---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Adonis and to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on their eloquent and informed maiden speeches. I am not in any way an expert on education issues, and no doubt my contribution over the next few minutes will make that only too clear. However, not being an authority on an issue does not mean that one does not regard it as important, nor that one cannot have a view. The Government have a record of progress and achievement in education of which they can be proud, but everything is not yet as one would wish it to be. In particular, I want to comment on school discipline and levels of achievement in the basic skills. From friends in education, whose objectivity I respect, I am aware that school discipline is not just the issue it has long been, but that it has become more of an issue, albeit not to the extent that some have sought to imply in recent months. Reports and surveys have also suggested that the extent of low-level disruption in the classroom, for example, is not insignificant. Where disruption occurs it takes its toll on both the morale and enthusiasm of teachers and on the performance of pupils who want to learn and those who would if the environment were conducive to learning. We can all have a view on the causes, whether it be to place responsibility at the door of parents, teachers, the perceived relevance of some subjects studied, or of changing attitudes and values in society. The key question is what more we are going to do about disruption and when. I appreciate that a commission is being set up and that it will report later this year. I hope that when the time comes for decisions to be made, what will be paramount is the interests of the majority of pupils who either want to learn or would do so if they were not being influenced away from that goal by the activities of a small minority who disrupt for whatever reason. The quality of education received affects and determines the opportunities of young people or the opportunities that they will have in later life. We cannot stand by and see those opportunities being compromised and reduced for hundreds of thousands of children by the activities of a small minority, irrespective of the fact that the reasons why they disrupt are probably due to influences or factors over which they have had no control. I appreciate that there are already some arrangements for removing from the classroom or from the school those who seriously disrupt. The question is whether they are effective and whether they are being applied enough. I know that these arrangements vary, but where the remedy is simply to move a pupil who disrupts from one school to another similar school to carry on as before, that does not seem to achieve anything. Spreading or moving the problem around is not much of a solution. It certainly is not a solution either for the pupils who cause disruption. The consequences of not addressing their needs effectively are potentially serious both for the pupils in question and for the community as a whole. Those who disrupt, for whatever reason, are more likely to finish their time in the educational system with limited basic skills, limited opportunities ahead in life and probably a sense of failure and rejection despite the bravado that they sometimes seek to display. Somehow we have to get such pupils back on the right road, and we have to do it through means and channels that do not jeopardise the educational opportunities and chances of those who are receptive to the teaching they receive. I hope that the commission will provide some answers; albeit I suspect that those answers, if they are to be effective, may require considerable extra resources. I hope that the working group will also provide some effective short-term remedies since today’s pupils cannot wait for the longer-term ones. My understanding, which I accept may be wrong, is that in terms of those achieving higher educational standards we compare favourably with other European countries, but this is not the case when it comes to the percentage who lack basic standards of educational achievement. Those who disrupt are likely to be among the low achievers as well as those whom their activities have adversely influenced. Poor educational achievement increases the likelihood of being unemployed long-term and with it the associated problems and temptations created by lack of financial resources. Failure to achieve basic educational standards is also a waste of a human resource and makes it more likely that for those affected life will be rather nearer an existence than a journey of purpose and enjoyment. There are also implications for the wider community. The causes of crime are many, but a significant percentage of those in prison are of low educational achievement and have previously had lengthy periods of unemployment, with all the associated difficulties that can flow from that. For a substantial majority of the prison population, the number of jobs that they are capable of carrying out on release is low. Providing opportunities for prisoners to improve basic educational skills in order to enhance their prospects of securing employment on release is a vital activity and an important part of the programme for reducing reoffending rates. Where inmates have spent their childhood years in this country, they are people who either did not or could not respond to the opportunities provided by the educational system, or people whom the educational system failed and whom the prison system is seeking to deliver, depending on which way we want to look at it. However, the message is clear. Continuing to increase the percentage of children who achieve the basic educational standards applicable to their age is crucial and must be the priority. The consequences of not doing so will be felt not just by the pupils themselves in later life but by society as a whole, since there is a connection between educational achievement—or rather, lack of it—and the likelihood of being sucked into at least a period of crime. It is also why school discipline is important, since disruption in the school, including low-level disruption, adversely affects levels of educational achievement, not just for the disrupters themselves but for all those pupils whose learning opportunities and thus chances in life may be adversely affected by the activities of those who disrupt. I appreciate that the response to my points will be that steps have already been announced to seek further effective rather than knee-jerk ways of addressing school discipline. However, I hope that the issue and that of further improving levels of attainment relevant to age in basic educational skills will continue to be pursued with vigour and urgency.