| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House the Government's prejudice against selection of children by ability?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are clear that selection by ability at age 11 left us with a number of problems. First, children who were not selected to go to grammar schools experienced a great sense of failure. Secondly, and more importantly, they did not have the educational opportunities that were open to grammar school students. In general, they did not have the opportunity to study for A-levels and to go to university unless, by chance, they opted out of the system. That makes no sense for individuals but, more importantly, it makes no sense for the economy of this country. If we are to compete in the global economy that we see before us, we must raise the standard of education of every person in this country to the highest possible level both
for their personal fulfilment and for our economic fulfilment. That is why we are prejudiced against selection at age 11.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it must be the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the research work of Professor David Jesson. That work has indicated that, where children feel that their school is special in some sense, they perform better. That helps to support the noble Baroness's contention that specialist schools have some advantage. Nevertheless, is she also aware of Professor Jesson's work which shows that, the greater the variety of schools in a particular neighbourhood, the greater the social segregation of those schools? Therefore, why are the Government persisting in creating such a diversity of provision with advanced specialist schools, beacon schools and city academies in such neighbourhoods, when that will only create greater social segregation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Professor Jesson's work is an important contribution to the debate. I pay tribute to all the work that he has done over many years. In developing a system which thus far has created success for 50 per cent of our young people at the age of 16 or thereabouts in gaining five grades A to C at GCSE, we still have a situation where 50 per cent of our children do not attain to a level that we would like to see. Therefore, in considering what to do next, it is right and proper that we ask how we can make schools develop further. As head teachers have said to me when I have discussed this matter with them at secondary level, this is an opportunity for schools to move forward, to create specialisms and to label themselves not only as regards their similarities in offering excellence across the spectrum of ability but also as regards developing their differences and using those to help every young person in our school system.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does not the recent speech by the Prime Minister and the apparent change of attitude by the Government show that, with hindsight, they now recognise the grave damage which their assault on grammar schools and the removal of the assisted places scheme have done over the years? Does she accept that the victims of those policies were the bright children from poorer backgrounds who missed the opportunities available to them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe it is probably the case that many bright children from poorer backgrounds did not attain well because, on the basis of one test at age 11, it was decided that they could not attain any further. As the noble Lord will be aware, I rarely make any kind of party-political point, but I understand that more grammar schools were abolished under the Conservative government than was the case under the Labour Government.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, within the variety of schools that have been, or may be, established, none will carry the label "sink schools"—a label applied to some not very long ago?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. I believe that all noble Lords across the House—it is always my intention to unite the House and not divide it—will accept that we must move forward and ensure that every child who goes to a school receives the best possible education. We must also recognise that children's development is differential: they grow up and mature at different rates. We must ensure that our system is adaptable enough to give them the best possible opportunity at every stage of their lives.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Minister's officials given thought to the European experience, where differentiation of schools exists? That seems to suit people. Has she noticed that plumbers in Germany and Denmark put their qualifications on the side of their lorries? Vocational education is respected there. The comprehensive system has not respected vocational education and the Minister should give attention to that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I would consider that the grammar school system gave attention to vocational education. However, I agree with the noble Lord that vocational education is very important. That is why we introduced vocational GCSEs. It is also why, as I have said previously in your Lordships' House, it is important that we ensure that people who choose a vocational route—as I have said before, I include doctors in that—feel that they are pursuing a route as worthy and important as any other.
Urban Foxes
3.16 p.m.
Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What advice they will give to people living in urban areas whose gardens are overrun by foxes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise that urban foxes can present problems for people with gardens. Responsibility for fox control rests with property owners and occupiers, who may, of course, engage pest-control contractors to undertake the work. DEFRA's leaflet, Urban Foxes, provides advice to householders. It concentrates on preventing and reducing problems by, for example, housing pets securely, storing rubbish properly, the use of repellents and physical exclusion. As a last resort, foxes may legally be trapped in humane cages and humanely dispatched.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the current situation borders on the farcical? Foxes are being trapped in north London and released in south London. The DEFRA advice to which the noble Lord referred encompasses the building of electrified fences and detailed Boy's Own-type instructions for building elaborate cages. DEFRA has an ongoing dispute with the RSPCA about whether foxes should be trapped and released in the wild. Will the Government now sort out this muddle by issuing clear guidelines to local authorities in order to provide effective management of foxes in areas where local residents demand it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, prime responsibility for the control of all vermin, both rural and urban, rests with the occupier, householder or landowner. That is the case in relation to urban gardens and foxes. As to whether foxes are being transported against their will from north to south London, I am not sure. I believe that if I were a fox in north London, the leafy plains and delicious food in Dulwich would probably attract me without the need for me to be put into a cage.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that foxes are being transported—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend does not call in the hunt as that would cause the damage, upset and tremendous distress that is caused in rural areas when 50 hounds and their followers invade rural gardens in pursuit of their quarry.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when leaving my office late the other night I observed an urban fox in Smith Square outside the headquarters of DEFRA. I do not know whether it thought it was safe there. It struck me that the burghers of Westminster and Kensington probably would not favour the hunt coming across their pleasant gardens in order to destroy such vermin. The problem needs to be taken seriously, but is a question of pest control rather than legislation or government action.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that foxes are being transported from urban areas to rural areas in considerable quantities? I believe that that is an illegal activity and would ask the Minister to condemn it here and now to your Lordships' House. It is not only unfair to the urban fox finding itself in circumstances in which it cannot cope; it is also unfair to those managers of the countryside who have to deal with it and who, I can assure the House, have enough problems already.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not our advice that foxes should be transported from one area to another, whether from urban to rural areas or from north to south London. That is not a sensible way of trying to control foxes. As regards whether the problem is greater in rural or urban areas, statistics do not bear
that out. However, the general indications are that urban fox populations are growing faster than rural fox populations, principally because they know where they can have access to food. It is important that we recognise that we are now dealing with foxes which are used to different kinds of habitat.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |