Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (Relevant Care Functions) (England) Regulations 2014

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations are permissive in intent. They would enable local authorities in England to delegate to third-party providers a range of social care functions, so far as those functions relate to children. This would modify the current position set out in Section 1(2) of the CYPA 2008, which already allows local authorities to delegate functions relating to looked-after children and care leavers. These regulations would enable local authorities to decide to delegate other functions, including those relating to early intervention and child protection to providers operating on a not-for-profit basis.

At present, there are few options open to local authorities that wish to consider alternative ways of managing their social care functions. Apart from the limited powers of delegation already in existence relating to looked-after children, the only circumstances in which alternative delivery plans are currently possible are those where an authority is failing and subject to intervention by the Secretary of State under Section 50 of the Children Act 2004. It cannot be logical that only where a local authority fails are such flexibilities available.

I should also make it clear that several local authorities are now waiting eagerly for the passing of these regulations; they are gearing up to innovate and are anxious to make progress with their plans. These forward-looking local authorities are ambitious to improve their services and their ways of working, and these regulations would enable them to fulfil these aspirations. I anticipate that, over time, others will begin to consider how the new freedoms might support their own improvement strategy. As noble Lords will recognise, in too many local authorities improvement is all too urgently needed. The Government are having to intervene in one in seven authorities.

During the consultation on the draft regulations, it was asserted that only the public sector should carry out functions such as child protection. I simply do not believe that this is the case—not with the potential of the voluntary and charitable sector, and the proven success of public service mutuals or the number of public sector failures so clearly before us. I am by no means saying, “Public sector bad, private sector good”. What I am saying is that there should be a willingness and an openness to look at different approaches and options. That is the possibility opened up by these regulations.

Noble Lords will be aware that the consultation elicited widespread and ardent comment. That is entirely appropriate for such an important measure. The number of responses was very high, at 1,315, and there were several petitions and an e-campaign, which resulted in some 58,000 e-mails. By far the most responses to the consultation related to the question of privatisation and profit-making, which was the sole focus of the petitions and the e-campaign. The Government have responded both swiftly and decisively to these concerns by making a significant modification to their original proposals and amending the draft regulations to rule out the possibility of profit-making. This change has been widely welcomed.

It was not the Government’s original plan to include such a restriction, nor was it our intention to see widespread delegation of children’s social care to profit-making companies. The local authorities that are currently exploring their plans in detail are not looking to set up facilities that entail profit-making, so this amendment will not hamper their plans. Of course, this policy never concerned privatisation. This is a permissive agenda, not a centralising regime.

Noble Lords will know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these regulations to the special attention of the House and raised particular concerns about the consultation arrangements. First, the SLSC said that the consultation proposals were not clear. The volume and sharp focus of the responses show that they were. One might argue that the responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly about an issue that was not the focus of the Government’s plan. Nevertheless, under the original proposals profit-making would have been possible, so those commenting were making an entirely valid point. We have listened to those responses and made changes accordingly.

Secondly, the timescale for responses was deemed to be too short. It may be that a longer consultation would have been preferable, yet in the light of the number of responses and the degree of public scrutiny that the proposals received, my view is that the timescale for responses did not hamper proper scrutiny. Our desire to open up opportunities as soon as possible to local authorities that are seeking them drove the timescale and, on balance, I think that we have been able to bring forward valuable proposals in good time, while allowing significant and influential representations to be made.

On a much less prominent question than that of profit, some during and since the consultation have questioned the evidence base for this change. It is of course true that the direct evidence base for something that has to date not been possible is limited. Noble Lords may be aware that under the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 the previous Government enabled a small number of pilot social work practices to be set up. These were small, practitioner-led practices taking responsibility for specific cohorts of children on behalf of the local authority. The evaluation of the first few social work practices identified evidence of positive change for looked-after children and care leavers. It is true that the evaluation found variation across the pilot sites, but it none the less showed that the practices operated at least as well as, if not better than, the control authorities.

In addition, the Government’s wider mutuals programme has seen the benefits to services, both to the staff working in those services—through reduced absenteeism and staff turnover—and in savings and efficiencies linked to significant improvements of user outcomes. There are now 100 public service mutuals already delivering more than £1.5 billion-worth of public services in sectors such as health and youth services. Local authorities will be able to apply to the Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme for support to make use of the new freedoms that the regulations would allow, and the impact of activities funded through the programme will be robustly evaluated.

These regulations will enable a positive change in the delivery of children’s social care services. They will establish a framework in which local authorities can make their own innovative decisions on how best to manage their children’s social care functions. The experienced and well respected charity, Action for Children, said:

“The freedom to outsource children’s services will allow local authorities to innovate and improve support provided to families”.

That is exactly what we are aiming to achieve and I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of Richmond Council which, along with the Royal Borough of Kingston, has been one of the authorities using the freedoms extended by the previous Government under the 2008 Act. We have established jointly a community interest company, a social enterprise, called Achieving for Children, to deliver these services across the two authorities. When I say “we”, I am referring to a Conservative and a Liberal Democrat authority working together and seeing the opportunity—as we saw it—to improve services. Therefore, I greatly welcome the Minister’s announcement that this is to be extended. It will certainly be welcomed by the professionals in our authorities working on behalf of young people.

It is right that the Minister put beyond doubt the fears raised about privatisation. For my own part, I do not think that the private sector or private carers are incapable of providing professional, high-quality care, but given the response to the consultation, I think my noble friend has acted wisely, as always, in that regard. I hope that that having been done, everybody from all sides will be prepared to put wind behind this and to give support to the professionals involved. This is not about privatisation; certainly it was never about privatisation in the case of my authority or Liberal Democrat Kingston. It is certainly not about moving away from a public service ethos. That is fundamental and held dear by all those who work in the community interest company. Nor is it about a move away from democratic accountability. The local authorities remain statutorily responsible. Our outstanding director of children’s services, Mr Nick Whitfield, who is the chief executive of Achieving for Children, remains statutorily responsible. As I see it, it is freeing up professionals to think differently and to innovate without the constraints that local authority procedures can sometimes cause. It provides freedoms to allow them to maximise the value of the contributions they make, to create new partnerships and fundamentally it puts the professionals who know better than anybody in the driving seat of how to achieve the best outcome for those involved. Local authorities remain ultimately accountable—indeed, the next business contains a whole range of requirements that remain on local authorities.

The regulations will allow the completion of movement of staff into the community interest company. That is an important signal and it is very practical that all staff can be managed in one way and are not having to be transferred under TUPE back from one activity to another when the range of activities ought to be part of supporting young people and part of a seamless whole. I hope that if it agrees to these regulations the Committee will put it beyond doubt that this approach is sanctioned as an appropriate way to provide children’s care.

The launch of Achieving for Children was attended by people from all political parties. I think everyone there was inspired by the professional vision and dedication of those involved and indeed by the speeches made by the young people who saw hope in what was being brought to them and hope in this future. Let us not be afraid to be creative. Let us not be afraid to experiment in improving care while retaining the basic public service needs and statutory responsibilities that continue. I hope that we will support the regulations and I thank my noble friend for bringing them forward.

Education: Social Mobility

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege indeed to take part in this debate, not least because it was initiated by my noble friend Lord Nash, for whom I have enormous respect. I did not find his speech rhetorical or partisan—I found it compelling and impressive, and his logic was unarguable.

I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. Perhaps I should also say, in the light of some of the things that have been said implying that the grass was once so green, that in the 1990s I was for a good time a member of Sir John Major’s Policy Unit at No. 10, with responsibility for education—a sort of precursor of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. There, like him, I had experience of the tenacity and, at times, ferocity of those who opposed the kind of reform that Mr Major wanted in terms of creating opportunity for all—the creation of Ofsted, the publication of school results, and so much else. Rarely, in a life of public service, have I found such a shocking lack of humility or indeed any sense of responsibility, as was displayed by some of those who had peddled and clung to nostrums in education which were manifestly failing and have manifestly failed. Many were complicit in what I think were lost opportunities and the waste of young lives. Some, at best, washed their hands week by week in the Times Educational Supplement as Beveridge’s “giant of ignorance” stirred. England slid down the tables of international competitiveness and a generation and more of young people, almost invariably the least privileged and most disadvantaged, were let down by those who underasked of them, attacked knowledge-based learning and dumbed down standards. My noble friend Lord Nash is right to be angry about this, and I believe that that feeling is shared by many on all Benches in this House and outside. I wholly agree with what he said about examinations, curriculum content, the tyranny of politically correct methods and so much else.

It has always been the case that reformers such as my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my right honourable friend Michael Gove are accused of acting in haste or out of ignorance. But we need urgency; we need determination. I speak as a strong admirer of what Mr Gove is seeking to do. I say to the House and to many who criticise him that his life story and his humane intellect speak to us of what good education can achieve. He is right to act quickly and decisively. The Prime Minister is not here to listen, but I trust that Mr Gove will remain in office to complete the work that he has begun.

I think that this debate’s title is something of a truism. As other noble Lords have said, social mobility is the essence of all education. Is not the purpose of education to show young people the best, teach them the best and bring out the fullest potential in all? The great betrayal is not to ask the best and the most of all and to stretch every child. I owe all that I have done in my life, after my parents, to those who taught me. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, I was the first in my family to go to university. Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, I do not necessarily think that a university education is the be all and end all, but my teachers got me there. I was taught by a remarkable group of people, from my year 2 primary teacher who recognised that my love of books and precocious reading did not make me strange but opened up a great thing in reading and those teachers in my secondary school. The other day I came across a yellowing prize day booklet. All their names were in there—it made for wistful reading. Almost none of them had a formal education qualification, although they had degrees in subjects about which they were passionate. They would never be allowed to set foot in a maintained school now as they would not have so-called qualified teacher status. Frankly, I cannot think of a more qualified group of teachers to bring out the best in young people and I honour what is sadly now mostly their memory, as I honour all good teachers who seek to bring on the young.

I support what my noble friend said about training and the freedom given to free schools and academies to employ those without qualified teacher status. We need diversity in education, including the best teachers wherever they come from. Diversity also means a wider range of schools and choice. Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the topping-out of a new sixth-form school in my borough where we have invested £25 million or more in bringing sixth-form choice to young people in all our secondary schools. If your Lordships will allow me a whimsical aside, I must say that this change has been bitterly opposed at every stage by my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the council who have voted against sixth-forms at every stage—a quite bizarre policy from that party, although I do not expect my noble friends here on the right of me to defend that.

Some youngsters will still choose to go to FE colleges; some will want the technical course that is so wisely and brilliantly being opened by my noble friend Lord Baker. It also must be right to offer the option of sixth-form choice with the attraction that that offers to specialist teachers and the example that successful more mature youngsters offer to younger children. We need to help young people to move on in the best way for each of them, and I believe that inspiring peer models within schools are incredibly important in education. Had I more time, I would also say how much I support, in the cause of diversity, faith schools which do outstanding work in primary and secondary schools often, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate, in some of the toughest inner cities. I deplore the attacks now being made on faith schools. How perverse it is to wish to destroy such islands of excellence and their ethos, as if we are not all taxpayers mutually contributing to the diversity of free education for all.

As part of diversity, I welcome academies and free schools. All our secondary schools in Richmond are now academies, but most have become so in informal partnership, working as a local family of healthily competing but friendly schools. I am a little suspicious of very large chains of academies. Again, like the right reverend Prelate, I believe that the spirit of place is important in a school. A good school should be at the heart of its community; it should not be remote-managed from afar. I was pleased to hear my noble friend speaking about more multischool academies where local primary and secondary schools work together, pooling their experience for the benefit of their area. We are working actively on these concepts locally now and I hope that my noble friend will reiterate his support for that.

The independence of schools is something that people in local government and everywhere must accept as a great benefit. In my Downing Street days we worked to support the new grant-maintained schools, whose parents actually voted for self-government. How sad it was to see those parental hopes snuffed out by an incoming Government after 1997, along with a number of other things which offered opportunity. It is good to see many academies, CTCs and free schools now recapturing that self-governing spirit, following on from the work of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I thank him and my noble friend for that, and I hope that we will hear unqualified support for academies and free schools from the Front Bench opposite in the wind-up.

Having spoken strongly in support of my noble friend’s policies, I hope he will allow me a couple of more qualifying comments. First, the system is too loaded against local authorities. I understand the suspicion of local authorities. I well remember in the 1990s how some councils worked to thwart and even threaten self-governing schools. But the world has moved on. Not all local authorities are hostile to academies, CTCs and free schools—quite the reverse. We still have a statutory duty to provide school places and welcome good schools from any source.

I understand why successive Governments might want to stop local authorities preventing or hampering new academies or free schools, but the law now even hampers their creating them. It seems absurd that department officials do not always openly discuss with local authorities sites for free schools. That makes it much harder for free schools and planning school places alike. It is absurd that councils seem the only institutions not able to propose new academies or free schools, except at the fringes. We would not want to do this to run them; running schools is for others. I believe in the support of academies and local authorities have a contribution to make. I hope that my noble friend will consider that as the law evolves.

Perhaps I may make a special plea from the point of view of the London area. Will my noble friend on the Front Bench beat the drum at the door of the Department for Communities and Local Government to stop its damaging policy of allowing the uncontrolled change of offices into residential flats? We are seeing blocks going that could have been free schools and prices are being forced up to residential levels beyond the Education Funding Agency’s pocket. This is happening for quick financial gain, with the developers required to contribute not one penny towards new schools for the children of the new residents they are packing into former offices. It is a destructive policy with a potentially bad impact on medium-term education provision in London. I do not expect an answer now, but I plead with my noble friend and Mr Gove to use all their powers of persuasion to stop this soon.

I will not trouble your Lordships further. I am enormously heartened by the courageous steps being taken by my noble friend and Mr Gove. They have my strongest personal support in all they are striving to achieve to improve the life chances of all.

Education: Early Years

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for introducing this important debate. I declare an interest as the leader of a local authority, though as a matter of fact, I do not take part in early years policy by virtue of another interest—or perhaps I should say “love”—as my wife is principal of a Montessori nursery school in my local authority area.

I want to talk about Montessori. When I last spoke on this subject, Montessori educators were afraid that the homogenising drive of what was then the CWDC risked sidelining their own unique approaches and qualifications. These are reflected in the work of 7,500 Montessori practitioners in the United Kingdom. Their basic contention was that Montessori qualifications should be recognised as valid and relevant in their own right. Frankly, no one who knows anything about the contribution of Montessori education worldwide would disagree with that. Therefore, I was grateful to my two noble friends on the Front Bench today for receiving a delegation to discuss this after I had spoken. Improvements then followed. There was an invitation to the Montessori community to participate in Professor Nutbrown’s work, but still some doubts remained. The Nutbrown report was published last spring. It thankfully acknowledged the contribution made by Montessori education and purported to leave 40% of a qualification non-prescribed to relate to diverse ways of delivery, including, theoretically, Montessori.

Since then, the Montessori Schools Association tells me that there has again been a period of silence from the department on the Montessori question. That may be understandable as a new Minister looked into a brief that she had inherited from her predecessor. New qualifications would have to be validated by an examination board and time for validation and the introduction of qualifications in September 2013, clarifying how Montessori and Steiner qualifications would fit into that, is now shrinking. Those sectors await a departmental response and a timeframe for their plans so they can start development work. I share the question of my noble friend. Can the Minister shed any more light on the timescale for operation?

I would also like to say something about the private sector as a whole, on which we depend so much for the delivery of this crucial service. I worry sometimes about the balance between the private sector as it is and the state sector. It seems to me that many people—I hear this from many Montessori educators and others—still feel that there are too many documents of instruction. Even the basic EYFS framework publication runs to 110 pages, not all of it mandatory but increasingly regarded as so. How Ofsted could ever fully inspect all these requirements is unclear to me and the phrasing of the framework is also unclear. For example, the section on food handling by staff requires formal training, but the training is undefined. Is it about needing a level 2 NVQ to peel an apple, as some authorities are saying, or is it just staff awareness more generally?

I would like to say a word about funding. I endorse everything that has been said about the importance of early intervention and early years education, but I am less sanguine than some about the possibility of providing ever more millions of pounds in pursuit of what some see as an aim of universal two to five year-old education for people of all measure of resources when the country is plunging into debt at the rate it is now and we do not even have enough primary school places. The greatest and most cherished influence on my early years education was my mother, to whom I am proud to declare here in this House my lasting debt. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Jenkin said about the selfless contribution of millions of mothers and good parents and how important good parenting is. I recognise and support the evidence of the value of early years education. It would be hard not to, having been married for a third of a century this week to a passionate advocate of it. However, we may need to focus on prime areas of need in some respects and we certainly need to preserve diversity and choice. That includes the private sector. Can the Minister say, therefore, why there is still not equality of treatment between the maintained and private sectors in adult to child ratios?

The so-called free entitlement, whose rationale I understand, is, in some respects a fiction. I spoke about this at length on another occasion and I am not going to repeat it today, but in many areas the so-called free entitlement has never covered the real costs of education and care. Many authorities have turned a blind eye to what is really charging by another name, but if, as is now suggested, the so-called free entitlement is extended or a heavily subsidised rate is extended to 25 hours, then I fear that the non-maintained sector in sessional day care could be eliminated or be forced to go private and close its doors to those seeking financial support. That would be another push towards the two nations we wish to avoid and entail a significant deadweight cost in replacing, at the taxpayers’ expense, private sector settings that might be squeezed out.

Other providers in the Montessori education sector tell me that some local authorities are trying to enforce acceptance of the two year-old scheme by saying that unless providers sign up to it they will lose three and four year-old funding. That sounds like blackmail and I hope that the Minister will condemn it. We must be careful about hyper-regulation. Small independent settings face many burdens, including the new pension requirements, which will be enormous, and the requirement to match flexible working. Of course, many settings could benefit from better qualified staff, but it does not need to entail a one-size-fits-all structure.

In conclusion, I am nervous about aspects of EYPS. The 10-year strategy said that unless sector leaders had EYPS, they would not be able to continue in that role. Is that still the position? The state has not covered itself with glory in every respect in post-war education and should be a little more understanding of the immense contribution of the private sector and perhaps a little less imposing sometimes.

Schools: Classics

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord True]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this debate. It was also a pleasure to hear from a fellow Peterhouse classicist. If Professor Ted Kenney was not happy with him then, he certainly would be now.

It is 53 years since I was introduced to Kennedy’s Latin primer—or Kennedy’s eating primer, since some assiduous boy had altered every front cover at my school. Forbidding though the fruit may have seemed at first, the eating of it ever since has been a pleasure and a delight. As others have said, a classical education needs no other justification than the pleasure it gives. It opens a window into the mindset that has created or informed some of the greatest achievements of art, literature, architecture and music, not just in classical times, but over all the centuries of civil education until, I regret to say, the modern, vandalistic and often deliberate sundering with all that was beautiful and good in the past culture of European nations.

I think it matters, too, at the individual level. If you are in a country church and see the carved memorial of a talented young woman who died from consumption in the neoclassical 1820s or, perhaps, the proud epitaph of a rather unsuccessful Venetian admiral, you can—if you know Latin—cross the wall of death and enter the world of that person. If you know no Latin, they lie dead and cold for ever. Not a week goes by without my reading or using Latin. I regret not a moment of that and I certainly, as the noble Baroness said, do not regret the discipline and precision of expression that comes from it.

Abbott and Mansfield followed a few years later—and the beautifully flexible Greek language has given me equal pleasure. I was probably one of the last who went through the university tripos, translating and writing prose and poetry both ways. I am not going to venture to be torn like Cinna the poet by this intelligent Committee by trying some of my verses on you, my Lords.

We recently did a straw poll of local secondary schools. Almost all the independent schools offer classics; of the state schools, two established academies offer none and the other offers Latin from year 7. Of the maintained schools, one offered no classics; neither did the second. It believed there was no demand for it. Two others do offer extracurricular Latin and each has about 30 takers at key stage 3. The last one sends four year 10s to a local independent school to study Greek.

I am sure that this mixed picture is fairly typical and I make no criticism of those that do not offer classics. Overexpansion of the curriculum did have an impact; I know that my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford is addressing this and I support him. I urge him, as he reforms what is taught, not to fall under the influence of those with a utilitarian delusion that what is taught is a school for work, not a school for life.

I have one final thought. In taking classics to fresh places, let us please not fight shy of the critical place of grammar, as the noble Baroness said, in the name of accessibility. All my children were offered Latin; the first worked to greats at Oxford; the second to A-level; the third fell by the wayside at GCSE. When I asked her why, she said that she was bored with the discovery method of learning used to try to work out what the ending “amus” meant for herself, when her brothers had learned their “amo, amas, amat” in a day and have remembered it ever since. Ironically, she would have preferred to have been taught like them. Therefore, let us not neglect the essential foundations of grammar, which, as others have said, equip us to confront so many languages, including that poor mauled old thing that is our own language.

Finally, will the Clerk of the Parliaments help us? Can we please have some Latin back on the business of the day?

Education Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, the Grand Committee normally finishes at 7.30 pm. We have gone into overtime on this. If any other Lords wish to speak, could they please be very brief to make quite sure that we are not going too far into overtime? My noble friend Lord Lexden has an amendment in this group, but otherwise might we please have a plea for brevity for the convenience of the Committee?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness said. Briefly, I add to the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others, and the work that they have done. I am slightly surprised that some of my noble friends have supported his amendment. As I read it—and this may be something that the noble Lord wishes to reflect on or help us with when he responds—it slightly has the character of a wrecking amendment, or certainly one leading to a disincentive to take part in a decision on the future of the GTC. The amendment says:

“For such a vote to be valid, 50 per cent of registered teachers must have voted”.

As I read it, the assumption would be that the provision was part of the law of the land. Therefore, in order to frustrate the will of Parliament, as its effect would have been if the Bill had been enacted, those who were unconcerned or perhaps led to boycott the vote could decide the outcome of a ballot such as the noble Lord proposes. Having heard the eloquent statements about the ringing importance of the body in this debate, that is a very negative way of looking at it. I would therefore find it hard to support the amendment under any circumstance. It lacks confidence in the case being put, and is potentially a wrecking amendment in that it sets a threshold that would easily fail to be achieved by dint of a boycott, which is something that we should not wish to encourage.

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, having made clear my general support for the concept of the GTC at Second Reading, I will quickly make three points. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, kindly mentioned the upsurge of support that occurred in independent schools, with which I was then connected as general secretary of the Independent Schools Council. It was marked and reflected many things, but above all it was in response to the quite extraordinary enthusiasm and determination with which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam went about the initial work of laying the foundations for the GTC.

Secondly, I emphasise on behalf of independent schools, with which I remain informally connected, the importance that they attach to the maintenance of the register in any circumstances which may exist in the future. Finally, I make the simple observation that there will be a GTC in Scotland, a GTC in Wales and a GTC in Northern Ireland. Will it not look very odd not to have a GTC for England?

Education Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, I note—whether with glee or cynicism, I am not sure—her desire to include this provision in the Bill. I have been in this House for 25 years and if I had a tenner for every time this matter had come up I would be a very rich man indeed. I am sure that the Minister has the word “Resist” on a piece of paper in front of him, and that that was done independently of party considerations because we know that all Governments are perfect and never get anything wrong when drafting legislation. However, I still naively believe that one can improve legislation in your Lordships' House so I totally support my noble friend’s desire to include this provision in the Bill.

Leaving my cynicism mode and getting on to more substantive matters, I note that the word “disadvantaged” appears here. We are not going to remove disadvantage from our society via an education Bill, but I firmly believe—that is why I became an adviser and a politician—that one can improve the society in which one lives via one’s contribution to your Lordships' House. That does not mean that all the disadvantaged will suddenly cease to be disadvantaged, but if we go down this path some of them will cease to be so, and that will be highly productive, both socially and economically, because to the extent that we can improve some young people's lives, they will become the parents of the future and will in turn improve their children's lives. One should not assume that this matter is just about using up resources; we should take a longer view and realise that we will be creating resources by going down this path.

It is broadly my view that if we can achieve anything, it will be a step forward. Although we can nitpick—I am an expert at that if I am in the mood—that is not what we are here for. We are here to make a contribution so that the Bill can be made better and, more importantly, so that the world in which we live can be made a little better.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I intervene not to spoil the party but to declare an interest as leader of a local authority, so I have an interest in the way in which the amendments are framed. As I declared at Second Reading, my wife is principal of a Montessori nursery school. I agree with almost everything that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. I do not think that he intended to imply—and I certainly could not accept—that private provision is necessarily more to be worried about than some of the bad public provision that I have had occasion to see during my long interest in nursery education.

I apologise to the Committee: I want to take a great interest in the Bill but am involved also in the Localism Bill. If I disappear suddenly after debating the amendments that I am involved with, it will be not because I am uninterested in the clauses that we are discussing but simply because I have tabled amendments to another Bill.

I agree with a lot that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the amendments. We cannot save the world but one should start every day as optimistic as one can be, provided that one does not set oneself unrealistic goals. I am not sure that I would accept the wording that local authorities have an absolute duty, which seems to carry with it a range of potentially legalistic issues. However, of course a local authority will recognise, as we all do, the importance of the early years—that must be common ground here—and will wish to maximise as far as possible the take-up of groups that are defined as disadvantaged. I am sure that most local authorities will voluntarily accept that. The noble Earl referred to Traveller people, who are one example.

I cannot support some amendments so warmly. My problem with Amendments 4 and 5—we will discuss this matter when we come to a later group—is that they are potentially too rigid. Good law should be realistic. As regards so-called pre-entitlement, neither this nor the previous Government willed the resources to make it a reality, and certain consequences have followed which we will discuss later. I see in the financial memorandum to the Bill that the Government are setting aside £308 million to extend provision to the two year-old age group, which all noble Lords in the Committee will welcome. However, the reality is that the country is plunging into debt at a rate of £16 million per hour and we should not set out in legislation things that we are incapable of delivering. That would come outside the definition of optimism that I put earlier.

I agree with what the noble Baroness has set down in Amendment 7. Local authorities will wish to secure high standards and—I have underlined this—flexible organisation. Some other amendments that the noble Baroness tabled seem to be rather inflexible in their constraints: no Government shall ever again change anything that is set down in law. Surely the reality of good early-years provision and good educational provision generally should be flexibility, diversity and a range of provision. So I found a slight conflict in those amendments, but I could welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment if she looked equally kindly on my Amendment 8 in the next group.

The aspiration is welcome but realities on the ground, the speed at which we can go and, frankly, the issues that could potentially be raised by the rigidity of some of the amendments mean that I could not support them in the main.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “area” insert “whose parents or guardians wish it and”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not share remotely the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who I see leaving. I do not wish to stay him; I merely wish to say that having seen a great deal of legislation coming and going, both in government and Parliament, I expect that “resist” will be on the file for these amendments, too. However, I shall speak to them none the less.

I spoke at Second Reading about the problems faced by many private and voluntary nursery settings as a result of the operation of the free entitlement and the injustice and, to some degree, dishonesty that results from it. I shall not repeat those arguments in Committee.

The reality is that we rely, and will continue to rely, on private and voluntary settings to provide much of the nursery education that people freely choose and that successive Governments have held to be desirable. I wish to see no change in that situation and I hope that that is also the position of the Government. I take as my text a letter written by the Secretary of State, Mr Gove, to a nursery provider when he was an opposition spokesman. He wrote as follows:

“We think it is incredibly important”—

you can almost hear him—

“that parents are given the widest possible choice of childcare. Each family is unique and has unique circumstances; thus they should be able to access childcare that is affordable and flexible to their needs. It is disappointing therefore that the Government”—

he meant the previous Government—

“have not done more to help Private, Voluntary and Independent … nurseries. We believe that at present there is not a level playing field among nursery providers and that the financial pressure on private, voluntary and independent providers is simply not sustainable”.

He called in the letter for the code of practice to be suspended to allow nurseries to charge supplementary fees to parents as a temporary solution. I agree with what the Secretary of State, as he is now, said then about the importance of the private and voluntary sector, but there is still no level playing field. There is still financial pressure on smaller providers and it is disappointing that there is not more recognition of the value and viability of those small, diverse, and, I submit, outstanding settings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the short answer is that it will vary considerably from area to area. If I am able to provide any better particulars, I will write to the noble Earl.

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised that I am immensely disappointed by his response. That will be shared by the many people who have been in contact with me since I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am grateful for the support that was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I say to him, regarding the figures that I gave in my speech, that you have only to calculate on the amount of money that is made available to a setting what kind of pay is possible under that if—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and my noble friend maintain—the total money available should be limited to the free entitlement only.

The only crumb of comfort is the suggestion that the fiction that goes on around the edge—that people can go on charging outside the so-called free entitlement —should go on and we should go on nodding and winking at that. That is very disappointing.

We heard a lot of talk about certainty. There is no certainty in this. The free entitlement is not fully resourced—it never has been—and public policy should not be based on something that is essentially not true. As someone who loyally went through the Lobbies to support top-up fees in universities and would do so again, there is a certain irony in being told that top-up fees in a non-maintained sector like nursery schools would bring the United Kingdom to its knees.

I will reflect on what has been said. I cannot promise my noble friend that I will not return to this matter on Report, but in the interim I am grateful to him for elements of his response and to other noble Lords who spoke. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

11: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Early years schools workforce: Montessori schools
The Secretary of State may issue directions to the Child Workforce Development Council in relation to the training and qualifications of teachers of children under 5 in Montessori-accredited nursery schools, and shall in particular ensure that recognition continues to be given to Montessori qualifications and Montessori training courses, where these are provided by practitioners qualified and experienced in that approach, and use recognised Montessori accredited schools for practical training experience.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, Amendments 11 and 70 relate to nursery education and are intended to apply pari passu to Steiner schools as well as to Montessori schools. If these amendments or something like them are brought back on Report, they will include protections for the specific training required by Steiner schools. I have made that clear to representatives of Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship. They in turn have made it clear to me that they welcome, and feel the need for, the protection offered by amendments such as these.

Both the Montessori and Steiner systems of pedagogy are proven in action, much trusted by the parents who choose them and are undeniably diverse compared with the approaches to learning offered in other settings. Each system has its own set of qualifications; each system polices its own settings; and each system requires that schools purporting to be Montessori or Steiner should reflect their values and approaches.

Most Steiner qualifications are levels 4 or 5. Almost all Montessori qualifications are level 4. They are administered by Montessori colleges, but the Montessori Centre International has an independent board that advises on academic standards and meets three times a year to validate all diplomas. The Montessori Centre International is one of the largest training organisations in the world in its sector. It has around 400 graduates every year. The other three colleges have between them 80 to 100 graduates going into nursery provision. The majority of these graduates are UK or EU-based, although more than 100 come from outside the UK. There are some 800 Montessori schools in the United Kingdom, with approximately 6,000 teachers. Therefore, there is a clear requirement for specific training. I believe that the system works: 88 per cent of Montessori schools have received the highest ratings in Ofsted inspections, which is far higher than the average for early-years settings.

So why change it; why interfere with the training system that is delivering a perfectly satisfactory position; and why do we need the amendments? There is a large quango called the Children's Workforce Development Council, which has a budget in excess of £100 million and a turnover that is larger than all the excellent Montessori schools combined—I definitely prefer the private to the public here. The body advises the noble Lord’s department. For a reason that I am not entirely clear about—although the early-years foundation stage document published in 2008 stated that Ofsted would recognise qualifications recognised in turn by the CWDC—the body set out to create a new, generic qualification at level 3 only, which is intended as the one and only qualification that will be used by everyone working in settings with children.

I understand and share the aspirations of noble Lords who spoke on earlier amendments for high-quality provision and good training. However, the general aspiration should not squeeze out a particular good that is proven. The CWDC says that it has undertaken extensive consultation. This was claimed again at the conference of the National Day Nurseries Association that took place earlier this month. In fact, many at the conference said that they had not been consulted at all, and there was severe criticism of the CWDC, which was reported in the professional press. The Montessori and Steiner organisations tell me that they have not been consulted or approached in a systematic way.

The proposed CWDC qualification is at a lower level than the existing Montessori and Steiner qualifications. It is very basic and focuses as much on policy as on practice—perhaps more. It is considered by many early-years practitioners, certainly in the Montessori and Steiner sectors, as not fit for purpose. However, if Montessori qualifications are not included on a recognised list, Montessori colleges will not be able to train teachers, and Montessori schools will not be able to fulfil their quota need for Montessori-qualified teachers. The same goes for Steiner schools. I submit that that would be absurd. Representatives of Montessori bodies twice sought meetings with the CWDC and asked for exemption from its level 3 course in recognition of Montessori’s unique pedagogy, philosophy and proven excellence. So far, Montessori has had no concrete response except a demand to map its qualifications against the lower-level qualification proposed by CWDC.

Now, I thought that this Government believed in excellence and diversity, which we have all subscribed to today. I thought that they were seeking, as the Bill does, to rein back the influence of quangos and reduce bureaucracy. Will my noble friend consider positively the idea put forward in these amendments to protect both Steiner and Montessori schools and lift from them the fear that is now widespread in those sectors as a result of the unwelcome attentions of the CWDC? In short, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

If my noble friend is not ready to incorporate this into the Bill, it need not be there but it needs to be in black and white somewhere. It needs to be done soon and in a form that leaves no room for doubt that these excellent colleges and schools with their excellent qualifications will continue to be part of our education landscape. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am rather happier with that response than with the response to the previous group. I am very grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I apologise to the Committee for discussing Steiner schools when they are not mentioned in the amendments that we are discussing. However, I am sure that they will be grateful to my noble friend for her comments and will pursue the matter separately. Montessori schools will be grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee for their firm support. I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who warmly support this excellent system and these excellent schools.

I note that my noble friend extended the invitation to these schools to continue in existence until 2012. I have sought to express that positively as opposed to describing it as a stay of execution. I hope that as discussions continue, the temporary nature of that arrangement can be lifted and that—

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trembling on the edge of withdrawing the amendment. However, I remain rather anxious about the extension to 2012 and a possible extension after that. I would like to hear from one end of this Bench or the other what the effect of that would be on recruiting people for training in this area of teaching if there is a possibility that the railway will end a mile or two down the line.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton]

I cannot understand why there has been such consultation given that we are still in a temporary situation. I cannot understand why it cannot be put on a firm footing—I hope before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for those interventions. Having veered away from using the phrase “stay of execution”, I think my noble friend will understand where I am coming from. As there seems to be such universal recognition of the value of this sector, surely we can give certainty to it. I hope that before Report my noble friend will consider further what noble Lords have said in this debate and find a way to extend that period of certainty beyond 2012. Perhaps the word “perpetuity” could come into that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Education Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, this is an excellent Bill. I declare an interest as a trustee of a grant-giving charity that supports catholic education, although unlike my noble friend Lord Edmiston, I have to regret that I did not make the money that we so enthusiastically give away. I am also leader of a London borough that welcomes academies and free schools. Indeed, I believe that the freedoms that come with academy status would be best for all our local schools, but local partnership and involvement remain important. A successful school must carry the confidence of local people. It should be at a community's heart, so I ask my noble friend to guard against the emergence of large chains of schools that are remote-managed to standard formulae. I would like to see local boards to guide, or even, eventually, to manage academies, particularly if school chains reach a certain size; otherwise, we may have in time to return to break up the largest of those chains.

I also support the reduction in the number of quangos. Indeed, if there were a True's law of education, it would probably be that general quality declines in inverse proportion to the growth in the size of education bureaucracy, but I dare not add in inverse proportion to the size of my noble friend’s department as well. In my No. 10 days, if I was not a creator of Ofsted, I was certainly a rather fumbling assistant midwife. At that time, we envisaged, naively, that Ofsted would shrink itself: after a Domesday Book survey, it would focus on the weakest, rather than remorselessly grinding down every staff room across the land. It did not turn out to be quite like that, so I welcome the direction of travel in this Bill and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton.

The point I want to make is about Part 1, not for what is in it—an extension of nursery provision to disadvantaged two year-olds is hugely welcome—but for what is not in it. Here I declare another interest as my wife is a qualified Montessori teacher, a nursery school principal and a tireless advocate of Montessori education. Through her, I have come to know many people in private and voluntary nursery schools, notably in the Montessori sector. It is sad how disillusioned many of these outstanding, dedicated women—and they are mostly women—have become at growing state interference and what they perceive as lack of sympathy.

Many problems flow from the good intentions of Section 7 of the Childcare Act 2006, which is amended, providentially, but not enough, by Part 1 of this Bill. The issue revolves around the tension between a well intended, populist political slogan—free nursery education for all—and the realities of economic life. If I have learnt anything from a life in the wings of the political theatre, it is that usually a populist slogan will eventually jump up and bite someone. Sadly, it is now biting many early years providers. It is therefore biting parents who want to exercise diverse choices and, worst of all, it is biting children who are disadvantaged by the closure of private and voluntary settings.

In the 1990s, I worked on John Major’s original vision to bring nursery education to all. That was intended to be done bottom-up by empowering parents to choose the best support for their children, but local councils and others cavilled about loss of control. Under the previous Government, it was changed to a grant paid out by government via local councils to schools and then indirectly to parents to offset costs, with hosts of people along the way to administer this top-down system.

Under the slogan, “free education for all”, that state transfer system evolved into what are, under all the euphemisms, old-fashioned price controls on private and voluntary nursery schools. Nursery schools in receipt of nursery education grant are not allowed to charge above arbitrary price caps for the 15 so-called free hours a week, even if the costs of providing quality education exceed the price limit. There is too little income and too much cost—Mr Micawber knew the effect of that. Private and voluntary settings therefore close or go entirely private, thus closing their doors to parents needing financial help to access them, and so creating a two-tier structure in nursery education that no one wants. The paradox is that in the name of equality and wider access the reverse is happening. Something really is going wrong.

A third way is offered around closure or going private to those schools but this third way is rather an illusion as well. To sustain the claim of free education in the 15 hours, there has emerged a climate of deliberate deceit where a blind eye is turned to settings charging disproportionate amounts for services or time outside the theoretically free 15 hours a week to cover their costs and simply survive. I consider that to be dishonest. I consider dishonesty not to be a sound basis in policy or ethics for educating the young, particularly the youngest of all. I question for how long it can evade the attention of the courts. My hope is that, as we can consider Part 1 in the coming stages and amend Section 7 of the 2006 Act, the Government will seriously reconsider the imposition of price controls as a condition of parents at a school having access to nursery grant and bring realism to a worthy policy ideal which we all share; namely, access to nursery education for all.

To conclude, I also think that justice is needed on qualifications, on which the Children’s Workforce Development Council, another very costly quango, has standardising aims that threaten Montessori education. In Committee, I should like to return to that issue and Part 3. Like my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, I hope that my noble friend will show an open mind to ideas to address these problems. Part 1 is an opportunity to do so. If we do not use it wisely, I must tell the noble Lord that people will notice, and life and diversity may continue to drain from a private and voluntary nursery sector that young children perhaps need more now than ever before.