| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: It was not my intention to respond but I cannot allow the noble Baroness to get away with putting words into my mouth in the way that she did. First, I did not say in any way whatsoever that I thought teachers were being replaced by assistants. What I made quite clear was that teachers were being assisted by a greater number of classroom assistants. I think even the noble Baroness would recognise that many people and many heads recognise there is considerable value in having classroom assistants who can assist the properly qualified, and therefore more expensive, teachers to go about their job.
Secondly, I totally and utterly reject her allegation that we have made cuts in public expenditure. If she makes those remarks from the Opposition Front Bench, she is in effect saying that we are underfunding education and that if her party were in government it would provide more money. That is something it has refused to do. What we have made available to education, as provided by the local education authorities, is something of the order of £1.4 billion extra over the past two years. We have increased spending on pupils since 1979 by some 50 per cent.
It is no use the noble Baroness taking just the past three years. She said the number of pupils had gone up in those years. I never heard those remarks from the noble Baroness and her colleagues when numbers were going down, implying that meant that we could, as it were, reduce funds. The simple fact is we have increased funds per pupil by something of the order of 50 per cent. since 1979 and we have increased funding available to local authorities for schools--not cut it--by some £1.4 billion over the past two years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: First, I ask the Minister to confirm whether the £1.4 billion increase to which he referred is a £1.4 billion increase on the actual amount of money spent on education by LEAs year on year, or whether it is an increase in the standard spending assessment figure which is the Government's notional figure as to what ought to be spent by LEAs, which they have increased, and which is still below the amount actually spent?
Secondly, I say to the Minister that, of course, it is relevant to take the past three or four years. During the past three or four years pupil numbers in the primary schools have been increasing and government expenditure per pupil in real terms has been falling. Thirdly, where class sizes of young children have been increasing there has been an increase in the use of classroom assistants, but head teachers would want to supplement that by also having the necessary number of fully qualified teachers. My experience of the professional judgment of head teachers is that they do not view it as an either/or situation but regard it as essential to have the right level of both.
The Government ought to consider carefully their record in terms of education. We have heard tonight that the Government are not prepared to rule out selection at primary level in hard, clear, legal terms in this Bill that is before us. By the Government's and Prime Minister's own admission we are failing the average and the majority in this country. What are the Government proposing to do to take the small amount of additional resource that they are able to make available and to give it to those who are succeeding well now?
The time is late. I shall not press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness asks me a question. Therefore I should respond, should I not? That would be fair, would it not?
I begin by apologising to the noble Baroness and to the Committee. I misled her. The figure is not £1.4 billion; it is £1.7 billion. That is the education standard spending assessment. Yes, it is permissible for the authorities to spend more should they so wish.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Will the Minister please tell us how the Government's standard spending assessment for the current financial year compares with what is actually spent by local education authorities?
Lord Henley: I do not have the figures in front of me. As I said, it is open to the authorities to spend more should they so wish. We have made available to the local authorities £1.7 billion more than last year.
Lord Tope: I have some sympathy for the Minister. At this hour of the morning he is having to deal with two members of local education authorities who have some knowledge of the facts. I understand that his briefing for this amendment could not have included the facts.
The Minister keeps telling us that the standard spending assessment has been increased. Apparently it has increased during the course of this debate from £1.4 billion to £1.7 billion. If we carry on at this speed we might get somewhere. Those are notional figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked him the actual figure.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way? I do not consider figures to be notional which are taken out
of my pocket or other taxpayers' pockets. Those are funds transferred from central government, from the taxpayer, to local authorities. As I said, local authorities can spend more, and many do.
Lord Tope: I am sorry to upset the Minister, but the fact remains that when one is in a school with a budget, or running a local education authority, it is not the Minister's back pocket, or whatever, that we are interested in. It is the actual amount of spending. The fact remains that the actual spending on education has not been increased as a result of the Government's measures, especially when taking into account all the additional costs to which the noble Baroness referred--teachers' pay, and so on. The fact is that local education authorities en masse are still spending more than the Government are putting into education funding.
I can understanding that the Minister is getting tired and a little irritated at this time of night. But he is not getting away with it. The Government have not increased funding. This debate is about class sizes. It remains a fact on the Government's own figures that in the last year alone primary school class sizes over 36 increased by 20 per cent. No head teacher does that from choice but because of the Government's funding restrictions.
The Government may well say that it is open to education authorities to increase spending as they may wish. I wonder whether the Minister has heard of something called capping? The Government impose a total spending limit on all local authorities. For those local authorities which are also LEAs that is a major part of their funding. Local authorities may be notionally free to increase spending on education. In actuality they are not because they are capped by this Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That was an interesting exchange. It would be helpful to have some of the figures which the Minister does not have at his fingertips relating to actual expenditure and the comparison with the Government's target spend. I am sure that they will be handy because I think that the issue will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause--
(" . The governing bodies of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that--
(a) due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter which affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding; and
(b) where reasonable, steps are taken to ascertain these views.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a new clause to place schools and LEAs under a duty to listen to the views of pupils on matters affecting them and, where reasonable, to ascertain these views.
What the amendment does not do--I hope that the Government will not imply that it does--is this. It does not require teachers to ask the pupils' opinions on every aspect of schooling. It requires only that pupils' views be ascertained where reasonable. It does not give pupils any powers to make decisions about their education. Having given the pupils' view "due consideration", the teacher is still quite free to do the opposite. It does not mean that pupils' views on matters outside the powers of the school or LEA (e.g. the national curriculum or the state of the road outside the school) have to be considered at all by school or LEA staff, since consideration would not be "due".
What the amendment does is common practice in most good schools and by most good teachers--and increasingly by most good LEAs. It is, at bottom, simple wisdom to take into account any views expressed by those receiving a service (the "customer view" to use government imagery) and, where practicable, to discover those views when they have not been expressed. The resources needed to implement this amendment are negligible. The benefits are very great.
As well as creating more effective schools, the amendment also reflects the provisions of Article 12(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, voluntarily ratified by this Government in 1991. I quote Article 12(1):
In addition, it brings education legislation into line with the Children Act provisions requiring courts and social services to consider children's views when making decisions about them.
Versions of this amendment were pressed during the passage of the Education Act 1993. They were rather contemptuously rejected by the responsible Minister, Eric Forth. He argued that education was quite a different matter from Children Act issues. He said:
He called the amendment if not "dotty" then "politically correct", and said it would be absurd and unworkable, particularly in regard to primary school pupils Official Report, Commons, 9/2/93; col. 1515.
The Government were challenged over the failure to implement Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The persistent reply was that the Children Act covered the UK's responsibilities under Article 12, despite the fact that the Children Act does not cover schools' or LEAs' functions. At the House of Lords' stage, Allan Levy QC provided an opinion to this effect, but to no avail. The Government continued to say that the Children Act met its duties under Article 12. It was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister today, who said on that occasion:
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who was the noble friend referred to by the noble Lord.
As regards Eric Forth's remarks, it is true that there is a difference between children's views about the "social and welfare context" of Children Act decisions and those in the education sphere. The decisions courts and social workers make under the Children Act are some of the most difficult and complex decisions that can be made--education matters are in fact much easier! Secondly, the amendment does not force children to express a view, any more than it forces schools or LEAs to accept those views--it is just about the adults listening and being better informed. Certainly the amendment is neither absurd nor unworkable. Even young children or children with severe learning difficulties should be encouraged to express views and should be listened to when they do.
As regards the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I find them incomprehensible. First, Article 12 covers the views of the child "in all matters affecting the child", not just judicial or administrative proceedings. Secondly, how does the Children Act cater for educational matters or school proceedings? It does not. It has taken four years for these matters to be pursued today. I hope that the Minister will follow my arguments and decide that perhaps he could take a different view today from the one he took four years ago. I beg to move.
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the views of the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
"It is at least arguable that there is a difference between taking full account of a young person's attitudes and responses in a social and welfare context and asking the child to make a judgment, utter an opinion or give a view on his or her educational requirements".--[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/93; col. 1108.]
"My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of Article 12".--[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1548.]
1 a.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this amendment. It seems to me an idea whose time has come. I ask the Minister to consider whether, for example, in all the new clauses which this Bill introduces with regard to discipline in schools, it is not of immense importance to ensure that the pupils understand what is going on, make their contribution and feel that it is received, understood and taken account of by the teachers in the school. Secondary schools are very large now. Such huge institutions cannot be managed unless there is a general feeling that such things as disciplinary procedures are--to use a term which I do not like very much--"owned" by both the pupils and the teachers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page