House of Lords Podcast: secondary education and integrating care

Listen or subscribe:

• Listen online
• Apple podcasts
• Spotify
• See a full list of podcast platforms

In this episode

We speak to Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble about how Lords committees work, plus we hear from two new committees on their investigations into education for 11-16 year olds and integrating primary and community care.

Next we speak to Baroness Pitkeathley, Chair of the new Lords Integration of Primary and Community Care Committee. She explains what the challenge is, why the committee is looking into it now and what they hope to find out.

Then we speak to Lord Baker of Dorking. Lord Baker introduced the National Curriculum in 1989 when he was Secretary of State for Education. More recently he helped proposed a new Lords Education for 11-16 year olds Committee to look into the curriculum now and how it should be changed.

 

Transcript

Amy: 

Hello, and welcome to the House of Lords Podcast. We're back with two episodes this week. In this edition we'll be finding out more about some of the new special committees that have been set up in the House of Lords. They're investigating topics including education for 11- to 16-year-olds and the integration of care. 

As you might know, committees in the House of Lords look at a variety of cross-cutting topics. There are generally four special investigative committees each year that look into a single topic over about nine or so months. First up to find out more about how committees work, I spoke to Senior Deputy Speaker, Lord Gardiner of Kimble. Later we'll hear from Baroness Pitkeathley, who's the chair of the Lords Committee on the Integration of Primary and Community Care. We'll also speak to Lord Baker of Dorking who put forward the proposal for the Lords Committee on Education for 11- to 16-year-olds. We find out why he put forward the proposal and what the committee hopes to discover in its inquiry. First up, here's Lord Gardiner to tell us more about his role as Senior Deputy Speaker and how Lords committees work. 

Lord Gardiner: 

Good morning, I'm Lord Gardiner of Kimble. I'm Senior Deputy Speaker. 

Amy: 

Lord Gardiner, thank you for joining us on the podcast. First of all, could you tell us a little bit about what your role as Senior Deputy Speaker involves? 

Lord Gardiner: 

Yes, of course. I'm a non-political office holder and a previous time the post was called Chairman of Committees. In fact, goes back to 1734. So, it's been a post that's been in existence in the House for quite a long time and it's really working with the internal administration, making sure the House runs smoothly. I chair a number of committees, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and the Committee of Selection. I sit on the Commission, the House of Lords Commission and then the client board to do with restoration and renewal and responsible for private bills here. I am on the woolsack, I deputise for the Lord Speaker and generally have a series of meetings most weeks with the principal office holders in the House. So, the party leaders, the Lord Speaker of course, the Chief Whips, the Convenor of the Crossbench, and the Convenor of the Bishops on a regular basis so that we're all ensuring that the House is running as smoothly as possible. 

Amy: 

As some may know, the House Lords is what's known as a self-regulating House. So set up is slightly different to the Commons. How does a self-regulating House decide how it's going to run itself? 

Lord Gardiner: 

Well, obviously it is a long-standing tradition of this House differently from the House of Commons. So, for instance, those of us who sit on the woolsack do not call order. We have a role to fulfill on the woolsack, but we are not there to exercise any force as it were. That would come from the government frontbench if there was a need for assistance in terms of practice or procedure. But one of the backdrops to that, of course in self-regulation is the standing orders that we have and the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which is a committee I chair as I said before, is where if there were consideration as to what would be the best way forward for the House that would come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee, they would then consider it. If they wish to report and suggest any changes, it would have to come to the House 

and the House would make that decision. So, for instance, in terms of self-regulation, clearly the House went through major changes with the arrival of COVID and going from virtual proceedings, hybrid proceedings, and then indeed the restoration back to where we were before. And all of those were important features of where the Procedure and Privileges Committee was given authority by the House, specifically by the House, to change procedures according to the health conditions of the time, which meant we were able to be fleet of foot adroit in making sure the really important work of the House of Lords continued. 

Amy: 

So, you didn't have to sort of go back to the House with each and every change during that period of time. 

Lord Gardiner: 

During that period because of the urgency the House agreed that it was much more sensible, if changes needed to be made in the interest of everyone's health and wellbeing, that would be for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to decide. Clearly, we've now gone back to where we were before with the House self-regulating and of course, what I'd say with self-regulation is an understanding of the conventions, courtesies because self-regulation does require abiding to the principles of how we proceed in a self-regulating House. 

Amy: 

As you mentioned, the Senior Deputy Speaker role, it was also known as Chairman of Committees. Could you tell us a bit about how committees are set up in the Lords? 

Lord Gardiner: 

Yes, the Liaison Committee is very key to this and indeed the House again decides eventually the proposals that come forward. But we have a structure of committees here, which are I think one of the highlights of the purpose of the House of Lords beyond the crucial role of scrutinising legislation. And that is to add to the national discourse with our sessional committees, which are permanent or until the House wishes that to be the case. And then we have special inquiry committees as well, which are usually four in a year. And we've just embarked in the last month on four new committees all made up of representation of very, very impressive members of the House. So, the Liaison Committee is where these matters start. And indeed, in the consideration of those committees, then we have another committee, the Committee of Selection, which considers the appointment to the committees and then the House by an appointments motion that I take would agree to those appointments or not. 

And so, I think we have a good balance between always taking matters to the floor of the House for members of the House of Lords to observe upon, but also for the committees to do their important work in helping the House - smooth running house, but also in the conduct of the committees. And we are very fortunate in addition to excellent members of the House who are on these committees, having exceptional people in the committee office, so that each committee has a standing team of support, which obviously brings out the best in the reports that we receive, which are for the government to respond to. There are debates and indeed follow-ups sometimes in the case of some of the special inquiry committees. 

So again, it's about offering with this immense experience. And I would say I can't think of a legislature in the world that can command some of the expertise that this House does for - if I use the example of the special inquiry committees, it's exceptional. We've got one on the use of artificial intelligence in weapon systems. We have a former chief of defence staff, a former defence secretary, someone who worked in the Ministry of Defence, an expert in ethics. That's just one example of, I think, a legislature, which provides that opportunity for the national discourse to be extended. 

Amy: 

So, House of Lords committees differ from those in the Commons in that, unlike the Commons, they're not set up to look at specific government departments, but they'll look at subject areas - cross-cutting themes. What do you think the benefit is of that system? 

Lord Gardiner: 

Well, I think first of all, it's really important that we complement each other because with the resources, well, it's important that we work to help this national discourse. But I think one of the supreme merits of the cross-departmental issues is that life is actually not just in one silo. The issues are not necessarily in one silo. So, you might have an educational matter which brings in a health matter, which brings in obviously skills, opportunities, wellbeing, all of the areas for instance that we've got, let's use the horticultural sector, which is one of our special inquiries this year. If you think about biosecurity, you think about education, you think about skills, you think about the wellbeing that people have from gardening, horticulture, employment, if you think about it, everything cuts across as an issue. Primary care and health and then the one that we've got on education and the digital and green economy, another special inquiry, all of that is going to take them across departments. 

And what we think is to have a coordinated response and consideration actually is going to be very helpful not only to perhaps the main or leading government department, but to others who are engaged in this as well. Because when you think about a cabinet committee on a subject, you have a range of different cabinet ministers from different departments because clearly subjects engage a wide range of interests. And so, I think again, in complementing the two houses, complementing, I think we've got a lot to offer. 

Amy: 

And just to pick up on the special inquiry committees, we should say those are set up for a period of a year to look at a specific issue like you said, for example the AI committee. What sort of value do you think those hold sort of in addition to our regular ongoing committees, what's the value of having ones that will just look at one specific area for a short period of time? 

Lord Gardiner: 

I think it is shining a spotlight on a particular issue. And it's really important that yes, we're using the best experience of members of the House. It's important also that we complement the work of the Commons departmental select committees, and also that they span across departmental boundary and also that we can do this within a year. So, all of those are the structure of how a special inquiry in our consideration and then the coming forward of options by members of the House. And the consideration of that, I think that candidly you need to look at the result to get the best answer to your question, which is that all the special inquiries have with their in-depth consideration of specific issues come forward with concepts and ideas, which I think are very valuable. And I think it's the case that some of those committees, it's very interesting. 

The one last year on the Fraud Act and Digital Fraud Committee, the recommendations were very well received. The Adult Social Care Committee, again, important recommendations to government, they're all part of adding, as I've said before, this word adding to the national discourse, providing government with concepts, ideas. Very often government agreeing with the proposals and recommendations, sometimes not. But I think importantly if they don't is that there is some understanding of why. Because I think that these are committees that are across the House, they comprise all parts of the House and I think they make a very considerable contribution to the work of the House. 

Amy: 

You touched on there, the Liaison Committee following up inquiries, and I think they're going to be looking at the special inquiry into the regeneration of seaside towns. How does that process work? 

Lord Gardiner: 

It's an important one because clearly what we don't want with any of our reports is that a very worthy report is reported, considered, and then doesn't go any further. So, I think it's really important to have a continuum. And what we have had in recent years is an opportunity for us to consider is there one of the special inquiries where there's been a sufficient length of time for us to reflect upon what has the government made and done with the report. And so, as you've said, actually next Monday, we're due to have that consideration of the special inquiry into the regeneration of seaside towns and communities. 

And what happens is that we have a Liaison Committee meeting in which we invite the former Chair and three other members to represent the spread of the House to come to a Liaison Committee meeting where we have evidence sessions, one of which always is with a government minister or has almost always, as far as I know, been with either one or a number of government ministers as well as other specialists in the subject. So, we are going to have three evidence sessions next Monday to consider where we are at following that report. So, it's a very important opportunity I think, to extend and then reflect on how the recommendations been taken. 

Amy: 

And you've also held government roles before becoming Senior Deputy Speaker. How did that change your work in the House? 

Lord Gardiner: 

Well, it's very interesting. You come here as a backbencher, you then go on the frontbench. And I must say the first day I sat on the frontbench, I thought, gosh, this is very close. You are very close. You are in a much closer proximity to the opposition and so forth. And then I was very privileged to be Deputy Chief Whip for a year. And then I was asked to become Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DEFRA, being Minister for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, which was a fascinating six years at DEFRA. And then coming back to the House, it was really... I found stimulating getting to working very more closely with all of the House. I worked very closely with parts of the House that were interested in DEFRA matters. But I think one of the things I most enjoy is working collaboratively with people from across the House in terms of advancing all that I think the House stands for. 

Amy: 

Do you still get a bit nervous when you're talking at the dispatch box or after this time? Is it... 

Lord Gardiner: 

No, nervousness is not how I approach it. I'm keyed up because I want to do the best for the House. And obviously, the Senior Deputy Speaker role requires that person to come to the despatch box sometimes to answer questions, to reply to debates, I am the Commission's spokesperson. So, there's a whole range of opportunities for the Senior Deputy Speaker to come to the House. I actually really enjoy the engagement, and it maybe a bit strange to say this, but I think the engagement of being in the chamber, not being frightened of anyone, but being challenged by them and then the courtesies, which are overwhelmingly undertaken by the House. It means that yes, you might have a pummeling or bruising in one sense, but overwhelmingly it's constructive. And I think the House gets at its best when there is that engagement in a courteous way. 

So yes, you can say nervous, but it's more wanting to do the best because I think if you get too nervous, you almost wouldn't be able to manage what needs to be adroit thinking as questions are coming from left and right and all over the place, sometimes very different. And you need to marshal what are the key points? That one answer the question. I do believe in answering the question. 

Amy: 

Good. That's always good. 

Lord Gardiner: 

I think it's quite a good idea. In fact it is essential in my view. I always tried to do that when I was a minister. So, I think it's really important to think what is the answer which will provide the House with the reassurance that the matter is taken seriously, that there is some response to what may be the concern that has been expressed. So, I think that clearly being in the chamber is the whole sort of fulcrum of where it all should happen. Although my job also involves a lot of predominantly committee work and meeting people outside the chamber. But yes, I like being in the chamber as well. 

Amy: 

Finally, something that we ask all of our guests, do you have a favourite or perhaps the most memorable moment from your time in the House? 

Lord Gardiner: 

There are so many. 

Amy: 

That's what everyone says. 

Lord Gardiner: 

That it is impossible. But I do remember an extraordinary debate when I was replying on behalf of DCMS and the redoubtable Lady Trumpington had a debate, an hour long debate in the evening on Bletchley Park. And of course, again, she had been at Bletchley Park during the war and then another member's mother had been there. And so, it went on and it was this extraordinary moment when you see how the membership of the House of Lords goes through all sorts of history. And so, I think that was one hour of an extraordinary experience of that. 

But I think also the privilege of being in government and at a very difficult time with obviously COVID, but then taking the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill through the House, again, I couldn't have done it without the working collaboratively with members of the House, my officials at DEFRA, the lawyers and so forth. So, I enjoy the demands of both the job I'm doing now, but the one before. And as I say, there isn't a day I don't enjoy. There are some more stressful than others, but I think it's a great privilege to be here. 

Amy: 

Absolutely. Lord Gardiner, thank you very much for joining us on the podcast today. 

Lord Gardiner: 

Well, thank you very much for having the opportunity. My first podcast I should say. 

Amy: 

And here's Baroness Pitkeathley to explain her interest in care and the work of the new committee she's chairing. 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Hello, I'm Jill Pitkeathley, Baroness Pitkeathley. I've been a member of the House of Lords since 1997, a long time. And I'm now chairing the special inquiry into Integration between Primary and Community Care. We've had about three meetings already. 

Amy: 

Baroness Pitkeathley, you are the chair of the new committee looking into the Integration of Primary and Community Care. But your experience in this area goes way beyond work in the House of Lords. First of all, could you tell us a bit about your background? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, I started out as a social worker actually, as a childcare officer, and then I became a campaigner for carers. That's to say the unpaid carers, the family, the friends, the neighbours who provide much the most amount of care in our country. Well, not just in our country, but all over the world really. And I became a campaigner for carers. I led the carers organisation and I'm still a vice president of it. So, I still speak for carers a great deal in the House of Lords. 

Amy: 

And why do you think this committee is needed now? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

You talk to anybody about trying to access their GP's services or trying to get care for their elderly relative or their child with learning disabilities. And I think it'll be obvious why this committee is needed at the moment. The most frequent thing that you hear from a patient is, why can't I get to see my doctor without waiting for a month? Why, when I see the doctor, does the community nurse not know what the doctor said to me? Why when I was discharged from hospital, did my doctor not know what they'd done to me? There's a great deal lacking in integration between those services. 

Amy: 

I suppose I should ask what in practice would the integration of primary and community care look like and what do you think are the benefits of that? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

True integration would require a complete going back to the system that was set up in 1948. So, we have to be circumspect about what my committee can recommend. What happened in 1948 is that when the health service was set up, the practical thing was that men died when they were 66, 1 year after retirement, and women died at about the age of 68. We're now dealing with a system that was set up for that kind of population with a population which bears no resemblance to that where thank heaven, the average age of death is 20 years after that, but our system doesn't really comply with it. And so, we've always had a system whereby community care was separated out from the original healthcare when GPs were set up a separate practitioners. So, we cannot recommend a complete overhaul of that system. What I think we will be able to recommend is better communication between the systems. 

Amy: 

And so, do you see that as one of the sort of key problems in this area that we have this aging population and yet the changes haven't been made to the health service to reflect that? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

That is indeed the real problem. And of course, we must remember it's not just an aging population. People with learning disabilities live very much longer than they once would've done, for example. So young people with all sorts of special needs, and then there's a whole crisis in mental health. So, there's a whole lot of people there. It's not just about the ageing population, which by the way, we should celebrate. It's great that people are living longer. 

Amy: 

And what will the committee be looking at throughout the inquiry? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, we'll be looking at how communication happens or perhaps doesn't happen between the two arms of the service. That's to say the primary care, principally your general practitioner and community care, which will be all the other services which take place, but those provided by the health service. I should point out that my committee is not going to be able to look at social care. That's too big a subject for us. But of course, the provision of social care has a huge bearing on how community care happens. 

Amy: 

And you've worked on a number of committees in the House of Lords in the past. What sort of challenges can you foresee happening coming up throughout the process for your committee? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, I think one of our principal challenges is the focus, getting a focus sufficiently limited, that we can say something important by November, but not so limited that it doesn't mean anything to anyone. So, I think that's our primary task. But I think the other thing which is going to help us in this is that we are going to focus very much on the patient experience. And that I think is going to be how we look at the services. How do these services present themselves to patients and to carers? How do they access them? What are the barriers to them? And I think that will help us keep our focus quite firm. 

Amy: 

And as you said, you've already had some sessions with external experts. What have you been hearing from witnesses so far? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, the system's a mess, basically. We have a great many people telling us what the problems are. We have much more difficulty getting them to focus on what possible solutions are. And that is what we are going to have to really concentrate on, what solutions can be offered that don't require a complete overhaul of the system? And time, and again, you hear of people bypassing the system because two people happen to get on together. They happen, you know the GPs receptionist and the community care nurse happen to get on together. They've got a good relationship and therefore they bypass the systems, they short circuit them. And that's, we want to look at how those things happen and whether they can be replicated in other circumstances. 

Amy: 

And how would you say that sort of the NHS and local authorities are currently working together in this area? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, the problem is that community care services, even those provided by the NHS, which is the ones we're looking at, have always been seen as slightly poor relation in relation to other NHS services, such as the GP services and hospital services. But integration and cooperation between local authority and the NHS is absolutely vital from the patient and carer's point of view. I mean, patients never understand why services are provided by two different people and charged and funded in completely different ways. And indeed, why should they understand that? And so, it's quite interesting that of the new integrated care boards, which have been set up specifically to look at this question of integration, only one of them has a chair from a local authority. All the rest are NHS people, absolutely dyed in the wool. 

Amy: 

And what's coming up next for the committee? 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Well, one of the things that's coming up is looking at the new systems which have just been put in place the integrated care services, the integrated care boards. We are going to have representatives from that. And we're also going to have representatives, for example, from Greater Manchester, which we understand is a service where the integration does happen quite well. And so, the Mayor of Manchester is going to give us evidence next week. 

Amy: 

Baroness Pitkeathley, it was a pleasure having you on the podcast. Thank you very much for joining us. 

Baroness Pitkeathley: 

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure too. 

Amy: 

And finally, here's Lord Baker who will explain his relationship with education in England, and what the committee's looking into.  

 

Lord Baker: 

This is Kenneth Baker. I was the Secretary for Education almost in the last century. It's a long time ago, a long, long time ago. And I've taken interest in education in the Lords, and the Lords doesn't take very much interest in education, so that's why I think this committee is so important. 

Amy: 

Lord Baker, you are on the new Lord's Committee on 11-16 Education, which is looking into the effectiveness of the curriculum in equipping young people with the skills that they need for the future. Before we talk about the committee though, could you tell us a bit about your background in education? 

Lord Baker: 

I've always taken an interest in education because reading and writing are two of the fundamental things you've got to do, and particularly reading. Reading is so important because it's the end of ignorance, and it's the way that you learn anything. And that's why there must be a huge concentration on reading and numeracy and in literacy. Read, read, read. Read almost before writing because there are more readers than writers. 

It not only is the end of ignorance, it is opening the doors of imagination to a child and to everybody. Seeing a new world, a fantasy world. Very, very important, the basics I very much believe in. 

My wife was a teacher and when I was a Secretary of Education, I listened to her very carefully. That's why it was such a good act, and they did reform education fundamentally in the 1980s. They introduced a national curriculum, which we never really had, and they introduced also the GCSEs and they did lots of other things as well. 

It was the first attempt to make schools independent to the local authorities. I started the first academies. And so I did give a very big shake-up to English education in the 1980s. The original curriculum that I announced and designed, I didn't create it myself. I set up expert teams to do each subject. 

I very much hoped, I knew there was going to be trouble in the history curriculum, because there are very strong views about how you teach history. But I thought that English and maths would be easy ones to do. But I discovered in maths that there were great feudal armies marching against each other. 

One, should you learn tables by heart? Should you do trigonometry before 16 or not? And there was lots of disputes about it and I had to try and resolve all of that. In English, I wanted a basic one that improved grammar, and so I appointed what were then days, the readers who produced the Black Papers, which were, if you like, a rather right-wing view of how English should be taught. 

I thought they would introduce rigour, but the report I had from them said, "Well, it doesn't matter if we don't spell words quite correctly, and punctuation's not very important." So I had to appoint somebody else who was in fact, the Vice Chancellor of Bristol, and he produced a very good proposal, which was rigorous, by which I meant there is a concentration upon spelling and upon grammar and of being articulate. 

When the curriculum came in, I made it very prescriptive, I had a large number of subjects had to be taken to 14. But I came to realise after a few years that was too demanding. So in 2003, the curriculum was relatively simplified as a result of a report by Ron Dearing, which I fully supported. 

That allowed students to drop more subjects at 14, particularly things like a foreign language or history or geography. They choose one or the other, and it broadened it out. As a result, many new subjects came in, and I introduced of course design technology way back in the 1980s. 

Amy: 

And how much would you say the national curriculum has changed since your work to introduce it in 1988? 

Lord Baker: 

Now what's happened since is that Michael Gove did impose in 2010 a new curriculum. It's called EBacc or Progress 8, and there are eight academic subjects leading to GCSEs, two English papers, one on culture and one on writing, one maths, three sciences, that's six, and then a foreign language, and then either history or geography, that sounds a delightfully sensible curriculum. 

It's a grammar school curriculum. It is not directed to helping disadvantaged children. As a result since that was introduced, there's been a dramatic drop in design technology in schools by 80%. And there's also been a fall away in all the cultural subjects like performing arts, dance, drama and music. 

Now, strange enough, those are the areas now, where there's a tremendous demand for skilled workers because the entertainment industry in Britain now earns more than the banking industry with streaming and Netflix and the constant demand of new materials. So dropping one of those subjects means a disaster, an absolute disaster since 2010. 

What the Gove curriculum was, it was designed by an American educationist called Hirsch, and he said that, "If you just give even the most disadvantaged children from the slums of New York and Chicago basic subjects, they will flourish and come to the top." That doesn't how the world works at all. 

No American state has implemented this policy, and no American groups of schools in America have. We were the test bed for the last 12 years, and it's produced failure because the number of disadvantaged students today who don't do well in GCSEs, that means they don't get maths and English in level four, are about 300,000, and that's the same figure that they were 12 years ago. 

There's an urgent need now for curriculum change, and over the last year there have been now eight reports all recommending the fact that the present curriculum is not fit for purpose nor is the assessment system GCSEs fit for purpose. And I introduced both. I, as introducer of GCSEs, now think their time has had it. And that the first report was from the High Mistress of St. Paul's School, Sarah Fletcher, a very good one. 

Then there was report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, and they recommended you should come down from eight academic subjects to five, English, maths, two sciences and computing, digital skills. And then each school should then decide what else they want to do. 

Some might want to do statistics or photography, or they might want to do the cultural subjects more, but it'd be for the schools to decide. I think that'd provide a much better, broader balanced curriculum. Then there was a report from the Times Commission, which was set up of educational experts, and they recommended the introduction of British Baccalaureate 16, but also a very much reduced national curriculum, rather on the lines that we were saying. 

Then there was a report to the Institute For Government, and they made an interesting comment. They said because of the failure to help disadvantaged children, schools were no longer an agent of social mobility. Now that's quite a big condemnation for an independent body to say that. Then there were two other reports that also said the curriculum should change. 

I think one of the key things that it comes out from all of these reports that too many youngsters today are leaving school at 18, because that's the school leaving age now - when I was in school, it was 16, when you went to school, it was 16 - now only about 5% leave at 16, and the rest go on, is the lack of employability skills and the employability skills that business is looking for. 

We found that quite a few big companies, even like British Aerospace, barely looked at GCSE results. They had their own tests. They had their own assessments, and they were looking for things. Nearly all of them said were looking have the students on teamwork, because life after you leave school is teamwork. You're a team, and at school, you don't do it at all. 

You don't learn history in teams, you don't learn foreign languages in teams. You don't learn English or maths, or anything in teams. The only teams you have are the sports teams, but teamwork is collaborative discussion. You only get that if you have a project, and the schools that I run, UTCs, are supported by local industry and the companies will bring in a project for the students to work on. 

Amy: 

You put forward the proposal for this committee. Why do you think this is needed now? 

Lord Baker: 

So as a result of all of that, I thought that it'd be sensible for the House of Lords to get involved in this great debate. We don't debate education very much, and that's a pity because there are a large number of members of the House of Lords who have been involved in education one way or another, apart from going to schools themselves. 

They've been teachers, they've been involved in various charities involved in education and there are very few debates. For example, there's been no debate on the curriculum in the House of Lord since 2010, when Gove introduced his changes. We don't have many bills in legislation in education. We had one with setting up the apprenticeship scheme. 

We had run recently, the Schools Bill, and that was an extraordinary episode in the history of the House of Lords, the government-initiated Schools Bill, and the first 18 clauses of this bill, this happened, what, two years ago, 18 months ago? 

Amy: 

Mm-hmm. 

Lord Baker: 

The first 18 clauses gave the Secretary of State enormous powers to intervene in schools, powers that I never had or no Secretary of State since 1870 ever had. I could intervene directly and tell schools what to do. Secretary of State can't do that. They give advice, and this was such an appalling change that I led the campaign to try and stop the bill. 

And eventually because you had the support of the crossbenchers and the Liberals and the Labour Party, who were appalled of this, the government had to withdraw the first 18 clauses of the bill. As a result, the rest of the bill has been abandoned, which is a pity because it had one very good thing in it - was that schools that conducted at home, homeschooling, should be registered. 

So there's a great demand for change, and I thought the views of the House of Lord should be elicited on all of this. That was the reason why I suggested that we set up the committee on looking into 11-to-16 curriculum. 

Amy: 

I wonder what was the process for proposing the committee? 

Lord Baker: 

Well, first I read about it. There were going to be two committees, one on social affairs and one education. I just read it, I had an email about it, don't tell me about it. So I said, "Well, this is an opportunity. We'll try and get an education one." 

I then spoke to David Blunkett on the Labour side. I spoke to Lord Storey on the Liberal side. I spoke to Lord Aberdare on the crossbench side, and we concocted a letter or prepared to support a letter suggesting there should be a committee looking into the 11 to 16 curriculum. If you focus it as precisely as that, it'll be much more effective as a committee. 

It was no good setting out to look at the whole of curriculum, 11 to 18, and primary as well. They're quite different subjects. The real questions you have to concentrate upon is the 11 to 16 and the committee's now been set up, and it's working very well. 

Amy: 

And what will be looking at during the inquiry? 

Lord Baker: 

We've already received quite a lot of evidence of people who are interested in education. Sarah Fletcher, the high mistress at St. Paul's has already spoken, is a very impressive person. We're going to listen to more head teachers who are coming in. We've got in the evidence we're taking today four outliers, if you like, schools that are different from the normal run of Progress 8 and EBacc. 

One is the representative of the system I've set up, I've established university technical colleges. We've now got 45 of those with over 20,000 students. We are exempted from doing Progress 8 and EBacc. We have a highly technical course, for example, and we also recruit at 14 to 16. The right age of transfer in my view is 13/14, not 11. 

The only reason why we have an 11 transfer is that was once the school leaving age, and we're the only country in the world that selects children at 11. It's a totally inappropriate age for children to change. The change the best is usually about the age of nine, because up to that time most pupils in primary schools was taught by one teacher. After nine, they'll be taught by several teachers doing the other subjects. 

There was a report that was brought forward by Michael Tomlinson, the inspector of schools for Tony Blair, recommending a reorganisation of the school system to develop a 14-to-18 curriculum. It was the best report that they received, strongly supported by David Blunkett and Lord Adonis. But Tony Blair didn't like it. He said, "It's bound to affect A-levels," and so it was ditched. 

Now, strange enough, one of the reports has now been issued by the Blair team of experts in the institute he's set up has now said that he wants to think about a 14-to-18 curriculum, and he wants to change the curriculum as well. So that's quite interesting. The sinner that repenteth is always welcome. 

Amy: 

And as you mentioned today, you're heading into your first evidence session, hearing from curriculum experts. What do you hope to hear from them, to find out? 

Lord Baker: 

I think that the committee will learn a lot about the different sorts of schools. It's quite interesting. There's a spokesman from my movement speaking, which I won't intervene on at all of course, UTCs, but there's also some interesting experiments in the schools, the 21 School, another school in Doncaster and another head mistress has made a very different sort of school. 

And really what the committee wants to hear from, well, how different are they and are they better? And do the students like them more, but what is their results? This is a very interesting session actually, because I will learn also what some of the other ones are doing. 

Amy: 

So of course this committee's, as you say, just looking at the 11 to 16 age range. But I wonder are there challenges that you see with the curriculum at the younger level or do you think this is the most urgent age that needs reform? 

Lord Baker: 

I think this is a very important age. What's happening in primary, it's very interesting. You've now got a lot of primaries setting up coding clubs, so children at primary are now learning about code, but coding isn't in the school curriculum at 16 to 11. There is an example called GCSE computing science, but only 10% of the children take it because it's far too academic and not very practical. 

There basically, you'll learn coding, but coding is not difficult to learn. I have a grandson who took the exam and to do the exam you have to learn a computer language called Python. And he said, "I learned that quite quickly. It's easier than a foreign language," he said, "much, much easier." So many primary schools are running ahead of secondary schools, and I have come across a primary school near the Welsh border, which teachers, only teaches, all its children from the age of four or five upwards computing and digital skills. 

By the age when they leave the primary school at 11, some are capable of taking the GCSE exam at 16 in computing. All I'm saying is that youngsters today, nearly all of them have got mobile phones, and they can therefore engage with it. The great thing one's got to do in education is to persuade the youngsters that with a mobile phone, they shouldn't just be doing Instagram and tweeting and all the other things they do, Facebook. 

They should be using it as instrument to learn, because they're counting in their pocket a greater knowledge than any teacher can have, greater knowledge than Wikipedia can have, greater knowledge than Encyclopaedia Britannica can have. There's an interesting article in today's Times by Bill Gates, reporting a speech of Bill Gates, and he is saying that the changes of ChatGPT, we've heard of ChatGPT? And there's now already an improvement on it by Google, which brings in pictures. 

He says, "This is the most revolutionary change in education in centuries and it will change how everything is taught and learned." And I happen to agree with that. That's the further reason why the curriculum is wrong in Britain today, because the defenders of the present curriculum, and Mr. Gibb, we'll hear from the minister. We'll say, "It's a knowledge rich curriculum, and it's very important for children to acquire knowledge." 

Well, I'm not saying they shouldn't acquire knowledge, but there's more knowledge in their fingertip in the machine than they can ever, ever acquire. You have to teach children not just to fill their minds with masses of facts. Their facts are there. What they've got to be able to do is to assess the facts, use the facts, consider the facts, write about the facts and weigh them up. That's what education should be about and will be about in the future. 

Amy: 

And what do you see the long term issues being if this isn't addressed, if change doesn't occur? 

Lord Baker: 

I think it's bound to occur. It's got to the stage. There are certain moments in time when you know that change is necessary. I was lucky to change stuff a lot in the 1980s, because in the first Thatcher years, virtually nothing had changed in education. But there was a great groundswell from industry saying, "The schools are hopeless, they're not producing children we want," and all the rest of it. 

So I was only able to introduce the changes I had dealt because the tide had changed. I think the tide is now about to change, and I think that what's going to be interesting is, and our committee is going to report in November. 

I think our report will be quite influential on each of the three major parties, the Conservatives and Labour and Liberal in formulating their manifestos in education for the next election. I think it's going to be therefore a very appropriate committee from that point of view. 

Amy: 

Well, Lord Baker, thank you very much for joining us today. 

Amy: 

That's it for this episode of the podcast. Later this week, we'll be sharing a new edition of Lord Speaker's Corner with Baroness Morgan of Cotes. See you then.