Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, clearly, the Statement has been produced because there have been real problems in schools and local authorities. Because of such problems all the formulas that Members find difficult to understand are contained here. It seems to me that what should be done at decent speed is for between 12 and 20 schools to have their budgets for the current year considered, for this document to be applied to them and for it to be shown how it will affect different schools. I refer to large schools, small schools, primary and secondary schools within different local authorities. People would then have an understanding of how the formula would work in relation to their school. Can the Minister achieve that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is local flexibility for school governors and local authorities. Elements of flexibility need to be taken account which are dependent on local decisions, as is entirely proper in our education system. Certainly, we could draw up an example using two or three schools to indicate what this will mean to them. We cannot do that for every school in the country; it is not our role to do so. This is contingent on decisions which they take. As I tried to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the Statement contains good news for headteachers because the issues of underfunding are being addressed and resources are being made available.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I suggest that this is needed so that people know that it is good news.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was extremely apposite. We shall not know whether this is a good Statement until we hear the reaction of headteachers and local authorities. As someone who was chairman of a local education committee, albeit a long time ago, I know that school funding is complicated. It is based on extremely complicated formulae. For the first time in my recollection the

29 Oct 2003 : Column 282

Secretary of State has given a full account of what he has done. He has had to do that because of the muddle that schools have been in. Teachers need to know quickly what their situation will be.

It seems to me that one statement made by the Minister regarding the fall in numbers was hugely significant. He said that rolls had dropped by 50,000 this year and will drop by another 50,000 next year. I expect that that will be cumulative. That drop in numbers will move year by year into secondary schools and there will be huge problems in funding. If we remember, the last time that school rolls fell, which was in the 1970s, the cost of the school remained the same but the number of pupils and the funding per pupil fell. So one hopes that anticipation of those problems is built into this Statement. I do not imagine that the noble Lord will be able to tell us whether that is so, but it would be absolutely essential.

I have one question for the noble Lord. Of the 4 per cent per pupil added on top of what had already been promised and the 5.5 per cent—I believe that that figure was mentioned—for other costs in the school, how much will be used up in salaries?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on the last point, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, as the noble Baroness will recognise, inevitably a substantial part of any school's budget—80 per cent for an average school—is used for staff costs. That is a significant element in its budget. We have taken account in the 4 per cent figure of expected additional staffing costs which will flow from the eventual settlement made by the teachers' salary review board.

On the more general issue of the very diffuse and difficult world of effective planning ahead, of the few figures given probably one is of school numbers. They fluctuate, but nevertheless we were able to anticipate that there would be 50,000 fewer pupils in junior schools. As the noble Baroness indicated, that reduction will flow through the system in due course.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government's Statement is presented as an increase in expenditure to enable education authorities to balance their budgets more effectively and equitably. Is there any hope in the mind of the Government that nationwide there may be particular enhanced educational opportunities flowing from this expenditure? Perhaps I may make a specific inquiry, on which I would be happy to hear subsequently. Does the Minister anticipate that as a result of this there will be any increase in the availability of musical instruments being taught in schools?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord has identified an area which has caused great concern in the past. We know about the enormous drop in the teaching of music in schools with the reduction of expenditure, both on full-time teachers employed in schools and peripatetic music teachers. I can say only that we are seeking to ensure that the education budgeting by schools and by local authorities will have far fewer problems than last year.

29 Oct 2003 : Column 283

We have increased the amount of money available. The decisions on whether that then is reflected in particular areas, such as the one on which the noble Lord expressed interest, is of course a matter for local decision. But I agree with him: it is an area for concern. I think that that view is shared widely in the community and in local authorities—and schools respond to community needs.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what clearly is a considerable sum of extra money. It is difficult to understand how it has all been organised and cut for the different branches of the education system. The Minister has already indicated that special educational needs will have special attention. But what proportion of the extra money will be allocated to educationally deprived areas where—I would certainly argue—the cost of educating children is probably double the cost in other better equipped areas?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks with considerable authority about these issues. I agree that they are important priorities. The Statement refers to the ethnic minority grant. It recognises that schools with a large number of ethnic minority students for whom often English is not the first language are an important priority. They need extra resources. That is why we are seeking to ensure that such resources are targeted. I very much agree with her.

The issue with regard to special educational needs is very much a decision for each local education authority. I can only attest to the fact that some of our difficulties last year were a reflection of some local authorities showing such a significant commitment to this group as to incur levels of investment and expenditure which is difficult to match year on year. We are ensuring that we do not see that figure drop, but we cannot expect enhancement at quite the level that occurred in some areas last year.

Criminal Justice Bill

4.16 p.m.

Report received.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:

    Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

The provisions of the following sections shall not apply to persons under the age of 18—
(a) section 4;
(b) section 6;
(c) section 8; and
(d) section 9."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

29 Oct 2003 : Column 284

We now reach the Report stage of this controversial Bill. The Marshalled List is littered with a vast number of government amendments. Sadly, the vast majority of those amendments are not in response to concerns expressed in Committee. The only exception to that observation relates to Part 9, and I generally welcome those amendments. Time is now running out for the Government to reach agreement on the Bill. We must all hope that they use that time wisely.

I turn to Amendment No. 1. Its purpose is to invite the Government to put their position in Part 1 on the record with regard to children. Some of the provisions of the Bill that we believe should not in some circumstances be applied to those under the age of 18 include, for example, Clause 4, involving the matter of street bail, Clause 6, entitled,

    "Limits on period of detention without charge",

and Clauses 8 and 9, which are about taking fingerprints and non-intimate samples without consent.

We shall of course turn much later to the serious matter of whether young persons under the age of 18 should be subject to the mandatory sentences for murder in Schedule 19.

I have included these particular clauses in the amendment so that the Government can tell the House at the start of our deliberations what kind of response they will make to the serious objections that came from around the Committee about their plans for children.

I am aware that since Committee the Government have had some very constructive meetings with the Children's Society on these matters. Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I had a meeting with the Minister on the same issues. I hope that today she will be able to put forward some proposals that satisfy the House on these matters.

The response of the noble Baroness may mean that we can reduce the amount of time that would otherwise be needed for debate on this part. In particular, I would welcome an explanation of the guidance that will operate in respect of those under 18, and whether the Government have received an assurance from the Children's Society that the drafting of the guidance is now acceptable.

I have some additional questions on street bail. I have been requested by the Children's Society to put these questions to the noble Baroness. What arrangements have the Government made with regard to guidance on street bail as it affects young people? What alternative ways of policing low-level offending do the Government propose? Does the Minister accept that this could lead to a reduction in the need to use street bail at all? Is it really necessary for the whole arrest process to be completed for young persons? Does the Minister accept that it could be effective for young people to be taken home and given time to attend the police station with their parents or guardians? I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page