| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is a degree of flexibility within the budgets now within schools which enables teachers to be paid differentially, if that is what schools want. I take the point made by the noble Lord. From memory, I believe that figures show that the number of science teachers is increasing. However, in certain disciplines within science we are not seeing the inroads we should like. I suspect that the noble Lord referred to one such discipline. I think also of the Roberts report in that regard.
We shall match the increased investment in the science budget by a significant increase in HEFCE's recurrent funding for university research. That is an important part of the spending review. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury and I are working closely together. As noble Lords may be aware from a recent announcement, we have extended science year for a further year, which will perhaps become, "science year plus one", in order to begin to develop for our secondary schools in particular curriculum-wide new methods and techniques. We are working with our best teachers carefully to consider mentoring roles, the role of business in supporting our young scientists and the important issue of the recruitment and retention of science teachers, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what is my noble friend's response to the accusations made today
and, indeed, during our education debates in recent weeks that the Government are deliberately seeking to reduce the role and work of local education authorities? The financial aspect is perhaps of most importance.From time to time there have been specific examples of the newly proposed forums in which LEA representatives are barred from taking part. It would seem to me, perhaps because of my age and experience, that members of LEAs have an important and particular role to play. I am a little concerned that the contributions made by LEAs over many years should now be diminished or, indeed, in some cases abolished. I hope that my noble friend will say something positive about that criticism.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, during the passage of the Education Bill I spent much time trying to reassure noble Lords and, indeed, put it on the face of the Bill—I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree that it is now on the face of the Bill in several places—that local education authorities have a key role to play. There is no question but that they have a vital and continuing role to play in education. However, individually they do not manage schools.
We have to consider the relationship between schools and local and central government. That has always been a dynamic and, dare I say, on occasions shifting relationship which needs to be constantly monitored if we are to ensure that it works effectively. The increase of 3.5 per cent will go through local education authorities. We have announced direct payments to schools in some cases. We believe that it is appropriate for it to be done in that way. However, local education authorities continue to play a vital role within schools and our education system. In my view, that role is not diminished but may change over time, as all good relationships should.
Noble Lords who may have watched what happened in another place last night will know that we thought long and hard about how to ensure that local education authorities are involved with our schools forums. Part of their purpose has always been to provide the opportunity for schools to understand the role of local education authorities as much as for local education authorities to be involved in schools. That is an important and continuing role.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare the same interest that I declared yesterday; that is as deputy chairman of the council of the University of London. When I asked then about the restoration and renewal of our world-class universities, I was reminded about research spending but otherwise referred to today's Statement. In the past year the research assessments have not been fully funded. Is there anything else the Minister can say about universities in advance of the autumn strategy statement, the delay of which has so far been unexplained?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that the statement referred to by the noble
Lord, Lord Brooke, has been delayed. We promised to put forward a strategy statement which will encompass the range of issues across higher education. Noble Lords involved in universities have been asking for that for some time. I have often been challenged about our desire to have 50 per cent of young people by the age of 30 involved in higher education and the consequences and implications of that for the university sector.The purpose behind the strategy statement is to think more broadly about the way forward on that issue. I hope that noble Lords will welcome that. However, I recognise that many noble Lords involved in universities will want to see substantial statements made at that time in order to encompass the different issues raised. We are obviously committed to the targets we set ourselves. We expect the Comprehensive Spending Review to be good news for our universities and students. I look forward to being able to give much more detail to noble Lords at that time.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and wonder whether she can expand a little on two aspects. First, have decisions been taken about the geographical spread of the specialist schools and the advanced schools? Secondly, I refer to the question of zero tolerance of bad behaviour. The effect on schools of disruptive behaviour has been mentioned several times and is important. Is it too early to ask about the kind of measures that will be considered to deal with disruptive behaviour?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have not yet made decisions about the geographical spread of schools. However, we hope to ensure that areas of the country have the opportunity to come forward. That is particularly pertinent in our rural communities, where we are in discussion. As noble Lords will be aware, schools are in discussion with each other about specialist schools status. In Stevenage, for example, the seven secondary schools are discussing a collaborative model of specialist school, and such discussion is common. We shall ensure that the specialist schools that come into existence represent our country and that schools in more challenging circumstances will not feel that they cannot participate.
As regards zero tolerance of bad behaviour, our learning support units have been a success. That is why I made clear in the Statement that every school that needs a learning support unit will be able to have one on site, providing opportunities to work with young people and keep them within the school. It is also important to remind the House of the important work done by pupil referral units and educational psychologists, and of the way in which we have now moved to ensure that any child who is permanently excluded from school is still in full-time education. From September next that will be a requirement across all education authorities, which are working well towards that. That is important.
Enterprise Bill
4.28 p.m.
Schedule 1 [The Office of Fair Trading]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 191, line 5, leave out "a" and insert "an independent"
The Minister will not need reminding that in its submission at an earlier time the BRC welcomed the proposal to establish the OFT as the statutory authority; called for guidelines to distinguish between day-to-day and strategic matters; and supported a degree of flexibility in the structure and size of the board with a minimum and maximum number of voting members to be specified in the legislation. to avoid expanding the board as a way of changing the general tenor of its decisions. It is envisaged that co-opted, non-voting members will provide additional expertise and a majority of outsiders.
As the Minister and Members of the Committee are aware, at present the Bill provides for a chairman and at least four other members. The members may be removed only for incapacity or misbehaviour, which, to some extent, covers the concerns over the nature of the board being changed. During the consultation period, the BRC certainly advised the Minister in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the idea that the Director-General of Fair Trading should automatically chair the board, and called for an independent chairman. It also called for board members with experience and a reasonable balance of experience and interests to be represented on the board.
Having given the Committee that outline explanation, I simply want to point out that the intention behind these amendments is to try to tackle what one might call the "governance" of the new arrangements. The idea of an independent chairman has been proposed as an alternative to leaving this as an option and appointing the Director-General of Fair Trading as chairman which, I understand, is the current intention. It would remove officials from the OFT board, leaving them the option of being co-opted and thereby retaining the possibility of sitting on working groups and sub-committees.
The amendments tabled in my name seek to limit the maximum number of board members to avoid the possibility of the board being expanded if its decisions
are not acceptable to the Secretary of State. We are really talking about four, five, or six members, though the intended number under the Bill is four. Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert reference to a number "no greater than six", and there is a further amendment in this group tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which proposes that instead of four members there should be six. These are matters of judgment and of experience.The amendments tabled in my name are what I call "benign". Others would call them "probing" amendments; in other words, they are not intended to damage the Bill. The intention is to seek from the Minister some assurance that the fears and concerns that I have expressed may very well be unfounded. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 3A, which is tabled in my name, has been included in this grouping. I must say that I find myself in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has just said. In particular, I believe that it is most important to emphasise the independence of the chairman because the heart of this Bill is the creation of a body that is free from political interference.
My amendment seeks to expand the board from four to six members, simply because I believe that four is too small a number. There is a danger that this provision could be too narrowly drawn and, possibly, too introverted. When the matter was raised in debate in another place, the Minister said, "We've put down four, but we always expect to have more than four". I never like that kind of response; indeed, I never feel very happy about it. If we want to have more than four members, it seems to me that we should have more than four and that the Bill should specify that number.
We are talking about a body with a strategic function that is very important to British industry. When we deal later with Amendment No. 14, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, we shall no doubt discuss its function and its approach. However, it definitely needs to command public respect and confidence. In my view, a board of four members is insufficiently widely drawn to be able to achieve that aim.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page