---

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that was a topsy-turvy answer. During debate on the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Baroness told us that unauthorised absences totalled a mere 0.7 per cent. The number of authorised absences—those authorised by the schools—is 800 per cent greater. Therefore, the problem relates to authorised absences. Who is authorising them?

The noble Baroness said that one problem was that parents did not take the issue seriously. We have heard and read about truancy sweeps, which have been very successful. However, we have only been told about absences involving parents walking around shopping areas with their children and other absences involving activities totally unrelated to education which the parents condone. If that is the case, and if such absences form part of the 6.5 per cent, then who is authorising them? The schools must be doing so.

If the Government were really addressing the problem, they would do something about defining "authorised" and "unauthorised" absences, but they have completely left that issue aside. The Secretary of State is simply sitting in Whitehall and taking a power to set a target for each individual school.

My particular objection to the provision is that I believe that responsibility and accountability for what a school does should be vested in the governing body and the staff of the school. As I said when I spoke to the amendment, the issue of incremental targets to improve the attendance of children is a matter for the schools. It is a day-to-day management tool of schools. We are trying to get away from the situation where "Whitehall knows best" and where Whitehall becomes involved in the day-to-day management of schools. I believe that such issues are a matter for the schools.

I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not consider that this is an issue for them and that they are satisfied with what the Government say. I believed that they would have agreed that this was a matter for schools and not for someone sitting in Whitehall. We know that the Secretary of State for Education has many issues on her plate at present. Frankly, I am surprised that she is concerning herself with the direct management of schools and setting individual attendance targets for them. Indeed, the fact that the Secretary of State is indulging in setting individual targets below 100 per cent presupposes that she is

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1365

dealing with the minutiae of individual schools. Where are the civil servants who will become involved in those minutiae in the department?

I believe that there should be an overall target of 100 per cent and that all schools should aim for that. The setting of incremental targets in order to aspire to that overall target should be a matter for schools and governing bodies. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

3.27 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Biffen, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carrington, L.
Chalfont, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craig of Radley, L.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cuckney, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Flather, B.
Fookes, B.
Freeman, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Habgood, L.
Hanham, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holderness, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussey of North Bradley, L.
Inge, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
McFarlane of Llandaff, B.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Montrose, D.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Noakes, B.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Parkinson, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Prior, L.
Rawlings, B.
Reay, L.
Renton, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Rogan, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Thatcher, B.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Vivian, L.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Warnock, B.
Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhatia, L.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Erroll, E.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Geraint, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hardy of Wath, L.
Haskel, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hooson, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Islwyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Jones, L.
Jordan, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lipsey, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McCarthy, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Nicol, B.
Northover, B.
Orme, L.
Palmer, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Perry of Walton, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Quirk, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Russell, E.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
St. Albans, Bp.
Sandberg, L.
Sandwich, E.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sheldon, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stallard, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Walmsley, B.
Weatherill, L.
Whitty, L.
Wigoder, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1367

3.37 p.m.

Clause 60 [Power to require LEA to obtain advisory services]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 40, line 38, at beginning insert "following consultation with the local education authority,"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are both linked to Clause 60, which gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene and direct a local education authority to bring in external service operators to run a school or a group of schools when such schools have been shown to have serious weaknesses or to be in need of special measures. The Secretary of State may intervene only when he or she is of the view that insufficient progress has been made in eliminating the deficiencies in a weak or failing school, and that the LEA of its own volition is unlikely to act, or when the LEA has a disproportionate number of schools in that position. External partners may be successful schools; successful LEAs; further or higher education institutions; or public, private or voluntary bodies. Their job will be to provide advice to the LEA and/or the school governors.

The two amendments, both of which we moved in Committee, are slightly different in their two provisions. However, we tabled them in order to make good what we believe are deficiencies currently on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 102 makes clear that, before taking the decision to send in external partners, the Secretary of State must have exhausted the route of internal discussion with the LEA. For the Secretary of State to take those powers is yet another centralising act, undermining the position of the local education authority. It should be the local education authority which acts in such cases. An intervention by the Secretary of State must be an act of last resort. Indeed, that was made clear in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee. As we argue here, it would be essential for the Secretary of State, first, to consult with the local education authority in order to assess what the LEA is doing or is proposing to do in such a situation. He stated:

"There are only two possible instances when the power could be required. First, when an LEA is preparing an action plan following an Ofsted inspection which has judged a school as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures, it may be necessary to require the LEA to involve external support where action is clearly necessary and the authority has no plans to take such action. Alternatively, a direction may be necessary later in the process if it becomes clear that an LEA's recovery plan is not working.

In either case, we shall have been working closely with the LEA in question".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 989.]

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1368

The amendment seeks to put the process of consultation on the face of the Bill. Given the assurance that in all cases there will be close consultation with LEAs, it seems sensible for that to be included on the face of the Bill as reassurance to local authorities. The matter is rather crudely and toughly stated in the Bill.

Amendment No. 103 makes it clear that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for laying down guidance on specifications for such contracts. The contracts will have substantial financial consequences for the LEA. In circumstances when the Secretary of State has intervened, it is right that, where there are local council tax implications, council taxpayers should recognise that the council is acting on the instructions and under the guidance of the Secretary of State.

In Committee, the Minister was quite clear that not only would that happen in exceptional cases but that it would be in conjunction with the local authority and that there would be some agreement. He referred to his own borough, Haringey, where the Secretary of State stepped in and insisted that external contractors were brought in to help run educational services in the borough. The big PFI in Haringey has not been entirely successful. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the recent report produced by the Rowntree Foundation about the Haringey PFI and the difficulties that it is causing. That is all the more reason where there are financial implications that it should be made clear to council tax payers that ultimately it was the Secretary of State who was responsible for requiring such levels of expenditure. I beg to move.

---