways in which they may wish to delay the process, for reasons that I quite understand, but I do not think that that can be allowed and I would resist it. When, nine or 10 years ago, education Bills were debated in this House—and they were very important for what we are going through now—a number of us made a point of resisting pressure from certain parts of the Chamber for the removal of all faith school status. We resisted that successfully and did so on one principle alone: never close a good school. It does not matter what its ideological background; you never close a good school—there are not enough of them around. If the changes that the faith communities want in this process are to delay change to a coasting school, I will no longer be with them. That is not the point of this legislation. We stick with what can be effective and what can be changed as quickly as possible.

The final point I want to make is that the data to be used—it will be very important, and this is what distinguishes it from an inspection-led basis; although I think that the inspections are very important—must be consistent, accurate and have the granularity that begins to tell us about individual pupils, groups and classes. That is a hard order and will not be achieved simply by external examinations. The data required to know whether a pupil is making progress are more than an exam externally set from one year to the next or two years on. There has to be more to it than that.

I simply draw to the attention of the Minister and the House the importance that information technology can play in this. I declare an interest here as the chair of Frog Education, a company that does this. However, I am not speaking for that company. I am speaking for the contribution that this whole industry can make to our understanding of what is going on in classrooms. IT is based on what we now call big data. That applies in the classroom, and we must find ways in the education system to analyse and examine those data and put them to use in diagnosing what is good and what is bad. Such data can produce a degree of insight that no single set of exams or inspections can. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to look at this in more detail. What will be the sources of the data that the Government are now committed to using in declaring a school to be coasting?

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

I think I have said enough to make it clear that I believe that a wise Government acting in the general interest of the sector would delay. In the absence of such a decision, the House should support the sunset clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, says, this does not create delay. This policy will not be introduced until 2017. What will create delay is a dog’s dinner of a policy confusing and frightening the sector into withdrawing services so that fewer people rather than more are able to access them.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made during the Recess and the various meetings the Minster has had, not least yesterday’s briefing session, which I think all of us present found useful and informative. It did not give us all the answers that we want. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I also welcome the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It properly criticised the procedure we are going through, which is not ideal and is certainly not perfect. The question is whether it should be continued because the benefits will be significant, or whether it should be halted. I do not accept that this would not involve delay. It is important for the health of this Bill and its implementation that we proceed with further analysis, and almost more importantly, the pilot studies. It is only through pilots that we shall begin to see where the real practical difficulties arise, many of which have already been mentioned by my colleagues on the other Benches. The pilots have to take these points on board and test the adequacy of the proposals.

As I said, I welcome yesterday’s briefing. From the discussion, I saw a new capacity—not willingness, but capacity—for flexibility in the Government’s response. The Government will have to exercise every jot and tittle of that flexibility in responding to the comments that are made and the views that are shared across this House. The other view we share is that we want this Bill to be passed. We want action.

The difficulty with the amendment is not the demand for a review. The review is under way and we have to get going further with it, and we had a helpful and professional briefing yesterday. However, the amendment’s second demand is that a sustainable funding solution be presented before moving to the next stage. Politics is the art of the possible. That is not possible. It can come only after the funding review across the whole of government has taken place. I do not want to make much of this at the moment, but I note in parentheses the view of the Select Committee that hard choices would have to be made. I have yet to see recognition of that from the Government, but that is a consequence we shall see when the final financial package is revealed.

That said, that seems to me an inadequate reason for such a measure, granted the moves that have been made, the flexibility that was shown yesterday, and what so far has been shared with us. There is much further to go. Granted all that, I am in favour of moving ahead to the next stage, which means that I cannot support this amendment as it stands, but I welcome the provision, for example, regarding a further meeting with the group of interested Peers when the funding situation is clear, so that our views can be formally and openly expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I very much support the spirit of Amendment 20A. This is one of the key points that the Bill seeks to address. However—continuing in my pessimistic mode, I fear—I think this is one of the hard choices that may have to be made. I can see how large providers might well be able to do this and how in large centres of population this kind of provision will be possible. But asking small providers to continue provision outside their normal hours may well stop them operating completely. This is a matter of hard choices and I would be much happier with the amendment if it said something like, “Regulations should take account of the need to” rather than “ensure” because I do not think that regulations can ensure this.

Very quickly, I would be unhappy to do what Amendment 2 suggests because I fear that if you take the Secretary of State out of the line of full responsibility, the danger is that the responsibility lands on the local authorities and, as we have seen in other areas—and I have a lot of interest in the provision of care for the elderly—the local authority would have the responsibility but not the funding.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendment 20A. I feel strongly about this issue because a few years ago I chaired a policy working group about how families could balance their working lives with their family commitments. In looking at childcare issues, the three As—availability, accessibility and affordability—were thought to be extremely important, and we are hearing a lot about them today. But something else was felt to be equally important by the people we talked to: flexibility.

I was very taken by some recent research produced by Citizens Advice about the experience of parents in the childcare market, which really highlighted how those children who need childcare at non-typical hours were found to be at a far greater disadvantage, and parents spoke of their “intense difficulty” in finding childcare that worked for them. They often did flexible working hours or shift work, were in low-paid employment and were dependent on public transport. Their experience suggested that it was close to impossible to find childcare before 7 am and after 7 pm on workdays, or at any times at weekends; for some, even finding care outside 9 am to 4 pm was difficult. Childminders were seen as just as inflexible as nurseries. That is why I think it is very important to say something about this in the Bill.

I would just like to respond to the very important point that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has just made because I think it really would be a problem if this applied to every provider, as he said. Clearly, some small providers would not be in a position to do that but if you look at the wording of the amendment, it talks about having that flexibility,

“within the local authority area”,

not in relation to every single provider. That is an important point to stress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, none of us would disagree with the importance of quality of staff; that is the fundamental thing that will make a childcare centre work, and work well. I have sympathy with all these amendments, because they point to particular features that may be part of ensuring, or giving reassurance, that quality is present—for example, qualifications. The evidence that we had in our committee was that qualifications are one of the most important identifiers of quality of staff. However, I have to put in the rubric that, of course, there is no guarantee. I have met many well-qualified people who do not exude quality in the required way. However, there is good evidence that qualifications are one indicator. For example, we have heard about the importance of a special individual in the setting. When I was at school, I suppose that would have been my form master. He did not teach me French, maths or physics, and sometimes he was a pain in the neck—but sometimes he was very useful and helpful. It is a relationship with an individual that is fundamental here. When it works well, it works exceptionally well, but it is not the only indicator. Equally, the staff training and development process is important.

Quality is a complex thing, with a whole series of factors, including the quality of the buildings in which the groups take place. A better way in which to tackle this issue would be to ensure that, off the Bill, instructions and guidance to Ofsted, which inspects these nurseries and care centres, are sufficiently clear to provide reassurance to parents that there is high-quality provision. Flexibility will be required and will vary from one place to another. Not all groups will be able to provide a specialist in SEN, but there need to be arrangements so that they have access to a specialist, even if it is in some other group. So I am pleading for flexibility here, rather than detail in the Bill.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s wish for a national workforce strategy, for children with disability generally but particularly for those with learning disabilities or in specialist nurseries. That is because the availability of places for those children is simply not there, in my experience: that is why parents cannot access them. Where parents do wish to access them, local authorities often make it very difficult for them to do so, by producing very complex financial arrangements that exclude those nurseries from the capacity to give help to children. I have spoken about this to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. The Bill is complex, and this is another range of complexities that would benefit from a further look at a later stage, outside the Bill.

At the same time, as many of my colleagues know, I believe that we need a good mix. Of course we need qualifications. Having been involved sometimes at both ends of inspections, I know that qualifications belong to a tick box that is easier to look at, measure and add up than it is to look at skills, competency and relationships. Those are the things that actually matter. They are often enhanced by qualifications, but we need to look at provision that has a mix of all those qualities, particularly for children with difficulties. I do not believe, therefore, that qualifications are everything, but I do think that it is sometimes difficult to measure the other areas of expertise. Moreover, many voluntary organisations would like to add to the training of their staff, but as their colleagues will know, if you are going to train a member of staff you have to release them. Even if organisations are doing in-house training, they have to find time. That adds to the cost, so they have to make sure that cost is covered, which puts extra pressure on the budget.

Therefore, I cannot fully endorse the amendments in terms of qualifications, but we all need to move forward and look at the complexity of what we are trying to provide for children in these situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I support my noble friend on this point. If the Delegated Powers Committee had believed that first-time affirmative action was sufficient it would certainly have said so, because its mark as a committee is to be proportionate. There is a very good reason why it has said, so strongly, that any changes must be done through the affirmative procedure each time. Perhaps I may use the Government’s arguments against them. The Minister previously argued that these definitions of eligibility were technical, but they are not. The point about these regulations is that the definitions represent the substance of the Bill: who is going to be eligible for these extended childcare provisions. They are a serious aspect of the Bill and should be on the face of it. The Minister argued that there may be a need to change the definitions and if they are in secondary legislation they can be changed more easily. If that is the case, the changes to the definitions are very serious indeed. As the committee says, they may be made to remove or add new categories. The Government know that they are dealing with a febrile and dynamic situation with a complex aspect of policy and they may well require to change these regulations. We are dealing with massive uncertainties here. The Government would be well advised—I say this in all sincerity—to follow the advice of the committee in this instance and ensure that each change in the regulations is properly debated in this House by way of an affirmative resolution

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I do not often listen to myself in debates but I did so earlier on and began to wonder if I was sitting on the right set of Benches, on a Cross Bench. However, I am now reassured that I am, on two grounds. First, I welcome the report of the Delegated Powers Committee very warmly indeed: somewhat more so than the Minister. Secondly, I support the amendment on a belt-and-braces basis. The point has just been made that there are many uncertainties here and we need to be reassured that these will be resolved on the Floor of this House.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I have one comment on the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. If all Bills had to be preceded by a Green Paper and a White Paper, there would be a long interval after a general election before there would be any legislation at all. Some people would welcome that but, on the other hand, those who are anxious to fulfil their commitments might not wish to wait that long.

Children’s Centres

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend Lord Prior has already given an excellent answer in which he mentioned the 10% increase in midwives and the 4,000 increase in health visitors. Of course, from September of this year public health commissioning for children under five will go to local authorities; I am sure that that will help the matter.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly stressed the role of children’s centres in dealing with the special needs of families and children. Will the same principle of targeting inform the Government’s plans for rolling out the extra 15 free hours of childcare?

[Lord Nash]

We will most definitely take these matters into account in our consultation. It is very important that all families have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare, particularly parents with children who have special needs or are disabled.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I spoke at length about disabled children at Second Reading and I will not repeat what I said then, so I will just make two points in support of the amendments, particularly that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Her amendment makes two points that take me back to our debates on the Children and Families Act 2014, when we looked at how children with disabilities and special educational needs could be properly assessed and then slotted into services that would meet their needs and give them an opportunity in the future. The first point concerns whether local authorities have sufficient facilities to provide childcare for disabled children. Then there is an assessment of the existing barriers that limit access to childcare for disabled children. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for arranging for me to bring some members of TRACKS autism to meet him and talk about some of the barriers that are in place at the moment. I raise this point so that, should I not be able to move it forward, I can at least speak on Report.

There is a lack of providers and able staff, but even when you have both those things, there seems to be a barrier in some local authorities to enabling the families to have placements. That is even where parents have jobs and want to work, and are working to pay fees so that their children can get the experience that will take them forward in their learning so that they move on to further education, often in specialist facilities, but at least with the basic communication skills that are given at that early nursery stage. I am grateful to the Minister for his interest and hope we can take this forward so that some of those issues can be resolved. In particular, in any reviews that go forward, the questions the noble Baroness raised are extremely important.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I promise to be very brief and offer one comment and one suggestion. The comment is that there is a huge range of possible needs under SEN and we need to unpick them at some point. This is not the time to do that, but it leads to my second point. Many of the issues covered by these amendments are of a practical nature and I wonder how far study of them could be incorporated into the pilots that are proposed to be set up.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, this group includes Amendments 12 and 16. I remember well the excellent debates we had during the passage of the Children and Families Bill, and it will be no surprise that I sympathise with the intentions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Tyler and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in their desire to ensure that the new entitlement is implemented in a way that meets the needs of children with SEN and disabilities.

We know that families with disabled children too often experience challenges and financial pressures in getting the service they need. That is why we have already acted—or will be taking steps—to address the issues highlighted by the proposed amendments. There is a strong legal framework in place to support children with SEN and disabilities. The Equality Act requires local authorities and other public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. Early years settings, schools and colleges must make reasonable adjustments for disabled children, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services, to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage compared with their peers.

The Children and Families Act introduced significant reforms to the way children with special educational needs and disabilities are identified and supported. The improvements they will bring will be for all children, including those who receive childcare. Local councils will now commission support across education, health and care jointly with their health partners, publish a clear, local offer of services for children with SEN and disabilities and provide comprehensive information and advice to parents on these matters. New 0 to 25 education, health and care plans for those with more complex needs will replace the current SEN statements.

We want every family to have access to flexible and affordable high-quality childcare. We are monitoring take-up of the entitlement for two year-olds closely. In 2015, there were 2,450 two year-olds with some form of SEN or disability who took up a place within the current entitlement, compared to 1,300 in 2014. We can be confident that this is high-quality provision since the majority of children—85%—are attending settings that are currently rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. As the entitlement for three and four year-olds is universal, we do not currently collect information on why children take up a place. However, we know that 94% of three year-olds and 99% of four year-olds in England are taking up funded early education.

We are funding a number of projects to increase the number of good-quality and flexible childcare and early education places for disabled children: for example, 4Children’s project to build on the success of childcare hubs and Family Action’s work to support more school-based childcare for children under five with SEN and disabilities. We are also building on the Family and Childcare Trust’s parent champions and outreach work to increase the number of flexible early education and childcare places for disadvantaged families.

The Government are committed to building a highly skilled workforce for all children. All early years childcare providers must have in place arrangements to support children with SEND under the accountability framework that they are assessed against. The current early years teacher standards require that all new early years teachers have a clear understanding of the needs of children with SEND and are able to use and evaluate distinctive approaches to engage and support them. Similar arrangements apply for schoolteachers.

To ensure that providers and local authorities are equipped to deliver the expectations of the new code of practice, we are funding a number of projects to better equip the early years workforce to support children with SEND responsibilities. These include: funding the National Day Nurseries Association to build on local systems for self-improvement through SEND champions; the Pen Green Centre, which supports a model of peer-to-peer training; and the Pre-School Learning Alliance, to build mentored workforce development networks. More broadly, the SEND gateway, established by the National Association for Special Educational Needs, provides information and training resources for education professionals across early years, schools and further education. Through our voluntary and community sector grants programme, we are also funding the NASEN to develop online learning to help practitioners effectively to identify and meet the needs of children with SEN.

To make sure that we fully understand the issues that families face, we will engage with parents and providers to find out more about how they currently access and deliver childcare. We want to hear their views on how the extended entitlement could best meet their needs. I am pleased to say that we have already received a number of responses from groups representing and supporting disabled children and their parents, offering to host consultation events for parents and providers. We will continue to work with providers to identify what more can be done to ensure that early years settings are building inclusive and accessible services for parents with disabled children. I shall take back the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, of making sure that providers for disabled children and the needs of disabled children are factored into the pilots.

As the Committee has heard, funding and affordability is a significant issue for many parents of SEND children. Local authorities must have the flexibility to provide support according to the circumstances in their area. They are able to set higher funding rates for provision that involves additional costs, including costs for children with SEN or disabilities, and can use their high-needs budgets to fund provision for children with additional needs, including those in specialist settings. Some in the sector have expressed concerns over the higher costs of supporting children with SEN and disabilities. The funding review will, of course, consider the additional costs, funding and support required for children with SEN and disabilities. We would welcome any evidence that the Special Educational Consortium can submit to the review on this issue and we will be happy to work with it—indeed, my officials have already met its representatives.

I am in agreement with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Tyler and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, about the need for concentrated action to ensure that the Government implement the new entitlement effectively for children with SEN and disabilities. As I have described, much of this is either in hand or about to take place. However, in view of the importance of ensuring that there is equal access to the new entitlement, I would welcome a conversation with noble Lords outside this debate.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords, and therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this matter on Second Reading. I was critical of my noble friend on the Front Bench and of the way in which the Bill had been brought forward. This was from the viewpoint of someone who spent rather too long in Whitehall and even longer—13 years—in the usual channels. I repeat what I said: it was not a good way to go about legislating. But I think that the House is at its best when it sheds light, rather than heat, on a subject, so perhaps we should get on and consider it in Committee.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was a little bit holier than thou. During all the years I spent toiling in opposition, I remember a fair number of pretty outrageous Bills—indeed, skeleton Bills—that came forward from the other side. I remember in particular a scandalous planning Bill which would not bear much resuscitation. So we have all been guilty and we all agree that the House is at its best and does its duty best when it has the opportunity to consider a Bill in detail. I was grateful for the chance to talk to the Leader of the House yesterday, and to my noble friend, who responded, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, with the courtesy and consideration that the House expects from him. Clearly, a mistake was made. When a new Government are formed they understandably want to make progress on important matters. Lessons have been learned and I am unequivocally grateful to my noble friend for his response.

There is just one small thing. I do not want to upset my noble friend the Chief Whip, but Report stage is quite restrictive. It is not for me to do the usual channels any more but it may be that, in the light of information we receive, some of the Report consideration could be on recommittal, to enable your Lordships to look at one or two matters, provided that there is no obstruction to the timely passage of the Bill. This is a matter for the usual channels but the House does have that flexibility. I should like to thank my noble friend for the generous, courteous and honest way in which he has come forward with good solution for the House.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s statement has been described as unusual. I welcome unusual statements, especially from Ministers; it is normally a sign that some thought has been given to what is happening, which is much appreciated.

The messages are clear. The Delegated Powers Committee has produced an absolutely vigorous report and comment which mirrors much of what was said at Second Reading. We have the beginnings of a response from the Government and, if I can play a small part in that, I shall be delighted to do so—I assure noble Lords that it will be on an all-party basis, as the Select Committee was.

The critical issues are, first, how much information will be available to the House before Report. That is fundamental to having adequate further discussion. Secondly, in the case of this particular Bill, is a very clear distinction being drawn between primary legislation and regulation? These are the two areas where major discussion needs to be held. I hope that postponing Report will give us time to do that—and I hope that we might even have the odd, additional, unusual statement coming forth to help us in a difficult situation to get a Bill through that we all want to see in good shape so that we can strongly represent it to the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 29, and first declare my interest as a newly appointed vice-chair and parliamentary representative of the Local Government Association. I omitted to thank the Select Committee and the Opposition for their part in ensuring that we have this thinking space before Report on this very important Bill. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I was pleased to hear the passion in what she has just said.

I do not think it a good thing if a newly elected Government with a manifesto commitment and with a majority feel timid about taking action. I very strongly opposed the Academies Bill, which was introduced under the coalition Government. I do not feel it is wholly redeemed, but I think a Government have to be fairly bold, and maybe do new and dangerous things. Sometimes those can have very good outcomes. In what became the Academies Act, I think the power given head teachers has been a very good thing.

I think it is a difficult balance for a new Government. They need to assert themselves, and they should not be too timid, but for something as important as this—and I totally agree with the noble Baroness—time, thought and consideration are vital. I am happy that we have had this opportunity for extra thinking time.

In my amendment, I call for a commission to be set up:

“Within two years of the coming into force of”,

the Act, which will look,

“with particular regard to value for money”,

in childcare provision. Under the amendment the commission would appoint,

“the Children’s Commissioner for England … a representative of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and … a representative of the Nuffield Foundation”,

to look at value for money in the childcare sector. I have done this because I have been rather shocked in the past to see from international comparisons of the cost of childcare how expensive it is in this country. I am concerned that the taxpayer is not getting value for money.

I must apologise to the Childcare Minister. In a recent meeting when he briefed us on the Bill, I am afraid that I put words into his mouth which he did not use. He did not refer to his concern that the cost of childcare in this country is higher than in other nations; that was a concern expressed by his predecessor in the other place, his colleague Elizabeth Truss. I apologised to him for that but he did point out that childcare provision in this country has been part of a piecemeal process. Over the years, it has been rather reactive and there has not been a strategic view of what we should be doing, so I hope that your Lordships might think this a worthy consideration.

One particular concern I have is that while parents are the drivers here—the money goes to where they choose to place their child—I know from research that they will often choose price over quality. That is absolutely understandable when you are desperate for childcare, but because we all know that quality is so important, we may need to think of other ways of funding the way the market works to ensure that there is more of an incentive to improve quality, rather than simply to have extra provision.

I will also speak briefly to my colleague and noble friend Lord Sutherland’s amendment, 38A. I do not have it in front of me right now but, having looked at it briefly, I felt that he had made a very helpful contribution in saying that there should be a longitudinal study of the impact of early years childcare. The development of children who experience early years provision is fundamental. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Northbourne will raise the question today of what happens in early childhood, and particularly how the relationship between mother and infant is mediated by early years care. That is fundamental to how we make mature relationships as adults. So much of the security and success of our relationship with our partners and children depends on what happens in early childhood. Perhaps we can get more information on this long distance between infancy and the ages of 25 or 30, when we start to make our own families, and even look at the next generation on. It would be really helpful to have a study to look at the impact of this, so I welcome my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I believe we are in a much better place now than we were during Second Reading and I thank the Minister for the part he has played in that. I also thank the usual channels, who I am sure were not silent when critical issues came up.

That being said, there are still some major issues and some of these amendments deal with them very well. Pro tem, until we see how much information we will have before Report, I would be inclined to give my support to Amendments 1 and 27—particularly Amendment 27, because we need to be clear that the regulations that do not come before this House deal only with practical constitutional matters. In principle, I give my support to both these amendments and we will see how things develop between now and Report. Effectively, the Government are under detailed scrutiny here and I encourage the Minister to do all he can to work with the good will around this place to bring about a successful conclusion.

That being said, I will refer briefly to my own Amendment 38A, which is quite different from the others. It recognises the fact that excellent work of a longitudinal nature has been done—for example, in the EPPE and EPPSE reports—with the encouragement and sponsorship of the Department for Education under two different Governments. That is something we welcome. We should look at the value of that work, which was evident to the Select Committee, with a view to continuing with a similar evaluation of what government policies bring about. The EPPE study takes children from the age of three. This legislation might alter that age and, if so, is an additional reason to look for the ways in which early education impacts on later educational opportunity.

I am looking for an indication from the Minister that the department still attaches great importance to building up this long-term database of how well or ill any particular policy might be working.

[Lord Northbourne (CB)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Listowel for mentioning that we were going to speak together and I apologise to the Minister for being a minute or two late—I did not realise that there had been a slight rehash of the timings. My Amendments 4 and 7 dare to ask, in this company, whether childcare is always the right answer for all children and all parents. I shall, of course, come back with those questions when this matter returns. I understand that we are not discussing these things in any detail today, so I shall not press my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I will be, as I usually am, brief. I am not going to make the speech that I was going to make as I think that it has already been made by other noble Lords I just want to make some points that I think have not been made and, if possible, take up one or two points with the noble Lord, Lord True.

I primarily want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in ensuring that, whatever we decide in this Bill, the child’s needs are paramount. Having heard him on previous occasions, I am quite sure that the Minister will agree that the child’s needs must be paramount. The problem is how to implement that. Listening to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True, I felt that there was a conflict between the suggestion that there should be universal provision for every child and the need to meet the needs of children who have more deprivation or disability than the general population. I am quite sure, even on my poor economics maths, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have the funding for universal provision. I therefore hope that, when we get to some kind of pilots, we do not just look at the employment issues.

I know that this is a manifesto commitment and absolutely understand how it has to be met by the Government. However, I think that there is a risk of making things worse for some groups of children. If some families who are earning good funds—I think that the noble Lord, Lord True, was right on this—take up the 30 hours and are already paying for half of it, that means that there will be less finance available for those young people and children, two year-olds and upwards, who are not yet getting proper provision. Knowing some of the parents in those groups as I do, I appreciate that they do not always even know how to access that provision. I know that the Government are keen to improve information so that they can access it.

Those are the points that I wanted to make in seeking the Minister’s assurance that, despite the manifesto commitment that this is about employment and getting more women into work, the child’s needs will be paramount. I agree that quality is not always about qualifications. Having interviewed many staff down the years, I know that some of the best qualified have probably been some of the least caring. Then again, some of the most caring have not had the skills to actually implement the caring. It is about having an understanding of the two. I think that we could get more for less with a more strategic approach across the whole. I hope that the Minister will, in some of the reviews that are being undertaken, take that overview of it all. The way in which funding is given and the range of different funding—for example through tax credits and universal credit—is such a jigsaw for families. Just to rationalise that would make a difference both to access for families and to finances generally.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I want to focus briefly on one word in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Massey—the word “paramount”. It will make a huge difference as to how choices are made when it comes to implementing this Bill. There will be hard choices of a financial nature about commitments to manifestos and about the kind of care provided. As a principle, it may read like motherhood and apple pie, but it is not. “Paramount” is saying where the final commitment will be. For example, is it the case that paramount considerations will lead to children in deprived areas or children with special needs being favoured if there is a shortage of money? The word “paramount” begins to put an edge on this and that is why I support this amendment.

Childcare

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The system can sometimes be complex for parents; that is why we are conducting this review. However, holiday care and after-school childcare have expanded substantially in the last few years, and it is important that we continue this flexibility.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill before the House could well expand educational expenditure in this area to over £6 billion annually. What steps are the Government taking to be sure that this money is well spent, and that it benefits those most in need in terms of increasing their educational opportunities?

[Lord Nash]

We will be looking at this closely in the coming review. We have of course been extremely focused on providing for those most in need through the early years pupil premium, the pupil premium, universal free school meals, free childcare for 15 hours for two year-olds, and of course expanding the three and four year-old offer from 12 hours to 15 hours.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, many of us are very pleased to see the Minister back in his place. Following a time of new Governments and reshuffles, we are reassured, and the evidence of that showed last evening when we had a very good discussion, which the Minister chaired, on how we might take things forward. I welcome the Bill, just as the Minister generously welcomed the 2006 Bill from the previous Government. It is a sign that Governments of all hues want to see progress in this area, and that is a very substantial move forward. It is a welcome development and we look forward to taking this Bill further down the line.

However, to mirror some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, when I saw the Bill I was reminded of a comment by the great Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. After noticing a review of one of his books, he referred to it as, “somewhat of a review and something of a breathless shriek”; and, although it would not be a full and adequate description of the Bill, I wondered whether there was just a hint of that in the speed at which we are accelerating down the road. However, I would like to say, “So far so good”, as the direction in which we are travelling is a good one. I welcome the Bill very warmly as a sign of the Government’s commitment, manifested in their pre-election statements.

The first clause, which I approve very much and support, shows the Government’s commitment to move and will secure something essentially worth while. The rest of the Bill is a series of regulations and definitions. Finally, in Clause 3, the requirement of a duty to publish information about the service is very good, and, again, I support that. I also support the activity that has been outlined to us being now undertaken by the Government: a review of funding and a consultation with those who will be affected most by the Bill. That is very welcome and very important. There is, however, a question of timing and of the availability of the outcome of both of those reviews, which I hope will be public documents available to all Members of the House. In the proposed timetable that was indicated to us, I especially welcome the use of pilot projects. We have often let down good political intention without piloting the practice and the practicality to ensure that we do not have unintended consequences.

The Bill, as it stands, shows real and worthwhile commitment, but there is a list of “to do” jobs. I have a file at home labelled “Jobs to be done as soon as possible”. Unfortunately, it grows faster than it diminishes. There is a risk here that the jobs to be done will grow faster before the Bill has finally passed through both these Houses. I want to mention some of the issues that we have rehearsed informally and that were laid out in the report of the Select Committee.

The first issue relates to funding. The review is welcome, but the outcome of that review will have to answer some very specific and difficult questions. For example, evidence was provided to the Select Committee that the allowance paid for the current so-called “free” childcare is not adequate to support the system. Those who are in the private sector are finding it hard—and we did not think, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”—to ensure that they can continue the service. They will be expected not only to continue the service but to expand it. Of course, it means doubling the number of hours available, and it is doubling it by taking away one of the routes by which the current service is funded.

The private providers tell us that how they square the books is to offer additional hours at an increased price. Of course, these hours will now be provided free—a good thing in itself, but there may well be an unintended consequence. We need to know how carefully that is being scrutinised. Will the Minister undertake further scrutiny of the possibility of an unintended consequence? The current funding covers pay costs at the current level. Will adequate pay be available to attract the additional number of carers that will be necessary to run the system and, indeed, to improve the quality? We hope that these carers will have additional background, training and qualifications. Ofsted and others have argued that the danger is that the lowest-quality provision is in the areas where care is most needed, and it is important to pay attention to that detail.

The Select Committee was concerned about the Government’s awareness of the need to co-ordinate strategy, and we asked a number of questions about this. I remind noble Lords that at least three government departments were involved: the Department for Education and Skills, the department responsible for employment and, of course, the Treasury. All three departments have to co-ordinate responses to some of these questions, not least the funding review. However, the issue is not simply about money; it is about objectives. Again, I think that this point has been raised.

There are two main objectives, as we saw it in this Bill and in possible other legislation. First, there is the development of the child, to make sure that all children entering primary school have the capacity, the opportunity and the background necessary to benefit from it. Clearly, many children arrive at school from the early years unprepared for what is involved in the process of education and learning, as primary school teachers will tell you. This provision in the Bill, enhancing provision already there, should help with that; it is a major objective, and certainly one to which the Select Committee gave a lot of time. The second main objective for the Government is to maximise choice and opportunity for many married couples who wish to increase, start or extend their working lives. Sometimes it is not simply a wish but a necessity.

Those two objectives are both marvellous, and I am sure that all Members of the House will approve of them, but reconciling them would be difficult, because, as we stress in the committee’s report, there are some hard choices in how you spend money. A limited sum is available at the end of the day; which way is it going to be weighted? For example, employers would like 10 hours a day, because that is how you ensure that somebody has time to go to the nursery or playgroup, do eight hours work, collect their children and go home. However, although that may well suit employers, on the evidence that we have it is not the best way in which to provide for the enhancement of the children in the groups in question. So there is a question of reconciling different objectives.

The evidence that we have is that child development is best enhanced by a more modest daily provision—rather than 10 hours a day for three days, having six hours a day over five days. From all the evidence, that seems to be the best way in which to prepare children for future schooling and to maximise the opportunities that they otherwise would not have.

Equally, there is the question of how many weeks in the year funding is available for. It is put at 38 weeks, which is a generous extension—but many employers will find 38 weeks in the year an inadequate basis for planning employment and the development of the company. Could this be looked at so that, in appropriate cases, provision could be extended?

The question for the Government that the Select Committee proposed is: what forum is available to analyse and consider these competing elements in government policy? We would like to hear from the Minister the extent to which there is a cross-government committee or interdepartmental work going on to deal with these quite tricky detailed problems.

There are other specific issues, and I am sure they will be raised by Members of the House as the debate goes on. We asked the Government to look at prioritising expenditure. This is based on the work of the IFS on extending childcare provision to 15 hours. The IFS estimated that,

“12,000 additional women moved into work as a result of the policy, mostly working fewer than 30 hours a week … but, at over £65,000 per extra person employed”.

Looked at as a financial provision, that is perhaps not the best way to spend government money creating jobs. We desperately ask the Government to take a detailed look at that sort of question.

That being said, I stress again that I welcome the Bill and the initiative, but I hope we have time to go into some of these questions in some detail before it leaves this House.

Early Years Intervention

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I would suggest “child carer” as an alternative to “childminder”, but that is for further discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for securing the debate on this very important topic. I also pay tribute to her for what she does in this area, which is much appreciated, in this House and far beyond.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have the privilege of chairing the Select Committee which will report on this—we hope in good time in February—but my remarks today will not specifically be related to that report. There is another theme, or hobby-horse, that I want to ride, which is what I shall do today. To give your Lordships forewarning, that is the hobby-horse of language. The focus of what I have to say will inevitably be on early years intervention related to education in some way, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made plain, there are many elements to early intervention which have to come together, such as health, sociability and so on. I shall focus on the provision for issues related to language.

There has been good progress in school education over the last two years in relation to STEM subjects, which has been very welcome and much appreciated across the community. There is a growing awareness of the importance of language in the sense of learning a second language, be it Mandarin or Spanish. That is progress and should be encouraged. However, my focus today is to add language in the broader sense to that list where there has been progress. If you talk to primary school teachers, particularly those in reception classes and certainly those who are now dealing with three and four year-olds, you will discover very quickly that they have a distinctive set of issues and problems to face. Their work is very rewarding, and some of them are exceptionally good and patient at it—I stress the word patient—but they face difficulties which are not so apparent later in the system. I do not just mean toilet training or teaching children to tie their shoelaces or button their coats, although all that is part of early intervention at an educational level.

At the core of all this, I argue, is language. That includes, but should not simply focus on, second-language families. That is part of it and is an additional issue today, but this is about the question of learning the basic skills of communication, being sociable, asking and answering questions, making interventions or comments and securing the attention of the teacher when one is in difficulty. It has to do with commenting on and responding to what goes on in the classroom and what other pupils say. It has to do, basically, with getting away from the law of the jungle, which by and large most two year-olds inhabit, and if you have not got out of it by the time you start formal education you are in difficulty, as are your teachers and fellow pupils. It has to do with being part of a community or a tribe, not living just on the basis of what you can grab.

This is a very subtle issue. For many children, this is not a problem. For many children, this is what they learn in the rough and tumble of the family, from having siblings and from playing with the kids next door. For many, it develops in due course through education. But I ask the Minister whether he perhaps might return to the department and ask questions about how we are focusing on the acquisition of the ability to communicate—language in that broad sense.

The ways in which I think progress should be made were spelt out more than 250 years ago by David Hume and Adam Smith. Your Lordships might find this a bit esoteric and think, “Well, he did teach philosophy and we have to restrain him”, but Hume saw this process of socialisation as fundamental. It is not an add-on for as many human beings as you can manage; it is part of being a human being—being able to socialise, communicate, share and understand what others say but also what they desire and what they can reasonably expect. I will quote from one of the recent commentators on Hume’s close friend, Adam Smith. Nicholas Phillipson writes that Smith,

“held that all our sentiments”—

that is, emotions and beliefs—

“– moral, political, intellectual and aesthetic – were acquired, developed and refined in the process of learning to communicate with others”.

You do not learn language and then learn how to feel; the two go hand in hand, and unless adequate attention is paid to the development of communication, these things will also fail.

This may seem very fluffy. It is not. It is fundamental. Look further up the system. In terms of social mobility, if you measure the number of people in prison who have deficient literary and mathematical skills, that is what you will find. It starts at this age.

Birmingham Schools

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

To answer my noble friend’s two questions, we have so far felt that, given that Ofsted is capable of conducting batch inspections on a number of schools in a chain, as it did in Birmingham and has done on many occasions, that gives it plenty of opportunity to examine the support that those schools get from the centre. Visiting the head office—when Ofsted probably would not see very much except the office—would not tell it any more. However, we keep that constantly under review.

On the compromise agreements, when I came to work in education I was pretty shocked by the lack of due diligence that was often taken over referencing people in teaching. Of course, what can happen as a result of compromise agreements is that bad teachers just pop up elsewhere, which is described in America as the dance of the lemons. That is something that we need to look at.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome and to ponder in today’s report. There is an underlying issue of knowing what is going on in schools to which I will draw attention by asking two related questions. I suggest that one of the key sources will always be responsible teachers and head teachers. Is there any way of devising a route that they can follow to raise questions about serious difficulties within the school, knowing that they will be taken seriously?

Secondly, there is an issue of governance and governors. I welcome what is recommended in the report, but it is a much broader issue than that. Could a broader look be taken? I could take the Minister to schools within a mile or two of here that struggle to find enough good governors. We have to find ways of improving that situation, and that will not happen reactively in situations like this.

[Lord Nash]

I pay tribute to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in the area of HMCI. We have whistleblowing procedures in place in the department and in the EFA. We have been discussing with Ofsted how we can improve them, and we will look at doing so.

On page 90 of Peter Clarke’s report, he says that he does not see that there is an issue with governance generally, merely an issue with governance in these particular schools. In the last 18 months, as Minister with responsibility for governors, we have dramatically beefed up our focus on governance to focus governors on three core skills, to focus governance on skills rather than representation and to view governing bodies more as non-executive director bodies. I was delighted to hear in the other place earlier this afternoon the shadow Secretary of State support the non-executive director approach. Ofsted is far more focused on governance than it was and we are increasingly working with it to make it more so.

The noble Lord is quite right about recruiting more governors. We have recently launched the Inspiring Governors Alliance to work with the CBI and other business groups to recruit more governors.

Education: Social Mobility

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I will be the 18th to thank the Minister for ensuring that we have this debate, although my thanks are none the less heartfelt for that and are very sincere. This is such an important topic and it is much appreciated that he succeeded in finding a slot that gave us more time than the usual two or three minutes.

The debate has focused on a wide variety of things. I have agreed with some of the points of view expressed, but I would vary from some of them. One of the opening points made by a number of noble Lords, and indeed in some of the briefings I have had, related to what we mean by social mobility. I find this a bit tricky. When I hear the two options of “absolute” or “relative”, I am reminded of Garrison Keillor introducing the mythical Lake Wobegon, that town in the far, far Midwest in which all the eggs laid by chickens were larger than normal and all the children were above average. That is one of the risks when we start to talk about social mobility. We need to try to understand not what the statistics are, but what Johnny would achieve if he were liberated and opened up to the future and what Mary would succeed in that she might not have otherwise. That is social mobility.

I had two versions of notes for this speech. One, in case I was called early, is packed full of statistics. Happily—as I suspected—most of those have already been produced, and I will not bore your Lordships with them again. The version that noble Lords will get now is, I fear, slightly autobiographical. I do not think I can match my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton but I will do my little best. I am from the north-east of Scotland, not the north-east of England, and we are a little less forthcoming with our emotions up there. None the less, I wanted to point your Lordships to a school and a date.

The date is 5 January 1946, and the school is called Woodside Primary School. That was my first day at that state primary. It was just after the war, with my father not yet out of the military, when we all fronted up to this state school. It was right at the edge of the north end of Aberdeen—which now extends for another four miles—and surrounded by council estates and old-fashioned tenement-type rented accommodation. That was its catchment area and the population it served. We went along as part of a three-class intake on that first day. My class had 48 pupils in it and our teaching location was a nissen hut that looked as if it had been used to store tanks during the war. It had a coke stove in the middle, which I am sure was a health hazard—there is no doubt that you would not get away with it today. The lavatories were outside and required more of a triumph of mind over matter than anything else even to contemplate going near them.

That was the physical context. Among the 48 of us and the other two classes that arrived at the same time at the school, there were no better-off families, just those who ended up with one shilling and eight pence in their purse at the end of the week and those who did not manage that. That was the difference financially between the children in the class and their parents. It was wartime but, happily, we mostly ate a reasonable diet because food was rationed. We did not have a lot of choice and could not go and buy expensive food, but you got your ration. Most of us, in one way or another, found that that was more than adequate. We wore our brothers, hand-me-downs and read the comics that they discarded towards the end of the week.

That is a picture of a state primary school that apparently had all of the disadvantages that we fear. Did it have anything by way of social mobility to offer? Where did the pupils end up? I will give some examples. Two of us became professors, one of electronics and one of philosophy—the electronics man was the smart guy. One became a Guardian features writer and one became a solicitor. Two became heads of school departments in excellent state secondary schools in Scotland, one in mathematics and one in English literature. One became a Fleet Street printer in the days of hot metal and, from what I remember of him, I dare say that he was one of those who caused Rupert Murdoch most trouble in getting out of Fleet Street. That was a big step, from the north end of Aberdeen to Fleet Street, but he wanted to become a printer and he did it. He was very successful. One became a radio and TV engineer in the early days. He was happy in his work and very good at it; if you had something flickering on your television screen, it was Colin you went for.

The whole range of careers, futures, jobs and professions came out of that class. The range was huge, which allowed some form of social mobility. Was this then some sort of urban idyll, which we could create again? Of course it had one huge flaw, referred to several times in this debate, which is the great divide between what came next: senior secondary and junior secondary. We did not have the 11-plus up in Aberdeen—they are tough guys there—we had an exam named “the control”. You were allocated. Occasionally, one parent would not allow their son or daughter to go on to senior secondary, which was a real tragedy, but there were those who moved through the system. That was a large—perhaps the biggest—flaw in the system but there were forms of upward mobility for all of us. A number went into the construction trade. You still had shipbuilding in Aberdeen then; later there was the oil industry and so on. They had the opportunity to move forward.

What allowed this? Was there anything different about that school? Just the obvious things: we had excellent teachers, who were absolutely superb. They were not soft; they were tough, and if Miss Paul called you out in front of the school, you walked shaking towards her. However, tough as they were, they taught us the core skills that an education should teach. We became competent in mathematics, reading and writing; perhaps less so in articulation, but that is a local, social thing. Perhaps if we had had to learn another language, that might have improved things, but we learnt skills that were basic to what we eventually all became. We had supportive parents, who were not involved that much but did care. My parents read books and had books around the house. They read books to me and took me to the local library—originally set up, interestingly, through philanthropy of one kind or another.

There were some other, some might say softer, skills. Football was quite good. I was not especially good at it, but the shining example was held up, as an aspiration for all of us, of an older pupil, Graham Leggat, who had signed professional forms for Fulham Football Club. He might as well have been going to Real Madrid as far as we were concerned. For us, that really was hitting the high spot, at least until a few years later, when we discovered that the guy down the road who kept engineering the defeat of our football team—a spotted youth with national health specs—was actually called Denis Law. That was good, in that we had competitive sport of a good order.

That was education and social mobility at work, and I do not see why we cannot do that now. There are different problems today, and we did not have schools with 39 and 40 native languages to deal with, but we did have a degree of poverty in the place. We did not have the possibility of overseas trips, holidays elsewhere or even visits to the farm. Occasionally, on the odd day when the sun shone, we went for a walk through Persley Den, doubtless slashing at the weeds as we walked down the road without caring about the future of the ecosystem, but that was it.

Are there any lessons to be learnt or is this just sheer self-indulgence? I think there are lessons, such as the excellence of the teachers and the grittiness of the head teacher, who was too old to go to the war but extended his working life to provide opportunity. He was great. He was tough but he was very good. We inherited the problem of the junior and senior secondary. Comprehensivisation was eventually brought in to solve that. I have to say it failed and it is because it failed that we are where we are in the OECD league tables. There are good comprehensive schools but we cannot all be Holland Parks—nor were we.

The education system has had to change and I salute those who have been bringing about that change, not least the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is with us today, and the Minister and his colleagues in the current Government. The one lesson we take from comprehensivisation is that there is not a single solution. There is not a quick switch in the structure that will mean that all will be well and there will be social mobility. That is why I think we have yet to exploit the full richness of the possibility of giving more power to the schools and the head teachers; for example, through the excellent UTC system. We have to give these opportunities and allow schools to develop new ways. There will be failures and there will have to be a decent regulatory system, which, happily, I think we have in Ofsted, but we have to keep working with it.

All the drivers that we have had outlined to us, such as the excellent pupil premium, are necessary but are not sufficient. Eternal vigilance in the education system is all that will be sufficient. We place our hopes and expectations on the teachers, good leadership in schools and commitment to high standards.