Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not clear from what she has said so far quite what it is that those of us who support the amendment have not understood. I wonder whether she can confirm that all the teachers' unions and, I believe, the education officers who have been consulted by the Government are of the view that the children of asylum seekers would do better in mainstream schools. The Minister has told us many of the strengths of her education system. Could not those strengths be extended to children in the accommodation centres, not least at a time when it is recognised that they would benefit greatly from many of the strengths of the system that the Minister has so eloquently described?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issue for us is about children in transition. We are not talking about children given leave to stay here remaining in accommodation centres. As I see it, some of the misunderstandings have been based on the assumption that this is a segregated system for children for a long period of time. This is about the children who do not yet know whether they will be granted leave to remain in this country. As soon as they do know—

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am not aware that anyone who has taken part in the debate has stated the belief that they will be there for a long time. The noble Baroness listened to the debate on the previous amendment, which made clear our view that it should be otherwise.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but having listened to the way in which this was described, it certainly came across to me that people have a misunderstanding of exactly whom we are describing. However, I accept the noble Earl's point and I shall not pursue it. I am suggesting that we are looking at a system that will support those children who are in transition and enable those who are allowed to stay in this country to enter mainstream education better equipped to deal with it.

I shall be brief; I am aware of the hour. We want to make sure that those teachers who come into the centres to work with us will be qualified teachers; and that they will use and enhance the skills that they have already obtained and be able to return and use them in

9 Oct 2002 : Column 350

other schools. We want to make sure that the schools in the accommodation centres reflect the system at large.

Ofsted will be inspecting the schools. They will be required to meet Ofsted's concerns and to be seen by Ofsted. We also want to make sure that local education authorities play a role. We are considering this carefully and discussing what it might be. For example, local education authorities may individually or in consortium take up the contract to provide education. We would not for one moment rule that out. That might address some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords. I say again to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we would expect local education authorities to assess special educational needs. They will assist the accommodation centres and decide whether a child needs to attend a special school.

It is important to point out that Clause 35 enables children to be educated outside the centre if that is felt to be the most appropriate provision for them. Noble Lords raised issues of behaviour and other policies. These are schools. The model in my mind is of a village school; it is not in any way a "camp", a word that was used several times in your Lordships' House this evening.

I want this to be a sound grounding for the future. It is not about segregation; it is about exploring and piloting. How do we best help, nurture and cherish the children who come to our country before we have decided whether they can stay here? It is about recognising that our society needs to find ways to support these children more effectively than we do now. It is about making sure that our education system supports all our children to the best of its ability. It is about making sure that children who stay arrive in a school with the best possible start. Your Lordships' House should support that.

The pilots will be evaluated, and noble Lords will watch very carefully. It would be serious if we failed to achieve what I described.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does any teachers' body or other organisation—I asked this question in my speech—support the Government's position on this?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as yet I have had no debate on the matter with the teachers' unions, because at the time that the noble Lord refers to, the policy was not as well developed as it is now. We have addressed many of the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, which I sat through and to which I listened. We have looked very carefully at those matters. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord and to return to the issue at Third Reading when we have the opportunity to do so.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that children have one chance. We must get better at supporting children who come into our country, many of whom will stay but some of whom will not. What can we best do? I leave your Lordships' House with

9 Oct 2002 : Column 351

this question: is it not appropriate that we pilot new approaches on the basis of providing children with a high-quality education that may help to support them and bring them more effectively into our mainstream education system?

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who spoke this morning on the BBC's "Today" programme. I thank them for their graciousness and thoroughness. This is a difficult issue, and the more I hear, the more I realise what a muddle we are in. Clause 34(2) states:

    "A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery".

I am not by nature someone who goes out of his way to be awkward, an assertion that I am sure my two colleagues on the Front Bench will support. I am a very peaceful, loving person, but I really do find that all this rhetoric about misunderstanding increases the amount of fog. I know that the Government are in a hurry to get a Bill through, and it seems that the policy has been made and the educational package then created to fit into it. In my own discipline of theology, that constitutes good systematic theology, but it is not very good historical or pastoral theology, because that is when theology actually meets context and people. I am sure that there are parallels in history and sociology also. A mainstream school is where young children belong, whatever their race. That is where they will learn English.

I have been travelling to Denmark every summer since I was a boy. I do not speak Danish fluently, but I can make the noises of that throat disease-type language quite convincingly. A right reverend Prelate in Danish is Deres Hjaervaerdighed—I will help the Hansard staff to get their pens around that. We learn English best by starting with it. There has been much talk tonight about special schools. I can only say to the Government that we want to hear more. My name has been on this amendment for 10 days, yet nobody asked me to come to talk to them, and I would be glad to talk to people about the matter. However, a considerable burden of communication and detail must get across to many people before the Bill as it stands will be owned by the people of this country, let alone the Members of this House.

There are many small points that I could reply to, but the hour is late. I shall end with a quotation from the Foreign Office's Annual Human Rights Report 2002. It states:

    "School segregation is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination".

With the greatest of respect, and with the greatest thanks to the Ministers for their patience with an awkward Prelate, I ask reluctantly if the opinion of the House can be tested.

8.36 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?

9 Oct 2002 : Column 352

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 2


Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bhatia, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Burnham, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chan, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Dahrendorf, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Dholakia, L.
Durham, Bp.
Falkland, V.
Fearn, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooson, L.
Hylton, L.
Jacobs, L.
Joffe, L.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Listowel, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Michie of Gallanach, B.
Moynihan, L.
Newby, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Parekh, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Portsmouth, Bp.
Redesdale, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Russell, E.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Selsdon, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Taverne, L.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Weatherill, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Winchester, Bp. [Teller]
Wolfson, L.


Acton, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Monson, L.
Nicol, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patel, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Turnberg, L.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

9 Oct 2002 : Column 353

8.47 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 9.47 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page