| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dearing: Those replies were very helpful. I thank the Minister. On my second amendment, on time, all that the Minister said was fine. But I want to be clear that the local authority will have the power to insist, if it wants to, that a school improvement partner will spend a lot of time in a school and the school cannot say, “No, we don’t want it”.
On the first point, about the relationship not working, I welcome all that the Minister has said. However, I had hoped, if there is a clear disagreement between the local authority and the governing body, that after a reasonable period of working with a school improvement partner, an independent person could come in and adjudicate on the matter. It does not matter if it is the adjudicator or whoever.
Baroness Crawley: As we are in Committee, perhaps I can reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing and then the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can come in.
12 July 2006 : Column 762
On the question of time and the local authority, I think I am correct in saying that the local authority can insist. On the other question, perhaps I can write to the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: I was going to say that I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will pursue that amendment. It is terribly important that there is a safety valve. Not all local authorities behave as perfectly as they might all the time. When a school is under the cosh for half a decade at a time merely because the chairman of the local authority education committee does not like it—it is perfectly possible; who will be imposed on the London Oratory, for instance?—there must be a reasonable escape. It is certainly possible as the regulations are provided for, but it is not in the draft regulations that there should be any such power for someone to adjudicate. There may be other ways out of it, but I very much hope that we pursue it. And I very much hope that we will get some support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would very much like to see this. If we do not get a satisfactory reply on it, I hope that we will pursue it to a Division, if we have to.
I was disappointed by the Minister’s illustration of how the school improvement partner will be using all these figures to point out where a school could improve itself. The best schools were using these figures 10 years ago. The systems ought to be there so that it is obvious to a school that, “We have a problem with our Afro-Caribbean children between the ages of 11 and 14”, or whatever it may be. I know of at least three commercially—or semi-commercially—available systems out there that will provide this information as a matter of course. Yes, the Government can help by providing some base data to feed into these things so that there is an accurate comparison between developments in the world outside. But a school ought to have a system that tells it not only that it has a problem in this area but also who can tell it how to do better with its 11 to 14 year-old Afro-Caribbean kids. The chances of it being a random SIP appointed by a local education authority are pretty small. At that stage you want to be going out to a much wider audience.
I have always hoped that the Government would create a system that worked for spreading expertise and making it available to schools, but they never have. Beacon status has not worked and its successor has not worked particularly well. A good school will know what is wrong and where to go to put it right. I would support anything a Government did to do that, but the idea that this will be the SIP, or that the SIP should perform the function that the Minister described, I find extremely depressing.
Baroness
Crawley: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord
Lucas, finds the examples depressing. It will be the SIP’s role
to call attention to areas where, through self-evaluation, the school
realises that it is underperforming in certain respects. We were saying
that even good schools can underperform in some respects. The school
would talk with the SIP about where it feels it could do better. On the
example of the
12 July 2006 : Column 763
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the issue of the cross-border movement of SIPs. I hope he will take encouragement from the fact that we strongly encourage cross-border movement, which is already happening extensively in the SIP programme. Some authorities—for instance, South Gloucestershire—have all their SIPs from outside their own authority. Requiring cross-border movement is just the sort of thing that we might use regulations for.
Finally, the evaluation of the trial to which the noble Lord referred is published. I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful and shall remain optimistic. I really hope that this works.
The Earl of Listowel: The Minister has already responded to the questions but I should like quickly to highlight a concern. The debate has been interesting and I am sorry that I could not be present for all of it. It reminded me of my concerns about children’s homes. I hope that the Committee will not mind me briefly raising the subject. The Minister kindly wrote to me recently about the training of staff in children’s homes, but the situation is far worse than I thought. The Government’s target was for 80 per cent of staff in children’s homes to have an NVQ level 3 in childcare by January last year, but—if I have understood the Minister’s letter correctly—in March last year, only 23 per cent had such a qualification.
I have seen consultancy make an invaluable contribution to improving the quality of outcomes for children in children’s homes. Listening to this debate about mentoring for head teachers and about experienced head teachers supporting other teachers, I wondered whether I might plant in the Minister’s mind the thought that, as we look at the Green Paper on looked-after children, we might consider whether there could be a similar model for children’s homes. I apologise for distracting from the main thread of the debate.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to the questions posed, and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Lucas and I are a little sceptical about local authorities working in partnership. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about South Gloucestershire, but historically local authorities have tended to work in isolation, jealously guarding their own patch. Having been a district councillor, I know how that plays out. It is a bit like government departments with all those thick walls and glass ceilings.
12 July 2006 : Column 764
I have a great deal of sympathy for the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to have more flexibility if there is incompatibility between the character or personality of the SIP and the school. We need to avoid a standard ration. We should focus on coasting schools when considering the role of the SIP. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, agrees with us that the appointment of the SIP should be for the governing body.
In relation to that, I think that I have come up with rather a good idea that I shall air now and may propose in an amendment on Report. The Minister spoke about the need for those making the appointment to be able to set themselves apart to play an external role to challenge and support, and I accept that. However, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made is tremendously important. We need to avoid conflict, and the head of the school and its governing body must be able to work well with that critical friend. So, what if the local authority were to make the appointment but the governing body would interview for that role? That could be a way round the problem. The governing body would have a role in the appointment of the SIP, and can assess the chemistry to ensure that there is a strong chance that that relationship can work well.
7.15 pm
We are setting the SIP a huge task in some instances, particularly in relation to coasting schools and schools that are underperforming in a number of ways. We are asking him to give a lot of advice and counsel in an average of five days per year. That is better than nothing, but we must ensure that those five days do not just prove disruptive because they are window-dressing so that we can tick another box. If we just say that too many schools are underperforming but a SIP in every school can help them improve, I cannot see that improvement happening in practice. I urge the Minister to consider focusing SIPs, rather than putting one in every school, and paying them better to work with schools that are underperforming. We should not talk about five or 19 days; they should have real time to mentor and work with schools.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about mentoring for children’s homes; we have mentoring in business and right across the board. Most people who are mature in the role that they play in life appreciate that there are times when a mentor can have a positive role to play and can make a real difference. There is more that we can think about in this regard. We want to help the Government to ensure that the role of the SIP is effective and can make a difference in raising the standard of education in our schools.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response to Amendment No. 33, which was a probing amendment. I take on board what she said about working together in a spirit of partnership, and recognising the individual characteristics and ethos of schools that makes them distinctive and in large part rather successful. I thank her for agreeing to write to us in respect of funding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
12 July 2006 : Column 765
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Functions in respect of recreation etc]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 44:
- Page 4, line 16,
at end insert “enter into partnerships with other public,
private or voluntary organisations in order
to”
The noble Baroness said: In moving to Clause 6, we move to the subject of sports and games. We on these Benches welcome Clause 6 and the proposals in it for enhancing the role of the Government and the local authority in encouraging better provision for sports and games for our young people. For too long, there has been no statutory authority for that responsibility, and it has not had attention or resources that it needs.
That said, some of our amendments are meant to probe the Government and some to tease them. Amendment No. 49 is intended seriously and requires team games to be considered. My noble friend Lady Williams will speak to it and to Amendment No. 54.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. We were slightly surprised and amused by the way the Bill is framed. Under Clause 6, local education authorities are encouraged to set up,
For the purposes of doing so, a local education authority may,- “establish, maintain and
manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance and management of
... camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, and
... other places, including playgrounds, gymnasiums and swimming
baths not appropriated to any school or other educational
institution”.
Lord Adonis: Perhaps I may assist the noble Baroness. If she goes on with her reading of Clause 6, she will see that new subsection (3) states that,
- “a local
education authority must, in particular, have regard to the expediency
of co-operating with any voluntary societies or bodies whose objects
include the provision of facilities or the organisation of activities
of a similar
character”.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I say, to some extent we were teasing. As I have read out, the Bill suggests that the local education authority should provide these things directly, although also perhaps commissioning them, but we thought we would help them a little along the way. Therefore, our amendments enable them to go a little further in that direction.
Amendment No. 49, which would add to the end of new subsection (4)(b),
12 July 2006 : Column 766
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Amendment No. 49 stands in my name and that of my noble friends. It concerns team games. I will make my points quickly as I realise we are making heavy weather of the Bill—in my view, quite rightly.
There is considerable concern, reflected in many of the articles in both health and professional educational magazines, about the problem we have with boys in the upper end of primary schools and the earlier end of secondary schools, in their assessment of themselves and their self-confidence. I was in secondary education some time ago, but I remember the exact mirror image with girls. There was an endless discussion of girls’ underperformance, the reasons for it and the lack of confidence they had in themselves as scientists and mathematicians. It is extraordinary that in one lifetime of politics I should have seen this completely reversed and exactly the opposite theme now picked up.
Nevertheless, for many boys, and not least the boys to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred in an earlier discussion—those from the Caribbean community—great importance is attached to achievement in sport. It is a way in which young men, and to some extent girls too, measure their achievement and ability and begin to gain self-confidence.
I have been extremely troubled by the effects of the sale of playing fields, which I admit happened largely under a previous Conservative Government. It meant that many schools simply dropped team sports from their curriculum, and in some cases had to bus youngsters long distances to play just for a couple of hours on some remote football field or cricket pitch. In other words, the ability of schools to embrace team games within the school curriculum has been steadily lost.
It is not surprising that youngsters who
do not have the opportunity to let out some of their natural
exuberance—very marked between the ages of about nine and
14—in what one might call constructive and enjoyable activities
make themselves a problem in estates, which often have large signs up
saying “No ball games”. It is very sad that we have so
steadily closed down on the outlets that youngsters in this age group,
both boys and girls, have. To be quite blunt, it has all been made much
worse by the profound and understandable concern about paedophilia,
which means that it is very difficult now to get anybody willing to
lead a Scout troop or Cub pack, or even a Girl Guide company or Brownie
pack. More and more youngsters do not have any opportunity to test
12 July 2006 : Column 767
There is another aspect, which is that team sports are very different from what is slightly pickily described as “positive leisure-time activities”, which often can mean forms of yoga and so on. Those are enjoyable in their own way, but do not build up a sense of belonging together—of commonality and common purpose—which a well refereed team game is able to do and, incidentally, with it building up friendships that may last a lifetime. It is just not the same to play on your computer Game Boy on your own in your bedroom, which is what many youngsters do for their leisure-time activities.
I will not hold up the Committee for long, but it is extremely important that we get team games back into the curriculum. At least a couple of hours a week should be spent on such team games as part of the school day which do not depend on parents busing or driving children back, which often they will not do as they may not be home or they may be too tired to pick them up. We have to bring team games back to make for a more rounded curriculum. I therefore urge the Minister to look very closely at this—the Government's heart is in this—and consider whether we could not strengthen the wording, to encourage authorities and schools to make sure that team games are part of the range of choices children have available for a properly rounded and properly demanding form of education.
Lord Adonis: It may assist the Committee if I come in immediately after the noble Baroness to say that we agree with everything she has said, and that it is encompassed in the current clause.
The sale of playing fields now requires explicit ministerial consent in every case. I know because I am the Minister whose desk these issues cross. The sale of playing fields has almost ceased and only a tiny number are sold each year. They are sold only if our professional advisers are satisfied that alternative arrangements for playing fields are sufficient. In almost all cases, the proceeds of the sale go into investing in sports facilities in the school, typically new sports halls or facilities of that kind.
We
have significantly boosted the role of sport and team sport, reversing
the lamentable trend highlighted by the noble Baroness that has taken
place in the previous 20 years. We have invested £978 million in
our PE, School Sport and Club Links strategy with the target of
ensuring that, within and beyond the curriculum, 75 per cent of pupils
by this year and 85 per cent of pupils by next year engage in
at least two hours of high-quality PE and school sport each week. We
have made significant progress in that respect. The last independent
survey on school sport, which
12 July 2006 : Column 768
In the amendment, the noble Baroness specifically highlights football and cricket. We agree that they are of great importance, and Clause 6 encompasses them. Our concern with the amendment is that it might unhelpfully narrow a local authority’s view of what facilities it should provide if we specifically highlighted those. We consulted more than 11,000 young people in the process of drawing up our Youth Matters Green Paper, which found that they wanted more sports facilities in their area. The provision they sought included requests for activities such as swimming, hockey and netball—the last two of course are also team games. Twelve per cent wanted more youth clubs, 11 per cent wanted,
such as waterskiing or canoeing, and 9 per cent wanted to see improved provision for dance and youth theatre.All those are encompassed within Clause 6. We want a significant increase in opportunities for team games, including cricket and football. Measures are in place to ensure that. Our concern about the precise wording of the amendment is that to include it in the Bill might highlight some areas at the expense of others within the duty of local authorities. We think that they should follow local consultation and ensure a balanced extra provision of suitable youth facilities in their area.
7.30 pm
Baroness Williams of Crosby: First, I understand that swimming is to be dropped from the curriculum—that is, apparently, the advice that has been given—which means that one fundamental, significant sport may drop out of the provision. Secondly, in some cases about which I happen to know, the provision of sporting facilities has included the provision of large leisure centres that charge substantial sums to people, which is not exactly an alternative. I am not in any way criticising the Government—I know that they are doing their best to reverse the trend—but some aspects give me concern.
Lord Adonis: I assure the noble Baroness that we are paying very close attention to swimming. The fact that advice has been offered does not mean that it will be accepted.
Lord
Lucas: I very much agree with what the noble
Baroness, Lady Williams, said. I trumpet the duty at the bottom of page
4. We need a reference of some kind to team games because they require
so much space. If local authorities, especially city local authorities,
are not told to provide space, they will stick houses on the space or
do something else with it. They need to know that they must provide the
space and that providing a climbing wall is not a substitute for a
football pitch.
12 July 2006 : Column 769
Lord Adonis: It means things such as outdoor adventure centres, which may not be in the area but are provided for the area. I assume that that is what is meant. It is quite common, especially for city authorities, to maintain facilities or engage with the voluntary sector in respect of facilities outside their area. I will happily confirm that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Will the Minister respond to my other amendments?
Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness said that she was teasing me. I thought that she had accepted that I had responded to the first amendment. We need to read new subsection (2) with new subsection (3), which begins:
- “When
making arrangements for the provision of facilities or the organisation
of activities in the exercise of their powers under subsection (2), a
local education authority
must”—
- “in
particular, have regard to the expediency of co-operating with any
voluntary societies or
bodies”.
We think that local authorities will find guidance in these areas useful, not least because it can highlight best practice, which they usually find useful when the department makes it available. I would not want local authorities to be deprived of the benefit of any wisdom that we might be able to bring to bear in these matters.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Some local authorities might like to be deprived of that guidance but, nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his reply. He is quite right: we were teasing him through the first two amendments. The substantive point was the one raised by my noble friend Lady Williams about team sports, about which we feel strongly. I hope that we may find some way and a form of wording to write in the Bill the importance that we attach to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Committee begin again not before 8.34 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
12 July 2006 : Column 770
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |