Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 11:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, my name is added to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, in supporting the amendment. The noble Baroness mentioned Article 12 of the UN convention. In addition, Article 4 requires the Government to undertake all appropriate legislative measures for the implementation of the convention’s provisions. This is a call for legislation, not just to spread best practice. The children’s Minister recently accepted the Government’s obligations under the convention, saying: “We have an obligation under international law to ensure that the rights set out in the convention are given effect”.—[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 24/6/08; col. 45.] Legislation is clearly required here, given the gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has mentioned. As the noble Baroness said, there was some criticism that our previous amendment was a little too prescriptive, and we have tried to respond to that. There are many ways in which schools—at least, those which demonstrate best practice—very effectively listen to the voices of children and give their views due weight. I would like to give one example of the way in which that is done. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK. I refer to the Rights Respecting Schools programme. If any of your Lordships have not visited such a school, I think that they would find it very inspiring to do so. I have visited them at primary and, more recently, at secondary level, at an Andover school. I have never been to schools where the children are so empowered, happy, inspired and engaged in their education. That is because they really are valued, not just by the support staff and the teachers but because they value and respect each other. That respect is built on their understanding of their rights under the convention. Their rights are very overt in the curriculum and, as a result of those rights, so are their duties and responsibilities to each other. It makes for a happy school, high-quality learning and responsible and well adjusted young people; and it can only be to the advantage of everybody that young people grow up in schools such as those. That is just one way of involving young people and taking account of their views and, while it is one of the best ways, it is not the only one. That is why our amendment is not prescriptive. I welcome the fact that since we had our debate about this in Committee, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has supported our amendment. It says that Article 12 of the UN convention, which covers respect for the views of the child, states that when adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinion taken into account. The commission believes that this amendment will help to protect that right. So we hope that the Government, who have made great strides in listening more to the views of children and giving them their rights under the convention, will listen to the calls on all sides for this right to be heard to be enshrined in UK legislation. This Bill is the first opportunity we have had in legislation to put into effect what the Committee on the Rights of the Child called for in its report of 3 October, so I hope that we will take this opportunity.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord EltonConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, is going to reply, but it rather looks as though he is. Perhaps I may take the first opportunity that I have had to welcome him to his new post and to wish him the greatest success in it. I hope that, by joining the list of people with whom he has to deal, I have slightly reduced the height of the fence that he feels he has to jump. I apologise to your Lordships, first, for not having attached my name to this amendment and, secondly, for, with disgracefully bad manners, tabling an amendment after today’s Marshalled List had been printed, both of which I deplore. Unfortunately, three and a half of the past 10 days of my life have been wiped out by a virus. In the haste to catch up with other things that have become undone in that time, some things to do with this Bill have fallen by the wayside. I support the amendment. It has already been demonstrated that the Government are under a legal obligation to include a provision of this kind in the Bill. That bears repeating: they are under a legal obligation to do so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made clear. I shall add only a grace note or two to what has been said already. The benefits of consulting children are obvious when they are drawn into the process, but they lie elsewhere as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, did not mention the exercise, which she mentioned to me earlier, whereby an education authority consulted children about the architectural design of their school. It learnt a great deal of valuable material from it; in particular, ways of avoiding little secret places in which small children could be bullied by bigger children. Lower down the age range, it is very useful for a six-foot architect to be talked to by a three-foot child about what it is like to be in a room designed by the six-foot architect. These things are very valuable. It is an opportune moment to mention that the Government are engaged with rather less publicity than one might have expected in a 15-year programme of pulling down almost all the schools that exist and replacing them. If there was ever a moment when children’s advice was terrifically needed, it is now, and this amendment, therefore, or something very like it, should go straight into the Bill.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, pointed out, was moved in a slightly longer form in Committee by my noble friend Lord Elton. My noble friend Lady Morris then agreed that it was desirable to take the views of children into account, but sounded a note of caution that it would not do to lay down to every school how they should go about it. The amendment has been tailored to meet that small concern and I am happy to offer my support for it. We have argued, sometimes—quite rightly—at length, that one of the biggest obstacles to getting young people to continue in education is the lack of engagement that some feel. It is quite right, therefore, that schools and local education authorities make an effort to encourage such engagement. Of course, there may be concerns about giving a veto to mischievous children, but I think that the wording of this amendment avoids that risk. I agree with the spirit of the noble Baroness’s arguments.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the voice of pupils and young people is extremely important. This Government are committed to involving young people as widely as possible in matters which affect them. We make decisions that impact on children and young people every day. Ensuring that their views are heard and valued not only has the potential to improve services for young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, but has a positive impact on the school environment and the local community. Through effective pupil participation, schools give young people the opportunity to develop critical thinking, advocacy and influencing skills, helping every child to fulfil their potential. This is clearly very positive, and the Government seek to encourage it.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I am pretty disappointed with the Minister’s reply. Having done exactly what the previous Minister in charge of the Bill required by taking away the prescriptive requirements for exactly how the obligations should be carried out, I should have thought that the Government would have been more than pleased to adopt what is suggested. It surprises me that a number of noble Lords seem to think that there is a legal requirement to put this into practice under the Bill, and that this right has to be adhered to by schools, local authorities and governing bodies. In Scotland, children have had this right since 2000 and there has been no problem there at all. Indeed, Wales and Scotland have a much better record in this respect. Are we really prepared to be second to them in how we carry out legislative requirements? All I can say is that I am very disappointed, as I had expected a much more sympathetic response. I do not mind at all being told that certain words or commas are wrong and that the amendment should be taken away and redone, but we made it clear that children would be consulted in accordance with their age and maturity. We obviously do not intend that children should be consulted who cannot give any form of constructive reply that makes any sense. I shall for the moment withdraw the amendment because, not expecting anything but warm encouragement, I had not even bothered to think in terms of dividing the House. However, there may well be a need to do so at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 11 [Educational Institutions: promotion of good attendance:]
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 12:
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, in Committee the Minister raised the issue of good attendance while addressing Amendment No. 12, and we on these Benches agreed that it seemed inconsistent to list on the face of the Bill only some of the institutions that are to have a duty to promote good attendance but not others. When the Minister responded on this point, he made a somewhat less than watertight argument against the need to accept the amendment. He said that the city technology colleges, “and the one city college for the technology of the arts are, without exception, successful schools with very high levels of post-16 participation from committed pupils with good attendance and behaviour, so we do not think it appropriate to extend the statutory duties to them”.—[Official Report, 3/7/08; col. 402.] That raises two points. First, I am sure that some if not all of the institutions listed in the Bill will be dismayed by the implication that they have been included because they are unsuccessful schools with uncommitted and poorly behaved pupils; in other words, they cannot be trusted in the same way as the Government’s handpicked favourites. I hope that that is not the message that the Government wish to send out. Secondly, the exemption from being placed under a statutory duty seems to be based on a potentially ephemeral criterion. These colleges are successful now, and their current crop of students is currently committed, but will that always remain the case? What will happen if that fortunate situation changes? I can see the loophole in that argument opening up before our eyes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, merely used a poor choice of words to express himself. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right to seek clarification. I agree with her that the two words “and reasonable”, which would be inserted by Amendment No. 13, would improve the drafting of this clause. It may seem a trifling point. However, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said when he spoke in favour of the amendment in Committee, simply asking the local authority to do what is possible is not practical in a technical sense. A local education authority could go to any number of lengths to establish the identities of those who are not complying with the duty; but not all will be feasible. It is right that there should be a duty for local education authorities, but it must be reasonable and practical.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morris of YardleyLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 12. It is time that the Government faced up to the problem of these funding agreements and put in primary legislation what they actually intend. We spent most of this morning saying that this is a flagship piece of legislation that will change the world and make life different for all young people between 14 and 19. It is essential to the economic prosperity and well-being of our nation. It is even more important now, given the economic recession that may be coming, that we make sure that this is as good as it can be. Apparently, through all the debate, there has been a caveat that exempts 16 to 19 year-olds who go to city academies or other schools outlined in this amendment. I do not for a minute think that the Minister intends that this legislation should not apply to 16 to 19 year-olds who attend these schools; I would be amazed if she stood up and made that point. Presumably the answer is, “Well, we deal with that in a separate way, by making it part of the funding agreement”. However, there is no reason for a twin-track approach. These are publicly funded schools. Every penny of revenue funding for these schools comes from the taxpayer. Life has indeed changed, and the money that formerly was given by sponsors to support these schools—accounting for 10 per cent of the cost of academies—is now no longer given in most cases, and never did arrive in the case of city technology colleges 20 years ago. The first question for the Minister is, why should wholly publicly funded schools, that take in children who are funded under the same financial regulations as any other child attending a state school, not be subject to this flagship legislation? The second is, can the Minister give your Lordships an example of any circumstance in which she or a ministerial colleague would negotiate a contract in which abiding by this legislation was not a part? If she can, I would be amazed. The truth is, by not including these schools in primary legislation, she gives the impression that there is a separate negotiating business deal going on; that she is prepared to sit down with the funder who is going to sign the sponsorship agreement and talk to him or her about whether this legislation should apply to children in their schools. I do not believe that she is going to do that. The possible answer is, “Why do this? Why not just accept the funding agreement? You have accepted that what I intend will be implicit in this piece of legislation”. There are two reasons. I praise the Government, particularly under the leadership of the new Secretary of State, for trying, over the past 12 months, to draw academies and city technology colleges into the family of schools. Minor legislative changes have covered the teaching of core subjects of the national curriculum and admission arrangements that were included in the previous flagship Education Bill. The Secretary of State has been clear that academies will have to abide by these good things. I cannot think why the Government have not seized this opportunity to build on this, by making this the piece of legislation in which academies and city technology colleges are listed as institutions to which it will apply. This is about transparency. In primary legislation, it is transparent to all parents and taxpayers that this legislation will apply to children in maintained schools. The funding agreement is secret. I am not even sure that it is published. It is certainly not amendable through representations by the public. I do not think that it is even covered by the Freedom of Information Act, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong on that. There is no way in which the voter, the taxpayer or parent of the pupil can have an input. I find it difficult to think of any of my political colleagues who can make a case for it being acceptable to put into this flagship piece of legislation a secret funding agreement, negotiated on a one-to-one basis behind closed doors rather than openly and transparently. My final plea is that this legislation is not about schools, sponsors and the Government but, to my mind, about giving entitlement to young people. It gives entitlement to young citizens of this country between the ages of 16 and 19 to expect that we, as adults in this legislature, give them a right to high-quality education and training. Why are we creating a situation in the law of the land whereby this adult Parliament gives that right by primary legislation to all 16 to 19 year-olds apart from those who attend academies and city technology colleges? It is about time that the Government looked seriously at how they deal with these funding agreements. I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to do it now. I could not speak more strongly in favour of Amendment No. 12. It makes sense. We owe it to the 16 to 19 year-olds who will attend these schools, and their parents, to ensure that their entitlement and opportunities are defended in primary legislation, just as they are for every other 16 to 19 year-old.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour- Quote
- My Lords, first, I apologise to noble Lords who did not receive a copy of my noble friend Lord Adonis’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am not sure why it did not get to other Members who participated in Committee. I shall ensure that that letter is circulated. On the points on the use of the language to which that letter referred, we agree that we should limit the burdens on local authorities in general. Clause 12 forms a key part of the local authorities’ overarching duty to promote participation. It is clear that, for a local authority to fulfil its duty of promoting participation, it will need to know who is not participating and what is being done to re-engage them. If the amendment were accepted, it would weaken that duty on local authorities and could lead to them failing to provide the necessary support to help some young people re-engage. While Clause 12 would require the local authority to go beyond what is merely reasonable, we intend to make clear in guidance the kind of arrangements that, if made, would be taken to satisfy the duty; that is exactly what the noble Baroness was asking about. There will be guidance to help local authorities understand exactly what is expected of them. However, I also suspect that the difference between our interpretations of the use of this language is not as great as it seems. While many of us in this House are familiar with the term “reasonable” in legislation, as opposed to “possible”, I assure noble Lords that there are in excess of 200 examples on our statute books of the phrase in question. I have not counted them, but I am advised that this is the case. While there may be a fine distinction between the terms, an interpretation of what is possible—I cannot believe that I am saying this—would also encompass what is reasonable. Altering the wording as proposed in Amendment No. 13 would give the wrong impression to local authorities on the importance of the duty. We are concerned that suggesting that local authorities should not use their best endeavours would downplay the pivotal importance of identifying young people who have fallen out of the system. On Amendment No. 12, I have received advice to reiterate strongly the words of my noble friend in Committee. He said we are requiring academies, through their funding agreements, to have regard to the same guidance as maintained schools on improving behaviour and attendance. I am hearing an impassioned plea that I should perhaps expand on those words in a more demanding fashion. I heard very clearly the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Morris that this House wishes to hear in a convincing tone our commitment to making sure that the Bill is there to benefit all children; that is exactly what we seek. I would be very happy, if given the opportunity, to come back and attempt to do that again for noble Lords.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morris of YardleyLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, if my noble friend is to approach the funding agreements by saying, in even stronger words, that she would not under any circumstances negotiate a funding agreement with an academy that did not incorporate adherence to this legislation, would she also not wish during her time in office to make sure that no future Secretary of State could negotiate a funding agreement with an academy that meant that it did not have to follow the legislation? Perhaps she might reflect that the point of primary legislation means that, beyond her decisions in her office during her time as a Minister, the opportunities laid out in the legislation will be available to children and young people. I spoke in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am not satisfied by a promise of just stronger words. Perhaps my noble friend might reflect on whether she might come back at Third Reading with a government amendment.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend’s interpretation of the purpose of legislation to create entitlements and commitment in perpetuity. That is very much what we are attempting to do through this landmark Bill, as it has been described. I certainly understand and hear very clearly the message she is giving me.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister and the House know that it is my life’s ambition to make life easy for this Government. Therefore, I suggest that instead of amending the ambition to have 400 academy funding agreements, it would be much easier to put it in legislation and add it to the list. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, has made a most telling point, which I failed to do, and I pay tribute to her for that; it is a matter of transparency and of how it looks. If the Government want academies to be seen to be giving the same rights and entitlements to 16 to 19 year-olds as everyone else, there is no reason why Amendment No. 12 should not be accepted. We will come back to this issue. On Amendment No. 13, we are rather like angels dancing on the head of a pin but the Government seem to be saying that in guidance they are going to define what is possible. It is not possible in guidance to define what is possible, unless it is extremely long guidance. It is possible in guidance to define what is reasonable, and I recommend that the Minister think again about this. Guidance can certainly advise local authorities on the range of things they could put in place which the Government would regard as reasonable in carrying out this duty to identify young people who are not participating. I accept that they cannot carry out their other duties unless they know who the young people are, but it is not possible to define in guidance everything that it is possible for a local authority to do. If you do that, you are not defining what is reasonable. The Government might think they are limiting what a local authority would have to do but I think what they are proposing is actually broadening it and opening the cheque book that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in his place, has warned us about. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 12 [Duty to make arrangements to identify persons not fulfilling duty imposed by section 2]: [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 14:
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, we on these Benches very much share the Opposition’s reservations about the degree to which data are given proper protection but we do not agree with them in relation to all the provisions that they have written into this series of amendments. In particular, we agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when we debated this matter in Committee: given the constituency of young people to whom this provision is addressed, it is unnecessarily bureaucratic to expect them to have given their written consent to this information being included. However, we very much go along with Amendment No. 15, which requires that: “Each educational institution shall, at the beginning of each academic year, write to every student attending its institution informing them of their rights under subsection (4)”. They should know what information is being provided about them and they should have the right to check that information, as everyone has under the Data Protection Act. I want to speak specifically to Amendment No. 18, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. It suggests that the Border and Immigration Agency should be included in the list of institutions at Clause 16(2). We retabled this amendment because the answer provided in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was inconclusive. The issue is whether the Border and Immigration Agency should be added to the list of information providers in Clause 16(2). The list comprises all the agencies that are expected to supply information to the local authority about the activities and movements of young people so that the local authority can build a comprehensive database of all young people in its area. It includes the health authorities, police and probation services, and young offender services. We pointed out that, with the substantial number of people immigrating into this country, and especially with the arrival of a considerable number of unaccompanied minors, the Border and Immigration Agency should also be on the list. The Minister responded by saying that the list exactly reproduced that in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and he did not see that the Border and Immigration Agency would provide information that could not be obtained elsewhere. However, when I questioned that, giving the example of eastern European families settling in some areas of the UK, he promised to go away and think about the issue further, asking officials how such a family might otherwise be picked up. I wonder whether the department has indeed had further thoughts on the subject, and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what they are.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on this group of amendments. Young people can be acutely sensitive about their personal data and what is known about them—perhaps in some ways more than adults are. They mind very much what people say about them—behind their backs, as they would see it. On many occasions, the information about us is wrong; there is a lot of sloppiness and carelessness. You are very dependent on the people who enter the information being scrupulously careful, but that is not always the case. I have seen my own health records and was appalled at the number of errors there were. I am sure that that is multiplied many millions of times over in the huge plethora of information that various government agencies now hold about us all. A young person should know that this information has been recorded. They should see it so that they can find out whether it is correct. They should understand who holds it and who has access to it. I understand very well why my Liberal Democrat colleagues feel nervous about young people’s ability always to sign things. The only way to know that somebody has actually read something and knows what is being said about them is if they send back a written return. Otherwise they may just shove it in the bedroom drawer and not bother to read it. It is terribly important that they know what is being said about them and that they have an opportunity to correct it. I very strongly support the amendment and hope that the Government will think seriously about it.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord EltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I simply add my concern that the information we are talking about, in Clause 14(3)(c), does not provide any restriction on what it may be about as long as it relates to the child. It does not say that it must be relevant to any of the functions of the authority or school. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be reassured but it seems that there could be some eccentric gathering of information that could be quite harmful to the individuals concerned. That being so, it is all the more important that consent should be sought before such information is distributed.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, as far as I am advised, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is wrong, but by the time I have finished speaking, I may have further inspiration so that I can give him a fuller answer. If I do not get further inspiration I shall ensure that he gets a fuller answer. I shall start my response to this important discussion by outlining some of the general points about the information-sharing provisions in the Bill. It is worth being clear again that this information sharing is not new. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, alluded to that. Information sharing between learning providers and Connexions and between Jobcentre Plus and Connexions has been in place since the Learning and Skills Act 2000, as my noble friend Lord Adonis made clear in Committee. Schools, colleges and job centres currently provide information to Connexions so that it can track young people and provide appropriate and timely support. Accepting the amendments would add bureaucracy and complexity to the system, although I understand the concerns that have motivated them. They would reduce the ability of local authorities to provide the timely and appropriate support to young people that is so important. We know that interventions that are rapid are most likely to be effective in getting a young person back into learning. That is what is so important. In addition, and probably most importantly, a number of safeguards are already in place. Under the Data Protection Act individuals have the right to request a copy of the personal information held on them by an organisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, if there are concerns about accuracy, that is the route for people to ensure that information is correct. The organisation must inform the individual if personal data relating to him or her is being shared, if notification is practicable. That is a very important safeguard. Amendments Nos. 14, 16, 17 and 66 require consent. There is a great risk of inertia in any system in obtaining consent, whether written or not. If consent were required, many young people or their families might simply forget or neglect to sign and send the necessary form. This is a particular risk for young people who have a wide range of needs and may have chaotic lifestyles. If a young person did not provide consent to his basic identification information being passed on, the local authority could not track the person or know when that person had dropped out of education or training. That local authority might not be able to provide that person with any support, let alone timely support that was tailored to their needs.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord EltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister makes that assertion, but I would be grateful if I could be told from where in the statute it arises.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I will have to get some help in obtaining an answer to the noble Lord’s question, so I will write to him.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. My noble friend Lady Perry raised a strong argument in our wishes to empower young people. These amendments offer the opportunity to provide that empowerment. I have listened with care to the Minister and I still believe that this is an area where we need to accept bureaucracy if it is to safeguard personal data and avoid the implications of data being recorded wrongly or found in the wrong hands. I am not sure that I agree with her argument, but I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 15 not moved.] Clause 15 [Supply of social security information]: [Amendment No. 16 not moved.] Clause 16 [Supply of information by public bodies]: [Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 20:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said that in Committee I said that her Amendment No. 20 was in the wrong place. I maintain that it is still in the wrong place. It is between a chapter on local authorities and one on employers. The right place to put this amendment is before Clause 60, which is about careers education. However, the noble Baroness persists in putting it early on, which leads us to discuss careers education now. I supported her then, and I support her now, in maintaining that there is much to be improved in the information, advice and guidance given to young people and the careers education they are given in schools. I know that the Government are doing their best at that and have increased the amount of money going to Connexions so that it can improve its service. I hope that that is so because it is important that young people in primary schools are given access to knowledge about careers and begin to think about what careers they might pursue at a later stage. Of course, children often change what they want to do, but it is extremely important to get them thinking about jobs and what they involve. Good careers education, particularly in the lower half of secondary school, is vital. On Amendment No. 67, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, quoted me saying that face-to-face interviews are important. We cannot rely just on information, advice and guidance through the internet or over the telephone. The interview with the careers adviser at the appropriate point in school is vital. We cannot do away with careers advisers in schools; a specifically trained Connexions careers adviser is vital. There is no reason why teachers should not provide careers education, but they must be given training. If we are going to use general teachers, they should have specific CPD training on careers education. Many of them do not know about issues outside. Amendment No. 67 is concerned with getting specific information about particular careers and talking to people who are pursuing them about what they involve. I mentioned last time, and I shall mention again, the website horsesmouth.co.uk. Another website called Vitae is being developed by the Cambridge-based Careers Research and Advisory Centre. It involves people who practise particular careers talking about what they do. In that sense, an internet exchange is quite useful. Horsesmouth.co.uk is interactive, so a young person can ask questions of the person who has pursued a career.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Earl of ListowelCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment No. 67. I pricked up my ears when the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Sharp, spoke. They reminded me of a programme broadcast 10 years ago, where a black man in America, who had run a programme for young black boys in schools, had recruited professional black men to go into schools to help boys with their reading. After a period of months, it culminated in those men taking the boys to their place of work and showing them around. If that is what the noble Baroness is driving at here, then it is very welcome. People with professional experience coming from outside to talk to young people would give them the benefit of that experience. That prompts me to ask the Minister about Criminal Records Bureau checks, because, while children are concerned that people working with them have those checks, they can be an obstacle for people working outside to coming in and engaging with young people. Particularly, it appears that there is often quite a long delay in processing those checks. Perhaps the Minister might write me a little note on what is being done to speed up Criminal Records Bureau checks and ensuring that they are not repeated too often. That would get the balance right between ensuring that someone is safe and avoiding too much bureaucracy.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I hope that I am not out of order in addressing these amendments, and particularly the last of them, Amendment No. 68. I do so because I tabled an amendment in Committee on non-stereotypical careers advice and work placements and I was so reassured by the Minister’s answer that I did not put down any amendments for Report. However, I have since had some correspondence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was very disappointed to learn that, “the ‘Work-related training guide’ produced by DCSF”, for employers, schools and colleges does not, in fact, mention that issue once. Of course, that has rather upset the commission. It believes, not unnaturally, that this must be addressed because the current work placement model is deficient. Obviously it can operate in a number of ways. Those who are well connected find their own placements, usually of good quality; some people will choose from lists because lists can be presented to them; and the third group will be allocated to placements. That means that some people are still being stereotyped in the decisions made for them. As we all know, they will be those who have less information, who are more likely to be at the bottom of the pile and who have less access to those who can advise them more carefully. The commission found, for example, that only 15 per cent of girls and boys received any advice on non-traditional placements. I ask the Minister to again look at this area to see whether an outline of how schools and employers can tackle stereotyping in work placements can be produced. A statement of information and guidance should not be limited because of assumptions about gender, race, disability and so on. Education-business partnerships could perhaps be developed, with careers advisers being more proactive in supporting and/or finding non-traditional placements. I hope I have not taken the Minister unawares but I received this brief only this morning and this is too good an opportunity not to bring it up now, not least because we were all reassured by what she said on the previous occasion which, sadly, so far has apparently not been put into action.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morris of YardleyLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not support Amendment No. 20, not because I do not think careers guidance is important—I do—but I am not sure that a review at this time is needed. I support the content of the debate about the importance of careers education and guidance and I should like to make a few brief points. As we move more towards a personalised curriculum and give people more choice, the more important careers education and guidance becomes. However, there is a danger in concentrating too much on the provision of information. It is absolutely crucial that the provision of information is accurate, timely and of high quality, but that by itself will not produce a good guidance system which is supportive of people in making appropriate decisions at appropriate times. That is far more complex and difficult to legislate for. Will the Minister assure the House that her department is considering how young people make decisions and what support they need? In the north-east there is a 14 to 19 commission which includes all the partners at regional, school, FE and employer levels. They are coming together to try to make the 14 to 19 agenda work. I have the privilege of chairing the commission at the moment. We have set up a youth board so that young people can advise us on what they think. Interestingly, they put proper careers education and guidance at the top of their agenda. They did so because they felt it was the part of the system that was not working. This part of the legislation covering careers education and guidance is for young people and this is a time when we particularly need to hear their views and their voice. Perhaps my noble friend will also reassure us that there is provision for the department to listen to young people about how they think careers education and guidance can be best provided to them and at what point in their lives.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I hope I can reassure not only my noble friend but all those who have spoken in the debate that we see careers advice, information and guidance as being extremely important and worthy of a great deal of attention at the highest levels within the department. I start by responding to Amendment No. 67 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. She is right: it is the amendment that came up when I was surprised to be sitting in the hot seat. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment for debate again today so that I can respond. She explained very eloquently the need for young people to have access to the widest possible arsenal of tools to help them in making their decisions about future career options. The national service, Connexions Direct, offers information, advice and support to young people in England. It has been extremely successful. The service provides profiles of more than 800 jobs through its jobs4u careers database, which is an important resource. This does not detract from other resources, such as horsesmouth.co.uk. The jobs4u careers database includes case studies of personal experiences in specific roles, and the profiles are frequently updated. If a young person cannot find information on the specific role that they want, Connexions Direct will provide more information for them via the website, and find an appropriate case study. It is about giving young people access through the internet to real-life examples of careers. The provisions that the amendment would make are already available, and it is our intention that the service should continue to offer advice and information of this kind, and to make sure that we are connected to the services that other providers make available to young people. Amendment No. 20, which would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review, is not necessary. Noble Lords will be aware that there have been reviews on this subject, as the noble Baroness highlighted. They have been undertaken in recent years. That is not to say that further consideration of this vital subject is not important, but the end-to-end review of careers education and guidance, which reported in July 2005, and the Leitch review of skills, completed in December 2006, also addressed the issues of careers services for adults. We have listened carefully to the arguments for an all-age careers service and we do not disagree with them per se. We see that there is a need for a joined-up service that meets the needs of people at all ages. Teenagers face different challenges from adults, not least learning choices and the personal issues associated with the transition to adulthood. The Connexions service, working in partnership with schools and colleges, is best placed to meet these needs. Clause 56 will transfer, as noble Lords know, the delivery of the Connexions service to local authorities. This will help local authorities to embed Connexions within integrated youth support arrangements to improve support for the most vulnerable people, which must be key. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, to establish a universal adult careers service, which will be operational from 2010-11. The key elements of this service are described in the Adult Advancement and Careers Service prospectus, which was launched yesterday, I believe. We will ensure that links are made between the adult and young people’s careers services; for example, through case conferences between adult advisers and Connexions advisers. We are talking about an all-ages strategy, which is very important. Amendment No. 68 would extend the requirement for schools to provide careers education to include learners aged 16 to 18. Section 46 of the 1997 Act, which is the focus of this amendment, already allows regulations to be made to extend the age for careers education in schools and requires further education institutions to provide a programme of careers education. Therefore, new primary legislation would not be required to extend these duties to pupils above the age of 16. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, but I believe that the subject is extremely important. High-quality, impartial information, advice and guidance help young people to make choices that position them for success in life. As my noble friend highlighted, and as I know from when I was working with students to find out what they saw as priorities, information, advice and guidance came top of the list.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I take on board what the Minister says about primary legislation not being necessary. However, the Government have not used their powers of regulation to extend it to 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. Are they proposing to do so?
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am looking for advice from my colleagues, and they are shaking their heads. I hope that I will be able to convince the noble Baroness that we have a strong enough commitment. We see this as very important. It will become more important as our 14 to 19 reforms offer young people a wider choice of learning and increasing numbers stay on in education and training. Diplomas are delivered by partnerships of schools, further education colleges and other learning providers. To begin delivering diplomas, each consortium must demonstrate that it offers high-quality information, advice and guidance to young people. This is a key part of our strategy. My department is offering support to all consortia to ensure that the guidance they offer meets our national quality standards. Those standards, which were debated recently, focus on independent high-quality advice for young people. We are also working with the National College for School Leadership and the Learning and Skills Improvement Service to raise the profile of careers advice and to help school and FE leaders improve the quality of their provision. This is a challenging agenda, but we can also take time to celebrate success. The recent Ofsted review of 14 to 19 implementation found that the quality of information, advice and guidance was good or better in 12 of the 16 partnerships visited and at least satisfactory in three others. That is encouraging, but we need to continue to improve information, advice and guidance services. These reforms are important and I hope that they will be welcomed. We will put forward further proposals in the spring in support of provisions in the forthcoming apprenticeship Bill and the new education and skills Bill, in which we will cover the development of the adult advancement service. Officials met with the Equality and Human Rights Commission this week, and we are taking forward its concerns about the work-related learning guidance. I shall be very happy to talk to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about this at any stage should she wish to do so. I am also happy to write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about Criminal Records Bureau checks. That is another huge area of interest to me, but now is probably not the moment to go into it in detail.
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken. On understanding information, it is really important to include personal interaction so that young people can raise issues and concerns that are not always addressed through the internet. I am disappointed that the Minister will not consider further an all-age careers service. I think that we are missing a great opportunity to respond quickly and flexibly to career changes and opportunities, especially when young people will make several different choices throughout their working life. I will consider carefully the Minister’s comments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 22 [Financial penalty for contravention of section 21]:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 21:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments, which reflect concerns raised by the Constitution Committee. It is very important for employers—and I speak as one—to know exactly where they stand. It is crucial that they are able to appeal fines imposed on them under these clauses. I am pleased that the Government have taken on board the widespread concern that provisions in the Bill risk adding to the burdens that small businesses must carry. However, I reiterate my concern about the necessity for a system of fines and penalties at all.
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Garden of FrognalLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the direction in which the amendments are taking us. There is a recurring theme throughout this debate: the balance between persuasion and coercion. For the measures in the Bill to succeed, employers must be fully engaged with colleges, schools and other learning providers. Their active involvement is fundamentally important. It is far preferable that they be willing participants and convinced of tangible benefits both for the young people concerned and for their business. We recognise that if young people are entitled to receive appropriate training in their employment, it will impose duties and responsibilities on employers. But it should be as a very last resort that enforcement is required. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on that score. We are pleased that provisions have been introduced to clarify what employers can expect if they do not meet requirements and that the Government have responded so positively to concern expressed by the Committee on the Constitution that employers should have opportunities to set out their objections to a penalty notice. We also welcome the assurances that any reduction in penalty would be repaid with interest. In the debate on 3 July, noble Lords asked questions to which the answers remain unclear. How are Clauses 22 and 23 going to work? How will a local authority find out if employers do not allow access to education and training when they should? The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stated that information could be obtained through the Connexions service, through engagement with young people and through contact with employers, where it may transpire that young people are not participating in education or training. But it may not be a simple task to obtain sufficient reliable information to prove contravention. This could be time consuming and tie up resources that the authority may feel would be better spent elsewhere. Even if a local authority has obtained convincing evidence, it could have reservations about enforcing penalties. We had assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the word “may” in Clause 22 meant that the local authority had discretion over whether to require the employer to pay a financial penalty. Enforcement is going to take resources of time and finances and, as the CBI and others have advised, risks deterring employers from taking on young people. It would not help the aims of the Bill if the penalties alienate small businesses, where the majority of young people find employment. Since this was debated in Committee, the economic climate has not made it any easier for employers large or small to give high priority to training programmes and a light touch on enforcement is even more desirable than before. Recently, the Government have been particularly encouraging of the public sector to increase its work placements. I wonder how enforcements will be managed within the public sector and what safeguards there are that public sector resources will not be diverted to cover appeals and penalties. The Government have responded encouragingly to the concerns raised previously and, while we might like a few further assurances, we congratulate the Minister on taking note of suggestions and views expressed and thank her for introducing these more detailed amendments.
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am more than happy to write in detail to the noble Baroness, answering her questions in full. However, my main point is that in the Bill the whole emphasis on enforcement is to create a power not a duty. We are very much expecting local authorities to take a balanced and proportionate approach to this whole question of enforcement. I appreciate that we have tabled some fairly lengthy new clauses on this and we are pleased to respond to the Committee’s concerns in full. I hope very much that I can answer all the noble Baroness’s questions in detail and copy that answer to the rest of the interested Peers. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 22:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 30:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 31:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 43:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 44:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I give strong support on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Perry whose suggested annual progress reports succinctly encapsulate a number of the points that my noble friend Lady Morris and I made in Committee. The amendment covers three areas. On the issue of practical support for firms, we pointed out in Committee that if conditions on firms are too onerous they will simply avoid employing the very people that this Bill is designed to help. Small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned that the additional costs incurred by implementing the provisions in the Bill will be considerable when set against their profit margins, especially now as we head into recession. If the Government are determined to press ahead, red tape and costs must be kept to a minimum, or the consequence will be a reluctance to employ young people. We said in Committee that qualifications must have relevance to what the young person is trying to do. There must be a good provision of qualifications, so that he or she is not unable to follow his or her chosen path because there is only a limited number of courses open to them. Employers are more likely to find young people employable if they trust the standard of the qualification and see that is has accorded the young person some relevance to their business. These matters are crucial to the success of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Perry is right that progress on them must be reported annually to Parliament.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Garden of FrognalLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, we on these Benches also support the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. The measures would be of great benefit in strengthening the Bill. It is not clear whether some would be implemented immediately or whether they would come into effect only after the Bill is implemented in 2013. However, an annual progress report would be a great asset to the Bill.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, have said. The Government collect an enormous amount of information and statistics. It is hard to believe that we do not collect the information that would help her. With reference to the support and advice given to employers, we are committed to working with employers, when drawing up employers’ guidance, to ensure that it is effective. I am happy to meet the noble Baroness and others to discuss how we can make sure that the plethora of information that we collect can meet people’s needs effectively. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for that generous reply: it was not quite a refusal to accept the amendment, and it kept the issue open. I gladly accept her offer to discuss it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 38 [Parenting contracts and parenting orders: further provisions]:
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 45:
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I again declare my involvement as president of the National Governors’ Association. I support everything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Now that the NGA and the head teachers’ association have got together on their respective responsibilities, it seems not only fair but sensible that there should be equal numbers represented on school forums, which have quite considerable power. I cannot think of a more sensible way of going about that than through a probing amendment such as this. There is also a slightly dubious situation when excess money sometimes comes back into the local authority. What is that to be spent on or recycled into? If an equal number of governors and head teachers cannot guide the local authority on particular needs, perhaps spending decisions might not be seen as entirely fair from an outsider’s viewpoint. Sometimes a school has unspent money in excess of some 5 per cent of its annual budget, which is not an insignificant amount. Then there is the issue of the status of “parent”. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham might provide some guidance on the situation that has been discussed of the status of “parent” in relation to people in prison. Various things happen, whereby the state may not be as good a parent as it should have been when looking after the health of the prisoners in its care. That is not a dissimilar situation to that of children in care. We know that a child in care is 10 times more likely to be excluded from school and that three out of every four children in care will leave school with no qualifications, compared to 6 per cent among the general population. I stress these issues because they need to be looked at in more detail. It would be extremely useful to receive some guidance from the Minister.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord RamsbothamCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, the point made by my noble friend Lady Howe relates to our extensive debate during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill on the in loco parentis responsibilities of care officials for those in custody who had no real parenting, other than from those officials. We were concerned that the social care worker responsible for the young person when they went into custody remained with the young person throughout the period of custody and acted in loco parentis. The question of how those responsibilities will be exercised for those in custody relates to the whole concept of this Bill, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. Therefore, I hope very much that when the Minister takes what has been said into account, she does not forget this important group of people, not least because they will come out of custody and back into the community. It is essential that they are picked up from that moment and receive the support outlined in the Bill.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for giving me an opportunity to do what he asks. I shall respond quickly but, I hope, comprehensively. It would not make sense for local authorities to enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders in relation to themselves. I know that I am stating the obvious, and we all understand that; I shall not labour that point. There are separate means of enforcing the important responsibilities of local authorities, which have their own duties to promote participation for all young people, including children and young people in care. The Secretary of State has the power to give a direction to a local authority under Section 496 or 497 of the Education Act 1996 if they are failing in that duty, and that is the duty that we will be relying on when we are talking about the role of corporate parents. Looked-after children, including children in care, will be able to stay in their care placement until they are 18 if they want to. This is something important to have come out of the Children and Young Persons Act. We are flipping over the normal assumption. We will be encouraging children and young people to stay in care until the age of 18, and there has to be a very good reason for them to think about leaving. They will receive focused support to stay in learning and succeed. We will ensure that young people in care and leaving care receive information, advice and guidance tailored to their needs, particularly through the very important targeted youth support arrangements being introduced, and that their social worker or young persons adviser, as their lead professional, has access to information about the choices available to them. On Amendment No. 212, local authorities currently decide the composition of their schools forum, and in the vast majority of areas this happens in consultation with the forum members and includes both head teachers and governors. Current regulations, as we have heard, state that school members must be elected by members of the relevant group, and local authorities with strong associations will certainly find this easier to facilitate than those without. This amendment will not change poor practice in local authorities, and the schools forums practice guidance already states that schools forums should aim for a membership structure based on equal proportions of head teachers and governors, although this is not always possible. Officials monitor the workings of schools forums on a regular basis and can look again at the national picture of composition and the effectiveness of forums. If there proves to be a case for making stronger regulation for the proportion of governors to head teachers, the power already exists for this to happen through secondary legislation, but I assure noble Lords that we are looking at this situation. Taking into account the comments about support for looked-after children and schools forums, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In relation to looked-after children, it is a case of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”. What do you do with the local authority if a child is in care but nevertheless is flouting the regulations? The Minister makes clear that it is the responsibility of the child’s social worker and that ultimately, if the local authority does not seem to be performing its duties, the Secretary of State has to step in and remonstrate with it. It is the Secretary of State who is responsible for making sure that the local authority performs its functions as the corporate parent. I am glad that we have clarification on this. I do not know that it gives those of us who have had experience of local authorities in their responsibilities for children in care much reassurance because one knows of cases where they fall down quite badly on these duties. We know that, as a result of recent legislation, including the Children and Young Persons Act, they should be improving their performance. Let us hope that they do so. It is reassuring to know that the Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that. I am a little disappointed by what the Minister said on Amendment No. 212. Here, there is explicit legislation concerned with the constitution of schools forums, and, if I may say so, it would be so simple just to introduce the amendment that I am suggesting rather than try to achieve the same thing later through regulations. The Minister tells me that we do not need such a provision in the Bill as it can be achieved through secondary legislation, but, as she can see from the figures that I quoted, many authorities are falling down on their responsibilities. What parity of representation is there here? As I said, a very small amendment to the legislation would do the trick. We will think about these things and consult further, but we may conceivably see the issue come back at Third Reading. I am not sure that we are satisfied that secondary legislation is sufficient but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 43 [Appeal arrangements]:
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 46:
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morris of BoltonConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 47:
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my amendments. The fact that I hope to speak only briefly does not at all reflect how passionately I feel that the Government are on a totally wrong course in criminalising any young person who remains outside education and training. I feel deep despair that all the work done to make education attractive and positive for young people, to turn it into something that offers pleasure, joy and satisfaction, could so easily be damaged by the sharp alternative, which will be seen as, “Either you stay in education or training, whether you want to or not, or you may end up going to prison and having a criminal record”. I cannot believe that the Government are going down that route. People of all political views and occupations find it impossible to believe. They say, “Surely this cannot be right”. They say that they heard the item on the radio about raising the school leaving age and thought it a splendid idea, but nobody mentioned that the alternative to someone staying on in training or education was to turn them into a criminal. If the Government change nothing else, I beg them to reconsider this extraordinary provision. To my knowledge, we would be the only country in the civilised world with such a provision. There is absolutely no evidence that compulsion of any kind makes a difference. Six out of the top seven countries on the OECD table showing the percentage of young people staying on in education and training have no compulsion at all. Not only is there no criminal element to compulsion; there is no compulsion whatever. They have a culture that makes education desirable and where it is clearly relevant to the needs of the adult population and the young people as they become adults. We need to try to foster that culture in the United Kingdom. We are not doing so at the moment. We are very low on the international league table on the numbers of young people staying on. Not only making the provision compulsory but having a criminal offence as the alternative could make our culture worse. It could make education even less attractive and less important in this country. I beg the noble Baroness to think for a moment of the success that her Government’s policies have already demonstrated in providing what I called in Committee the carrots: the educational maintenance grant, the new curriculum, and so on, which I support and of which I wholly approve. They have begun to turn the statistics round and more young people are staying on. Why spoil it now by making this horrendous sanction? Even if the Minister says that it will be in extreme cases only and will probably never happen or will be a last resort, nevertheless the message is there, which is crucial to young people. The message it conveys is that education is something that you have to do or you will be criminalised. I beg the Minister to please think again before she and the Government go down that route.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, it follows from our view about the argument on compulsion versus entitlement that we would enthusiastically support the noble Baronesses on the Conservative Benches as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was kind enough to support me in that earlier discussion. It is quite clear from the meeting we had yesterday afternoon with Jim Knight MP, the Minister in another place, that the Government accept that there will be a criminal offence in some cases. He told us that he thinks this is right if young people decide that, despite all the help they are given and despite all the barriers being taken away, they will not comply with the law the Government wish to introduce. We do not agree with that. We think it is wrong to criminalise young people. There is no doubt that this offence will be revealed in CRB checks—soon to be ISA checks—and that young people will be obliged to disclose it under certain circumstances when making job applications. It is quite wrong: a criminal offence should be something that is anti-social and that hurts other people. The Government would say that this hurts only the young people themselves. In a free country, people should be free to hurt themselves if they really must. We would rather they did not, but in a liberal democracy they should be free to do that, as long as it does not hurt anybody else. If young people conscientiously believe that now is the wrong moment for them to pursue their education, they should have the freedom to do that as long as they have an entitlement to go back to education later on. The Minister, Jim Knight, told us yesterday that, at the end of all these procedures, young people could be accused of contempt of court if all attempts to persuade them to comply and to pay the fine have failed. That is a criminal offence. It is clear, therefore, that the Government are proposing to criminalise young people on a matter about which they are not hurting anybody but themselves. We think that is wrong. We would support the Conservatives if they wanted to bring this back at Third Reading.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lord, there is no point in taking any further time on this because it goes without saying that what has just been said has my entire support and both myself and a number of Cross-Bench Members would back it. It is inevitably going to be those who are least able to look after themselves and the more deprived who will be hit by this provision. It is appalling that the Government are prepared to take this responsibility. We have all made our views clear on previous occasions.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord DearingCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I strongly support full-time education to 18 but I beg the Government not to introduce a criminal offence. The people who are likely to be caught by this are the people who are likely to be the most disadvantaged in life. To add that to their problems is intolerable.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, as we have discussed previously, enforcement action will always be a last resort. The focus of the policy is firmly on ensuring there is an appropriate and engaging learning opportunity for all young people and with the right support for them to stay in learning and succeed so that all who want to participate can do so. Successful implementation will depend on achieving this. If a young person is not participating, the emphasis will always be on help and support to address problems and re-engage the young person in learning long before any enforcement action is even considered. Looking specifically at Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 55 and 57, the presence of sanctions is necessary to make a reality of the new requirement to participate. If the new requirement is to be a serious one and to have the impact that we want in practice, we need to be clear that it is possible to enforce it as a last resort if absolutely necessary. Similarly, local authorities are used to holding in reserve a range of powers which they rarely, if ever, use, but which help to make a reality of requirements that they are responsible for implementing. As the representative of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services said in evidence sessions held in another place, “as a director of children’s services, I have a range of powers that I never use. However, if I did not have them, I would have different conversations with a range of people … without them, my leverage on the activity would be much reduced”. Numerous safeguards are built into the system to ensure that a young person does not face enforcement action unexpectedly and inappropriately. There must be no reasonable excuse for their non-participation, and they must have been given appropriate support to participate. They must be given 15 days’ notice of the authority’s intention to begin the first stage of the enforcement process, as noble Lords are aware. There is a route of appeal to an independent panel at every stage and if at any point in the enforcement process the young person returns to learning, formal action will stop. So a young person will be given an attendance notice only after all other attempts to engage them have failed, and there are a number of checks and balances to ensure that they are used only appropriately. However, in introducing the process of attendance notices, we need to be clear what will happen if they are not complied with; otherwise they will be ineffective. It is this set of clauses that clearly lays out the consequences of failing to comply with an attendance notice. As I think everyone in the House accepts, it will be extremely rare for a young person actually to reach this stage in practice, but it is absolutely necessary to make the rest of the system work. For this reason, these clauses must stand part of the Bill. I will now speak to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49, which seek to classify as a civil offence the offence of breaching an attendance notice. I appreciate the strength of feeling opposite. We have previously considered this option in some detail and concluded that it would not be in the interests of the young person or the local authority for the offence to be a civil offence, with a civil enforcement system. As the noble Baroness has said, civil penalties are enforced in the county courts, which are not set up to deal with young people in the way that youth courts are. I know that she takes issue with this, but, importantly, for example, judges in youth courts receive specialist training. We see it as important that as a matter of course youth courts are closed to the general public. I hear what the noble Baroness is saying and I am very interested in her views and in what she has brought to the discussion. However, a civil enforcement system for those under 18 could lead to greater financial costs to them. In a county court, the amount of debt for which a person is liable can increase as interest, court costs and recovery costs are added. In addition, the local authority could face mounting costs of pursuing the action. But that, for me, is not the issue. Let me also remind noble Lords that the criminal sanction comes only at the very end of the enforcement process. Civil sanctions alone do not present a realistic means of enforcing an attendance notice. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling, but I hope that she will withdraw her amendment today. On the government amendments, during Committee important points were raised in relation to the enforcement system for young people who fail to participate in education or training, and we did listen. That is why we have taken the incredibly unusual steps that we have. On 17 July in Committee, detailed questions were raised about the fine enforcement process for adults, as opposed to the youth courts system, and my noble friend Lord Adonis committed to come back on them. It was agreed that there was a need for amendments to ensure that a young person could not enter into custody as a result of defaulting, after the age of 18, on a fine imposed on him for failing to participate in education or training. As noble Lords are aware, it is the clear position of this Government that no person should enter custody as a result of committing the offence of failing to comply with an attendance notice without reasonable excuse. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but if someone is over 18 and is in contempt of court, that is a different issue. In relation to those aged under 18, we are satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that that will not happen, and custody is not an option available to the youth courts for default of payment of a fine.
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morris of BoltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer, but I am deeply disappointed by it. I did not once say that local authorities should not have within their armoury sanctions or powers to use against people who fail to undertake education or training. I just simply do not buy into the argument that the civil courts are not set up to deal with young people. I was speaking to a group of civil judges at the weekend, and they deal with young people every day on a range of issues. I should like to speak to the Minister between now and Third Reading because I do not understand the Government’s thinking on this. One does not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that the combined forces of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches mean that we could hold the Bill up for a while on this point. Nobody really wishes to do that because we have got to get it on to the statute book as there is a lot of work to be done. We are not saying that there should not be a sanction. We are simply saying that we do not want to take part in any legislation that criminalises a young person simply because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, he has chosen, without hurting anybody else, not to participate for whatever reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.] Clause 46 [Restrictions on proceedings for offences under section 45]: [Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.] Clause 47 [Failure to comply with attendance notice: penalty notice]:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 53:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morris of BoltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister has been able to announce this concession, notwithstanding what I said on the last group, which still stands. The issue of fines has been a sore one, and not simply because noble Lords have sought to make life difficult for the Government; it is because we have heard from groups outside the House—such as the Z2K Trust, which puts in long and thankless hours trying to help young people who find themselves in difficulty—that have been utterly dismayed at the prospect of fines being imposed. It would be quite ruinous to start slapping large fines on the very people who need help the most—teenagers who have few employment prospects or are on benefits, or who may have dependants of their own and simply could not afford to pay a large fine.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I welcome these amendments but want to ask the Minister a few questions, which were suggested to me by Barnardo’s. I think that she has been briefed about these. Barnardo’s welcomes the Government’s amendment to impose an upper limit on the fines that can be imposed, but seeks assurances on a number of issues. First, any penalty should be set at a level that reflects the financial support available to the poorest young people. Can the Minister reassure us on that? Secondly, could we be assured that young people would be able to make payment of any penalties in instalments, and would not be financially penalised for doing so? That should really be an option at the first issue of the penalty; the young person should not have to come back later to make an extra appeal to be able to pay by instalments. We also need assurance, thirdly, that the amount payable will not escalate like a congestion charge penalty if the notice is not paid within a certain period—especially where there is evidence of financial hardship. Fourthly, will the department work closely with voluntary organisations like Barnardo’s to review financial support for 16 to 18 year-olds and in developing financial incentives to encourage participation? The EMA is helpful for a number of young people, but a lot of organisations hope that the Government will be able to go somewhat further than that.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am looking for inspiration on one of the questions. In considering and consulting with others about the appropriate penalty, we will take into account the wider context of the income available to young people at the time, including through financial support. On instalments, we have said that that should be possible and that we will use our regulation powers to provide for it. As I understand it, it is not possible for fines to escalate in the way the noble Baroness is concerned about. I stress for the record that we will be happy to work with Barnardo’s and all stakeholders concerned about the interests of young people to ensure that the system works and is fair and appropriate given the financial resources of young people. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 54:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 62:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 63:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord EltonConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 64A:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RamsbothamCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I shall be as short as possible. I am particularly interested in the second part of the amendment, which refers to children in custody. This is by no means the first time that this issue has been raised. Indeed, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I raised it in 1999 as a requirement to enable speech and language therapists to assess everyone coming in for what they could do, could not do, their communication difficulties, healthcare and so on. This went on to a trial proving that these people were indispensable in every young offender institution, not only in the areas of speech and language but to guide disciplinary staff, education, healthcare and so on. It was then picked up by the Bercow review, which reported this summer. A large part of that review is devoted to the desperate importance of assessment as early as possible. All the points in the amendment are in line with what the Government have known for some time and have had put to them on many occasions. I hope the Minister will accept that ministries such as the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health should be included in discussions about the amendment, because the provision of people to do this will affect ministries other than the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord AddingtonLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I have one question for the Minister, which applies to both legs of the amendment. Will there be some facility to explain what the hidden difficulty is, either to the parent, in the first case, or to that young person who is in the system? By this I mean that if you tell somebody that they are dyslexic—to use an example that I know about—their first question is, “What does that mean?”. If you then give some diatribe about working harder and not getting your Bs and Ds wrong, you probably deserve to have something thrown at you. If you explain that it is something to do with problems of short-term memory and the way one functions and processes information, and nothing to do with intellectual ability, you may open the door to that person being receptive to forms of help in the future. That is why it is very important that somebody is there to explain, either to the parent or the young person, exactly why they have failed—or, at least, one of the reasons why they have failed—in the past. Without that, simply going back to something like a classroom situation, particularly in the case of young offenders, is only going to make a bad situation worse.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, on these Benches we have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Elton’s amendment. We look forward to the Government’s assurances to satisfy his concerns.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I very much support this amendment and have no doubt that it will save money in the long run. I hope it will be agreed to.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord LucasConservative- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment will save not only money, but a lot of lives, or at least the point of lives. There are far too many people with obviously treatable problems, such as dyslexia, who end up in prison because their problems are never spotted. Good schools carry out this kind of diagnosis anyway, but far too many do not and tend to forget about those children, who fail as a result. This is a simple, well understood remedy, which the Government could easily take, given sufficient money.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I have a lengthy speaking note in response to this. This is an incredibly important subject, of great concern to your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has tabled this amendment. I would never presume that any conversation we might have between now and Third Reading would necessarily rule out his absolute right to bring his concerns to Third Reading. I hope we can meet before then to discuss his concerns, and not only those about dyslexia. Jim Rose is undertaking a review of dyslexia at the moment. We are thinking about such things as specific modules in teacher training, and so on. There is much to say on this, but I know that there are other areas of concern to the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Addington and Lord Lucas. They have legitimate points to make. I am happy to meet to discuss further, and hope I can offer more reassurance in a lengthy discussion about how we are taking this whole agenda forward.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord EltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I think that will read, in Hansard, like a very firm undertaking to discuss, with no undertaking whatever as to what will emerge from those discussions. I am glad to meet for such discussions. I hope they may include noble Lords who have spoken in his admirable mini-debate, which has brought out the main points, and that they can be timely, so that we are not again rushing to do something which ought to be done with great deliberation. With warm thanks to those noble Lords who have stayed for this rather formal little dance, prior to the real debate—which will not, alas, be recorded in Hansard—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 65:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 69:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 71:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. As I prepared for this Bill I had the opportunity to meet representatives from a wide range of organisations, many of whom have devoted years to helping young people to find the opportunities that we are discussing in this Bill. By and large, they welcomed the Government’s proposals to one degree or another, but one point that was impressed on me several times was that even if the Government and local education authorities opened up new courses, apprenticeships and training programmes, they would be worthless unless the people supposed to benefit from them were able to get there. Young people who seek training and education opportunities may not have the wherewithal to travel from place to place in pursuit of their duty under the Bill unless some provision is made for them. I have already spoken about the need for the Government to be quite certain that they have done all they can to enable young people to fulfil their duty. These amendments follow that theme.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, we share the noble Baroness’s views that access to affordable transport is integral to helping young people to access education and training. Current legislation strikes a balance between protecting the interests of young people everywhere and giving local authorities the flexibility to direct resources to local priorities. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that local authorities should have the discretion to determine how to target their funding to meet local needs. By 2010-11, the increase in total government grant for local services since 1997 will be 45 per cent in real terms. Drawing on this funding, the current duty requires local authorities to take into account the costs of transport in preparing their transport policy statements and this should ensure that transport is affordable for young people. Furthermore, I can announce that we will use the opportunity of the fourth Session Bill to amend the current post-16 transport duty and strengthen local accountability. We will do that by bolstering the current duty on local authorities to prepare and publish a transport policy statement, requiring them to set out in the statement the assessments they have made in drawing up their transport policy, and by improving the route for appeal to local authority policy, if a parent or young person believes that transport provision is a barrier to their participation in education or training and that their circumstances have not been adequately considered in the transport statement. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. Amendment No. 73 relates to transport provision for learners with learning difficulties. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Adonis committed to looking at this issue over the summer. Over the summer we have been working with Skill: National Bureau for Students With Disabilities to work out the best way forward. I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Low, who is unfortunately not able to be here today, to discuss progress and the need for momentum. As part of this work, my department has looked at the services and support that are made available to learners with learning difficulties by local authorities and how we can support them to develop commissioning and other systems to improve their efficiency and reach. We have also commissioned some work from Skill, looking at the needs of this group and possible solutions. This research is in its final stages, and we will consider the findings very carefully; in particular, it will inform decisions about how we legislate in the new fourth Session Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, this new Bill proposes transferring the funding and responsibility for commissioning 16 to 19 provision from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities from 2010. Local authorities will also have responsibility for commissioning provision for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. We are sympathetic to the purpose of this amendment and think it needs to be considered within the changes as a part of the fourth Session Bill. The proposal made in the White Paper was that responsibility for the participation of these learners will sit with local authorities. In the mean time, we believe that we can make a number of improvements to the existing system. The noble Baroness highlighted those, including strengthening the current learning difficulty assessment guidance to include an explicit reference to considering the young person’s wider needs, including transport. We will consult on this guidance directly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The noble Baroness is right that travel training can be extremely beneficial for this group of young people. It is an area that we particularly asked Skill to consider. Its interim findings advocate the benefits and the good work that is going on in many areas but it also recognises that it can be of variable quality and not available everywhere. To address that we have committed to highlighting good practice in travel training through our guidance on transport to local authorities and we will underline their responsibilities in this area in a series of workshops to take place in the spring. We will also work with awarding bodies, which I see as an important mechanism to encourage the accreditation of travel training as part of the foundation learning tier to enable colleges and providers to attract funding for this training more easily. That will really help. We believe that these measures will improve the transport support available to this group and will bring all local authorities up to the standards of the best. I will be looking closely at progress and will consider whether it is necessary to do more alongside other local authority duties as we introduce legislation in the fourth Session. I assure noble Lords that the trail is not going cold. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for a positive reply on both scores. As I understand it, the Government will bring forward legislation in the next Session to put rather more pressure on local authorities to require them to be specific in their travel plans and to justify their assessments of what is needed. There will also be appeals where it is felt that they are not doing what they should. In relation to the first two amendments, that is a good response. We shall be looking at what comes forward in the next Session and will raise the issue again if we feel that it is not being adequately addressed. We look forward to seeing what comes forward. In relation to the third amendment, I am delighted to hear what is happening. All that the Minister mentioned sounds positive. I know that the Government have been working with Skill partly in order to establish the numbers involved. As I indicated, it looks as though the actual numbers needing help in this way are relatively small in relation to the total number of disabled students and those with learning difficulties. Many of them do not need special transport arrangements. I am pleased to hear that the Minister will carry these discussions forward. Again, we look forward to seeing legislation in the next Session. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.] Clause 73 [Learning aims for persons aged 19 and over]:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord DearingCrossbench
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 74:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, two things are different from the last time I was on my feet on this subject. First, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has been able to take forward these complicated matters. I am enormously thankful for that. Secondly, sadly, the economic situation has changed quite dramatically. So, as we have already heard, we are reluctantly looking at a different situation. What is decided at level 3 bears directly on what we can achieve at level 4. Let us focus on that. Our achievement at level 3 will largely determine the ceiling of what can be achieved at level 4. In supporting the amendment to extend to 30 the age limit for support for level 3 students, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to Germany and the United States having already exceeded the commonly quoted target of 40 per cent at level 4 by 2020. The same may of course also be said for Japan, Canada and Russia, which have similarly already achieved that level 4. How can a Government be serious in setting targets for 2020, as we know this Government are, which five competitor nations have already achieved? Who knows how many more will join them, including France and South Korea, for example? It would not be extremely worrying if we could assume that, having already passed 40 per cent at level 4, those countries would rest on their laurels; but we have no grounds for assuming that that will happen, when it is commonly accepted across the globe that competitive advantage is achieved by investment in education. In 12 years, those countries could well reach 50 per cent. Speaking bluntly, I am more than sad that we are pulling back from the proposals that we made earlier that support for students aspiring to level 3 should extend across the entire working life, or certainly until at least the age of 50; but I am aware that cost is very much an issue. I note, however, that at the Labour Party conference—admittedly it was last year, but nevertheless it was important—the Prime Minister said that, “this is the century when we cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone … we need to unlock the talents of all our people. In the last century the question was can we afford to do this? In the face of economic challenge, I say: in this century we cannot afford not to”. I would gladly accept the argument that there are more cost-effective ways of achieving progress towards the kind of level 3 performance that we need by 2020—somewhere between 45 per cent and 50 per cent, as my noble friend Lord Dearing argued. However, if the Government cannot even accept our proposal to extend the age limit for support to 30, or something around that age, bearing mind that 70 per cent of those who will be of working age in 2020 are already at work, will the Minister answer the following now, or before the next stage of the Bill? First, in the light of the performance of other countries, what is a desirable level of achievement for level 4 by 2020? Secondly, by what measures will the Government achieve that figure and what will each measure contribute?
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and I quite understand why he made these proposals. I am sorry to say, however, that I cannot support his amendments. I am worried that if a person has not yet reached the required standards in English and maths, they should not be attempting level 1 in French or any other subject. I am concerned that the free offer in these proposals may be used for educational training in areas other than maths or English, at a time when those skills are absolutely key to the modern jobs market in whatever employment people choose to go into, particularly in the current economic climate.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley were added to these amendments and we did that with pleasure. In many senses, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, knows that we believe that the amendment is rather tame. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, explained that they would have liked to endorse the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment which proposed that there should be an entitlement to a level 3 education at any age—including after retirement—for all students if they had not received the benefit of it previously. These days, we often talk about the lack of aspiration of young people, and perhaps of the teachers of young people. Here there is a lack of aspiration by the Government. We know perfectly well, from the Leitch report, that we must look to mature students to fill the gap in our skills base, which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, rightly pointed out. The gap at level 3 is glaring and has been for a long time. The Government are doing practically nothing to fill that gap. We have not got enough young people coming through the system at level 3 and level 4 and we must be prepared to help students achieve qualifications at this level. The minimum we can do is give those who aspire to a level 3 qualification the same rights as we give to those at level 4. Those at level 4 have the right to a loan to cover the cost of their tuition. Part-time students at level 3 do not have the same rights. Mature students at level 3, even if they are full time, do not have the same rights. There is a gross inequality here for those at level 3, many of whom lost out in the education system at an earlier point. That the Government do not have the inspiration or the aspiration to meet their needs is a very sad indictment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, quoted previous Labour Party manifestos and their aspirations as to what should be achieved. The Government are letting down a whole group of the population. As for the foundation-tier levels, these seem to be minimal qualifications. It is very sad that the Conservative Party takes the line it is taking, and very mean indeed. Here we have people with no qualifications whatever. The Conservative Party knows very well the importance these days of accreditations or qualifications of some sort or another. Surely people have a right to aspire to the lowest level of qualification. We are giving everybody the right to take what we call the full-fat level 2 qualification. If people do not have the capability of doing the full-fat level 2, surely the minimum we can do is encourage them to acquire the level 1 foundation-tier qualifications that we are now providing. From these Benches we endorse these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ intentions in tabling these amendments. My officials and I have met them on a number of occasions since they raised similar amendments in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, accuses us of a lack of inspiration and aspiration. I find that a bit over the top given that here we are discussing an Education and Skills Bill which is raising the participation age and applying free funding to a significant range of individuals. I reject her charge. I feel that, as we approach Christmas, I am somehow being labelled Scrooge and I will endeavour to prove that that is not a fair description. This Bill gives us something extra in our efforts to raise skill levels. For the first time it introduces a legal requirement to ensure the Learning and Skills Council waives fees for adults undertaking specified basic skills—first full level 2 and, for adults aged 19 to 25, first full level 3 qualifications. This is a really strong signal of the Government’s commitment to supporting skills development. Amendment No. 74 would extend to those aged up to 30 the duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure free tuition for a first full level 3 qualification. We know level 3 skills deliver good returns to individuals and the economy. The returns over the lifetime of a person moving from level 2 to level 3 are around £45,000, so it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, said and many employers demand, that as many people as possible should be qualified at higher levels, including at level 3, which is often a gateway to further higher level learning. However, level 3 learning programmes do not come cheap and our initial analysis is that extending the duty on the Learning and Skills Council to include free tuition for a first full level 3 qualification for adults aged between 25 and 30 would cost around £85 million over the next three years. This includes education and training secured by the LSC through both Train to Gain and mainstream further education routes. We are already doing much to help all adults, including those over 25, to reskill and upskill by helping them gain full qualifications at level 2 and level 3. Compared with 2001, there are now 2.2 million more adults of working age with qualifications at level 3 and above, and around 100,000 adults achieved a level 3 qualification in 2006-07 through LSC-funded programmes. Over the next two years alone, we plan to increase by 20 per cent the investment in level 3 training that the economy needs. I do not see a lack of aspiration in that kind of investment. Unfortunately, if I were to agree to this amendment—and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we have considered it carefully—I would have to divert resources within the Learning and Skills Council’s budget away from the priorities that we have set out for the next three years. That would have a significant impact on the provision available for the lowest-skilled and most disadvantaged individuals in the country—a subject on which I know from my conversations with him that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has strong feelings.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord DearingCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and found his remarks on the foundation stage very encouraging. I took it as meaning that the Government will look for opportunities to help these people. As for the level 3 people, it would be helpful if the Government were to respond to the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and say how they expect and plan to achieve whatever the league target is. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, did say that we need to aim for 45 per cent. I note what the Official Opposition said, which related specifically to the foundation learning tier. There was silence on the other matter, which may or may not be significant. I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support. We will read the Minister’s remarks carefully, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.] Clause 79 [Independent educational institutions]: [Amendment No. 77 not moved.] Clause 82 [The register]:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 78:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morris of BoltonConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, in Committee I expressed my enormous gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when he indicated that the Government had reconsidered these issues, so I warmly welcome the important concessions embodied in this vast group of amendments. Many barriers have been broken down, and there is now a good relationship between the state and the independent sector, which the Government’s action and these amendments can only strengthen. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 89:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 94:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 100 to 103:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 106:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 107 to 109:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 113:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 115:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 118:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 119:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 129:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 137:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 140:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 143 to 147:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 150:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 153:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 154 to 157:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 158 to 161:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 162 to 165:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 168:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 171:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 172 and 173:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 174:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 180:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 183:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 184 to 186:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 190:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 191:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 192:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness WhitakerLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice president of the British Humanist Association. I support the amendment moved so fully and eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I do not think it is right that a particular creed should be forced on students who are able to think, learn and explore for themselves. As the noble Baroness said, they should have education in ethics and values to fit them for the kind of broad, inclusive society that we hope to attain.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not think I shall add a great deal to what my noble friend said in Committee, but I shall take this opportunity to be clear. The amendments in this group extend the right set out in Clause 129 for sixth formers in non-maintained special schools to withdraw from collective worship to all competent pupils in every school. In addition, the amendments, if accepted, would allow competent pupils to opt out of RE as well as collective worship and, for the first time, extend the statutory rights to pupils of academies. Fundamentally, they would change the settlement that has been in place since 1944 regarding the provision of religious education to children and young people and the right of withdrawal that may be exercised by parents. I know that the noble Baroness is aware of that, but it is not something that the Government can support right now. The amendments also introduce new arrangements for the withdrawal of pupils from collective worship. The Government recognise the value of collective worship in schools because it contributes to young people’s spiritual, social, moral and cultural development by exploring social and moral issues and their own beliefs. Collective worship is a long-standing aspect of school life, and many parents want their children to benefit from it, whether or not they have a strong Christian belief themselves. The current position in the case of maintained community, foundation, voluntary and special schools is that all pupils must receive RE unless withdrawn by their parents, as the noble Baroness is aware. All pupils should attend collective worship unless withdrawn by their parents up to the age of 16 or they withdraw themselves in the sixth form. Clause 129 replicates these provisions for pupils at non-maintained special schools so that all maintained schools and non-maintained special schools would be placed on the same footing. The Government judge that there is no good reason for children in non-maintained and maintained special schools to have different rights in relation to collective worship. These amendments reproduce similar ones debated in Committee. Indeed, the noble Baroness reminded us of a debate, which noble Lords may remember, during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act in 2006. At that time, the Government agreed with the noble Baroness that there was a case for extending the right of withdrawal from collective worship to children over compulsory school age, and we duly brought forward amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords on both sides of the Committee recognised the difficulties that would result from the amendments currently before us, and my noble friend Lord Adonis made it clear that the intention behind them was a step too far. Over the Summer Recess, the Government’s position has not changed. We believe that the balance has been struck in the right place by allowing sixth form pupils to withdraw themselves from collective worship. As noble Lords may recognise, religious education is a distinctly different issue that relates to the content of the schools’ curriculum. A non-statutory national framework for religious education now seeks to ensure that children gain a broad and balanced understanding of religion. More local standing advisory councils on religious education are now adopting syllabuses based on that framework. We welcome that development and see no case for changing the law at present to provide children with an opt-out from religious education.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Yet again, my Lords, I see that I have not convinced the Minister. Perhaps I could tentatively mention that I regard this issue as another PSHE. Not so long ago, the Government rejected our amendments on PSHE with the same fervour as the noble Baroness and her predecessor have rejected these amendments, whose day will come. This Government have moved a long way towards giving children their human rights. Clearly, for the moment, they will not go as far as giving them this particular right, but I have every confidence that they will see the light one day—as I hope they also will on reasonable chastisement, and the child’s right to have equal protection under the law from assault as adults do. However, it is quite clear that the Government will not move on this, so I shall not waste any more of your Lordships’ time. I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will come back to this on every appropriate Bill in future. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 193 to 195 not moved.] Clause 130 [Protection of pupils in an emergency]:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 196:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 203 and 204:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 205:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s arguments, which would give sixth formers a greater choice, not only in the preference they express for schools but also with regard to what course they take when they get there. Ideally schools would provide all possible options so that no one would be disappointed. However, we do not have an ideal system but one where budgets, staffing availability, pupil numbers and much else besides influence what courses of study schools can provide for their pupils. We should be wary of placing on statute an aspiration that is best met by allowing schools the flexibility to offer their pupils the courses of study which are available according to their individual circumstances.
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about making maximum real choice available but I do not believe that this is the vehicle with which to achieve it. We are dealing with admissions and I shall go on to develop why. As regards Amendment No. 205, we are placing a duty on young people in England to participate in education or training until the age of 18. The duty to do so will be on the young people rather than their parents; therefore it is only right that young people are able to decide for themselves at which school they wish to continue their education. The purpose of Clause 136 is to give young people in England and Wales the same rights as their parents to apply for a place at a particular school of their choice, and Clause 138 gives them a right to appeal against a decision to refuse them admission. The amendment seeks to extend the rights of those stating a preference for a school to include an additional right to specify a particular course of study. This right would apply only in the context of sixth-form education. An effect of the amendment would be to place a duty on admission authorities—which, in many cases, would be the local education authority—to ensure that a particular course of study was available to a particular young person. That should not be the job of the admission authority but should be left to the school, where a discussion can take place as to which course is appropriate for the young person. In addition, where a sixth form does not offer a particular course of study, a young person will be entitled to state a preference for a place in another sixth form where the course of study is available. I am sure that many of us, as parents, have been through the process of helping our children to find the right sixth form college or school. As noble Lords will be aware, the next Education and Skills Bill will propose transferring the funding and responsibility for commissioning 16 to 19 provision from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities from 2010. As part of this duty, local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient provision available to meet the needs of all learners in their area. That is where we are directing, with due respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It will be a duty of the local authority to ensure that there is, from 2010, sufficient provision available to meet the needs of all learners in their area. We will be stressing the importance of ensuring a diversity of provision so that it includes access to a range of provision that will genuinely increase learner choice. This and other changes that we are making to the range of post-16 options will ensure that all young people can access a course of learning that is appropriate and relevant. I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in relation to this. We should be wary of giving them an almost impossible task of trying to ensure, through the process of admissions, that every course of study that any particular student might wish for will be available at every school or college. I hope that the assurances I have given on the duty of local authorities—to ensure a diverse range of provision from 2010—show that we are cognisant of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. On those grounds, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The purpose of this amendment was really to bring to the department’s attention the fact that there is a degree of inequality here that is a problem. Clearly, if some students have to change school at 16 and others can stay within the same institution, it should not necessarily be the inherent right of those staying within the institution to fill up all the popular courses. It may be that a student chooses a particular institution because it is well known that it teaches a particular subject. We have all these specialist colleges and schools now; some are much better at teaching some subjects than others and have a very good reputation. As this Bill is implemented and we have more young people staying on in school wanting to opt for particular courses, this could be a bigger issue. It is important that the department should think about this issue and how best to meet it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 140 [Power of governing body: educational provision for improving behaviour]:
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 206:
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I intend to say little more than, “Thank you very much”. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns that this power could have had a serious disproportionate impact on some groups which are already overrepresented in school exclusions, such as disabled people and African and Caribbean boys. We share its concern and are delighted that the Government are going to prevent governing bodies using this power as a way of dumping inconvenient pupils. It will be important to see the detail of the regulations and the accompanying guidance. I will ask only one question about that today, because of the late hour. Will governing bodies be able to renew, in the following school year, the same power to send a young person somewhere else for the purposes of improving their behaviour? In other words, could one order finish at the end of a school year, only to be replaced by an identical action at the beginning of the following school year, thus neutralising the Government’s limitation on the power in the amendments?
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, my noble friend Lady Morris voiced some concern regarding the original provision. I would not want headmasters’ ability to impose discipline in their own schools to be taken away by this approach, so I should like to read carefully what the Minister said.
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I hear the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We do not want a loophole which would detract from the intention of this amendment. I will get proper advice and write to her before Third Reading. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 207:
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 208:
- Time
- 00:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, from these Benches, along with all year 9 students, we say hurrah to this decision. We thank the Minister for sending us the letter and informing us. We are delighted that the Government took into account the advice of the Select Committee. The Minister did not mention that the Select Committee also pointed out that SATs for 14 year-olds were both expensive and unnecessary. My honourable friend Mr Laws in the other place made it quite clear in the middle of July that he thought that we should scrap them there and then, because the debacle over their marking had shown that they were not only expensive and unnecessary but also unreliable. He called for the money that we were saving to be put into one-to-one tuition to tackle basic problems in reading and writing of the kind that we discussed when considering the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There is a need for money to be put into those basics, and we are delighted to see it. In general, we very much welcome this development.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the scrapping of key stage 3 tests. As my honourable friend Michael Gove said in another place, we need fewer national tests and much more rigour. We would like to see tests that are designed to drive up standards. We do not want to see standards brought down so that children can quickly be put through a succession of exams. This is not a matter for this Bill. It deserves a great deal more thought and consultation and a sea change in attitude from the Government. I hope, however, that we can see in these amendments, tucked away at the end of these proceedings, the beginnings of that process. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 209:
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I will need to write to the noble Baroness and put a copy of the letter in the Library but I will take just a few minutes—I predict about four—to respond. We are sympathetic to the broad intentions behind the amendments. However, as she said, my noble friend Lord Adonis stated our position when we discussed this issue previously—namely, that it is not necessary to legislate to give pupils a right to make representations in exclusions since statutory guidance already covers this by allowing pupils several opportunities to give their views. Neither do we wish to impose new financial burdens on local authorities by requiring them to make arrangements for the provision of independent representation or assistance. Our position remains the same. My noble friend Lord Adonis, however, did agree to consider giving pupils under 18 a right of appeal following permanent exclusion. After further consideration during the Summer Recess, particularly in light of the observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that, as I outlined in my letter of 14 October to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it is our intention to consult on giving pupils under 18 their own right to appeal in their exclusion proceedings, within the wider context of other appeal forums including appeals to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal—SENDIST—and admissions. I take this opportunity to outline some additional details of this proposal. It is our intention that there be a three-month formal consultation, in line with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. The consultation will be widespread, including engagement with young people who have been excluded or have special educational needs, to seek their views. This will be done in various ways, such as through 11 Million and voluntary sector groups. The scope of the consultation will be, as set out in my letter—although I am happy to write further if I have not covered the noble Baroness’s question—to consider the broad principle of giving young people their own right of appeal following permanent exclusion, as well as on the specific areas in which they might do so. It will be primarily about how a right of appeal following permanent exclusion might be implemented, and what other policy areas, such as SENDIST, this should apply to. In addition, we will be consulting on the appropriate age for a pupil to have the right of appeal. We will obviously want to see the outcome of the consultation, but at this stage it is anticipated that different ages might need to apply to different policy areas. Finally, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was interested in the new arrangements for SENDIST. The Tribunals Service at the Ministry of Justice consulted last year on the proposed new arrangements for the tribunals following the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, including the proposal that SENDIST become part of the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the new first-tier tribunal. On the whole, the responses supported the Government’s proposals. The Tribunals Service has also consulted on the rules for the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber this summer. The final version of the rules will come into force on 3 November and has been altered in response to representations from people with an interest in special educational needs. I will ensure that a copy of the consultation is sent to the noble Baroness. I am very grateful to her for highlighting the important issue of pupils’ rights to appeal, and hope that together we can make progress on these important issues.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 211:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WhitakerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I support the amendment. Young Gypsy and Traveller people are among those whom this good Bill most needs to reach. Now that their traditional ways of earning a living are diminishing, they and their parents are coming to want educational and skill qualifications to equip them to continue to do so. However, they still face astonishing discrimination and bullying in secondary education, as I heard from a most impressive group of young Roma Gypsy students last week. I will not read out the report of that meeting at this hour, but it is harrowing. Without Traveller education services, many of them will lose heart, as they do now. My noble friend’s predecessor was positive on this point, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, but local authorities did not follow his lead and make provision. They must do so, or many of these young people will be unable to make much at all from the opportunities furthered by the Bill.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I welcome the genuine concern that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, showed in moving his amendment. I assure him that the same concern is felt by those of us on these Benches: that all children should receive the high-quality education that is their right. Because all children should receive that education, it is unnecessary to establish a separate Traveller education service. It is the duty of local education authorities to educate all children for whom they are responsible, regardless of their background.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WhitakerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there are already Traveller education services? This is a question of making them consistent and universal. The service already exists.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness VermaConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. My point is that it is a duty on local education authorities to educate all children regardless of their background. We must put effort into seeing that that is done.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for the amendment and for again giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Funding is not ring-fenced, as this is against DCSF policy. Traveller education services are funded through the authorities’ revenue support grant, and ethnic minority achievement grant. These grants are for all vulnerable pupils, not just for the Gypsy Roma Traveller community. The noble Lord asked for an update on progress. Since July, the national strategies Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Achievement Project has been extended across a further 10 local authorities, bringing the total to 22. This will disseminate good practice in Traveller education to secondary and primary schools in these areas. In late 2009, it will produce guidance documents available to all schools. New target-setting groups for local authorities will be laid before the House in December. The number of groups will be reduced from 17 to eight, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller is one of these. This means in practice that any authority with three or more pupils from this group will set progression targets at key stage 2 and 4 for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils. In response to concerns about the possible erosion of Traveller education support services, the DCSF has commissioned the National Association of Teachers of Travellers to undertake a survey of its members to explore this issue in more depth. The results of the survey will be available in December and will enable the DCSF to implement appropriate action. To enable Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils who regularly travel with their families, the electronic learning and mobility programme has been extended to include more than 700 Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils who may otherwise have had their education interrupted. I am sure that there is a lot more to talk about and I am concerned that I may not have answered all of the noble Lord’s questions. He suggested that I write to him, which I will do to expand on my comments. My colleague in the other place who joined the department at the same time as me, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, is the new Minister for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. She is very keen to meet the noble Lord to hear his views on the subject and his perspective on the issues. Although it is late, I hope that we have been able to continue the momentum that the noble Lord initiated and my noble friend Lord Adonis responded to. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the invitation from Sarah McCarthy-Fry. I hope that it will be possible to meet her with some of the officials from ACERT, with whom we had an extremely productive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I shall pursue that matter immediately. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the electronic learning programme. It is an impressive achievement that 700 pupils who would otherwise probably not have been receiving an education are in this programme. I congratulate the DCSF on what it has done on that. I very much look forward to the results of the NATT survey, which the noble Baroness said will be published in December. Perhaps that will provide a peg on which to hang the discussion with ACERT. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and for promising to follow it up with a letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 148 [Constitution of schools forums]: [Amendment No. 212 not moved.] Clause 149 [Orders and regulations]:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 213 to 217:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 218:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 240:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 241 and 242:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗