Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I announced on Second Reading of the then Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill on 19 December 2000 that I would not speak in debates again, but that I would make an exception because I wanted to welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. If only that were the case with this Bill. I welcomed the then School Standards and Framework Bill in 1998 in my Second Reading speech. I reasoned that a mammoth Bill on education was needed to repair the work done by successive Conservative Administrations since 1979. There had been 20 education Bills in 18 years. I now find myself with the 10th Bill in nine years on education, the third mammoth Bill; another three have been substantial. What is worrying is that the Government propose to amend the law for the fourth or fifth time since 1997 on school organisation, admissions, improvement and discipline. How many times does it take to get the law correct? My long experience in this House has taught me that, on the whole, legislation does not directly improve public services. What does improve public services? Better leadership and management of those who do the work; those women and men who teach, and who provide, organise and manage the service for parents, children and everyone in our communities. Those matters are not easily the subject of legislation, more of encouragement and financial support. However, it is possible—indeed, likely—that an excess of legislation and the instability and lack of continuity that that brings can weaken and dishearten head teachers, teachers and those who support them in their vital jobs in schools and local authorities. Before I can congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill, I need to be assured by the Minister why there is a need for another education Bill, especially one of this length, when we have had so much legislation in recent years. I have specific concerns. I welcome the enhanced role for local authorities in Part 1. I know that it has been said that the Bill gives local government a commissioning role. In my view, local government always has had that role, but the Bill tries to separate it from the local authority’s role in providing services. Why is that necessary? We now come to the new rules for school organisation. I completely support the need for local authorities both to establish and to maintain schools, a role which they have had for more than a century. As we go into another period of falling rolls, it is important that the local authority can act not only strategically in managing school places, but with speed and efficiency. I fear that the Government, through the Bill, are putting bureaucratic obstacles in the way of local government by creating an extra stage, especially the need for competition. I look for an assurance from the Minister about how local authorities will be able to manage school rolls in future, within the short timescale available between the start of falling rolls in an area and the need to take significant action to ensure the continuity and availability of education. Surely falling rolls should create an opportunity for larger libraries, better science facilities and, above all, smaller class sizes, which most people regard as a benefit to both teachers and pupils. Then we have the emphasis on the relatively minor category of school, the foundation school with a foundation not established under the 1998 Act, which we now have to call a trust school. I shall look forward to hearing how the Minister justifies why they should get additional resources—even if the resources come from the voluntary and charitable sector—compared to other schools. I can see that as a divisive move, and I expect that either schools will not be interested or we will be legislating soon to give all schools those benefits. That does not seem fair. I hope that the Minister will give me an answer when he winds up. On admissions, I feel that the Government are again wasting an important opportunity to ensure an equitable and fair means of children transferring from primary to secondary school. Achieving that would be enormously helpful in supporting the continuing improvement of schools. While welcoming elements of the Government’s proposals, such as the proposed code on admission, I regret that they are not prepared to tackle the consequences of selective education—be it in fully selective schools or partial selection by aptitude and ability. I believe that we must work for school admission arrangements to be fair and equitable for all pupils, but find it difficult to see how we can achieve that objective when foundation, trust, aided schools and academies run their own admissions. That is likely to work against the interests of the most disadvantaged, least mobile and worst informed parents and children. The number of schools that can run their own admissions will increase under the Bill. I am not talking about over-subscription criteria for admission—which I hope the new code for school admissions will address—but the practical arrangements for making decisions and the covert messages that schools can give about the sort of pupils whom they want. The only body that can achieve equitable arrangements, and one that we already pay for, is the local authority. I hope that the Bill can strengthen not just the co-ordinating but the management role of the local authority over the admission process. I am also anxious about foundation and trust schools appointing their own governors, with only one elected parent among them. Governing bodies should have proper representation of all stakeholders. I am seriously concerned about the encouragement of faith schools. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is not in his place, and I have something in common. I believe in integrated education and have belonged for some time to the All-Party Group on Integrated Education in Northern Ireland. In a multicultural society as ours certainly is, for the better cohesion of communities and the better understanding of each other, children should not be separated in that way. It would be much better if our education system was based on secular principles, as in France and the USA. I hope that those and other matters will be fully scrutinised in this House. I am aware that the Opposition steadfastly supported the Bill in the other place, and they seem to be doing so today. When I was in opposition, we opposed Bills not for the sake of opposing legislation—there were occasionally issues that we supported—but to scrutinise and improve. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee and that I will be able to support the legislation fully before it leaves this House.