---

Lord Peston: My Lords, I am very pleased with our debate. I had no idea that my "prosaic" little amendment, as my noble friend the Minister called it, would both give rise to some very deep philosophical contributions and revolutionise the whole nature of education in our country. I am very tempted to carry on campaigning. If my little amendment can do that, I really must spring to action and start to round up the type of support I need.

I found bits of the debate most distressing. I have to assume that, for noble Lords who believe that education must have a spiritual and moral content, people like me are not educated. I do not exactly take offence from that, but people with religious views sometimes do not think before they speak. Large numbers of us regard ourselves as very moral people and have engaged in activities serving our country but have no spirituality in our lives whatsoever. I myself do not make remarks about religious people of that kind, and I occasionally think that those who have religion ought not to make remarks about the rest of us.

As philosophy is my great hobby, I was particularly interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I did come across the alleged research on the idea that spirituality had a positive evolutionary role, and I then checked with some serious scientists whose exact words were, "The man is mad and no one would take him seriously".

Lord Dearing: My Lords, the man is elsewhere now.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish him well. However, that argument has always intrigued me. As I said, whenever I come across these views, I consult various scientists, but they just say that the ideas are mad.

I have one slightly frivolous observation on the subject. As noble Lords know, my main interest in life is football. I have noticed that quite a few players come on to the field and cross themselves before going on to the pitch. I have been inquiring whether any research has been done on the effect of footballers crossing themselves on the performance of their teams. As far as I can see, the England team contains no players who cross themselves before going on to the field. I worry

17 Jun 2002 : Column 594

enormously. If crossing oneself and having deep spiritual values is productive in football, our coach needs to be told.

I am much more interested in the issue of moral values and of whether it is true that those of us who have felt it our duty as parents to inculcate moral values in our children are somehow failing as compared with parents who say that the schools must do that. I honour my late father and mother because that is the right thing; I do not honour them because it is in the Bible or the Ten Commandments. I do not covet my neighbour's wife because it is in the Bible but because it is the right moral position to take. I think that we are discussing largely similar issues in this debate.

I shall certainly not get involved with Northern Ireland. I hope that I may be excused for not being a pundit on Northern Ireland.

Except for some extreme American religious fundamentalists who wish to use it as a way of getting creationism back in schools, I know of no Americans—as a graduate of an American university, I know hundreds if not thousands of Americans—who wish to have the religious schools set-up that we have.

As I have said before, including in Committee, I think, nothing that I have said should undermine my view, or anyone else's view, of the role that the Churches have played in education. The Churches were concerned about the poor in this country and their education long before almost anyone else. They have no apologies whatsoever to make on that subject. However, that was then and this is now. The situation is similar in relation to the role in education played by the trade unions and mechanics' institutes. People like me probably were educated more and studied more in the public libraries than at home because we did not have a quiet room at home in which to study. So although many different institutions contributed to education in this country, that does not mean that that is how we have to continue.

I had intended to divide the House on the matter in order to be in a minority, as I thought, of one or possibly two. Since virtually no one else has said a word in support of the amendment, and since other noble Lords intend to soldier on for at least another two or three hours, I do not think that I should divide the House. An inner voice is still telling me, "Divide, it is your moral responsibility". None the less I shall overcome it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it may have been a slip of the tongue or perhaps I did not hear him properly, but I thought he said that he did not covet his neighbour's wife because it said so in the Bible; he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Lord Peston: Yes, my Lords, I must have failed English at some point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

17 Jun 2002 : Column 595

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 9, line 39, after "education" insert "provided by an institution within the higher education sector"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can be brief in dealing with Amendment No. 32, which is a small but important amendment. When it was discussed in another place the Minister got it all wrong and promised to go away and think about it. So far as I know, nothing has transpired from that.

Clause 13 in Part 2 gives the Secretary of State power to fund a number of items set out in subsection (2). Subsection 2(c) includes,

"enabling any person to undertake any course of education, or any course of higher education provided by an institution within the further education sector".

We agree. We think that that is the right thing to do. We know now that there is an increasing incidence of higher education courses being carried out in further education colleges. Clearly, they need to be funded. I have no quarrel with that. Clause 13(3) states that the Secretary of State may not fund,

"higher education, and 'educational' shall be construed accordingly".

One cannot, on the one hand, say that,

"higher education provided by an institution within a further education sector"

can be funded, and then say that higher education cannot be funded. The distinction is that higher education in further education can be funded in that way, but higher education provided by an institution within the higher education sector is funded by another means.

The Minister in her reply to me stated:

"We have found, as the noble Baroness rightly said, [that is me] our current powers for funding the Higher Education Funding Council for England—in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992—to be fully adequate, and do not see the need to make changes there".

But in her reply to me—I having said that I thought that what the noble Baroness was saying was contradictory—she said:

"I shall try. In subsection (2)(c) the first occurrence of 'education' does not include higher education".

In subsection (2)(c) it does include higher education, but it includes higher education as taught in further education institutions. She goes on to say,

"but subsection (2)(c)",

which is the same subsection,

"also makes explicit reference to higher education, which is therefore an omission".—[Official Report, 7/5/02; col. 1129.]

So I am totally confused by her answer to me. But I think that there has to be a proper distinction made between higher education as taught in a further education institution and the second reference to higher education, which I believe is provided by an institution within the higher education sector. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady, Blatch has pursued this issue, quite rightly, both in Committee and again today against a background where she indicated matters were less than

17 Jun 2002 : Column 596

clear after the Bill had passed through the other place. Therefore, we need to address the issue in some detail here.

Let me make the obvious point that after the Committee stage, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, recognises, there was a significant development; namely, my noble friend Lady Ashton wrote to her in an effort to address directly the issues raised in Committee and to provide what we regard as being the definitive response to the anxieties. But clearly it was not definitive enough to settle the mind of the noble Baroness about this matter. I shall try, therefore, to do so again this evening.

We seek to clarify the position relating to higher education. The amendment would not clarify the issue but would make it infinitely more difficult. The amendment would make a substantial change, widening the coverage of Clause 13. We set out to ensure that Clause 13 covered only some specific areas of overlap between schools or further education and higher education. Those areas were the continuing professional development of teachers and support for people undertaking higher education courses at a further education institution. We have not sought to go any further than those two categories, and there is no need to take the funding power into the realms of higher education beyond those precise areas of overlap. If we did, we would have several significant difficulties, which I shall identify in a moment.

Following the discussion in Committee on the drafting of the clause, we examined it again to ensure that it covered the areas that we intended. We are confident that it does so. Clause 13(3) introduces a general exclusion of higher education. Subsections (2)(c) and (2)(g) modify that general exclusion in a precise way to include higher education provided in an institution in the further education sector and all training for teachers. Those are exactly the two areas that we seek to exclude from the general inhibition about higher education. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that the clause does that.

We have no intention of extending the funding power to include other aspects of higher education. The amendment would do that and would bring into the public remit additional funds allocated to the private sector of higher education. I reassure the House that that is not our intention. The intention behind the clause is straightforward. We need specific exclusions from higher education because we have those two specifically targeted areas. The clause is drafted accurately on that basis. If the noble Baroness accepts the argument that it is proper that we should make those restrictions, as we intend, I can assure her that the clause is drafted to do that.

10 p.m.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept absolutely the way in which the Government wish to fund higher education. I accept absolutely that the Government wish to fund higher education that takes place in a further education institution; that is included in subsection 2(c).

17 Jun 2002 : Column 597

It was interesting that, when the Minister gave a lay person's description of what he meant, he said that other aspects of higher education were not included. That is exactly my point. I want the words on the page to mean what the Minister says. The provisions of subsection 2(c) represent a modification, as we now have instances of higher education courses being taught in further education institutions. However, the Minister referred to other aspects; I do not care whether that means other aspects of higher education or higher education in institutions other than further education institutions. As it stands, the clause says:

"does not include higher education".

It does include higher education; it includes higher education provided in further education colleges. Either the clause should read,

"other aspects of higher education",

or, using the wording in my amendment,

"provided by an institution within the higher education sector".

The Minister is right about what the Government intend to do, but the words in the Bill do not reflect it accurately.

I shall return to this at Third Reading. I hope that the Minister will see the point that I make. "Higher education" refers to higher education; and higher education in a further education college is higher education. Therefore the wording on the face of the Bill is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [Repeal of specific grant-making powers]:

[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

---