Debates — Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning

Committee stage in the Lords

19 Oct 200951 speechesView in Hansard ↗

Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 286, 288, 288AA, 289 and 290. This group of amendments relates to the clause…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 286, 288, 288AA, 289 and 290. This group of amendments relates to the clauses about complaints against schools. We on these Benches share the Government’s position that wherever possible complaints should be dealt with quickly and effectively at the school level. Such a process should be simple and as non-adversarial as possible. The focus should be on a quick resolution rather than a drawn out bureaucratic process in line with other statutory complaint processes for children. We therefore welcome the provisions that allow for parents and pupils to pursue complaints against a school and, if necessary, refer the matter to the local commissioner. This is significant progress towards implementing Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the education system; that is, the right for children to have their views heard. While we on these Benches believe that it is important that parents and pupils who have a genuine complaint against a school have appropriate channels for obtaining satisfaction, we have considerable reservations about the system proposed by the Government. We do not want this to be a moaners’ charter or something that takes up a lot of the time of head teachers of good schools. We have therefore laid Amendment 283B, the effect of which is to prevent the local commissioner substituting his judgment for that of the head teacher unless it relates to a function prescribed in regulations. We would really like to know what is meant by a “prescribed function” and what sort of function it is. It is important that the new system should not be used by very determined parents to have one more try to get what they want. There has been some experience among appeals panels relating to exclusions and admissions that every tier of possible complaint will bring in an additional batch of such complaints. We need to avoid the danger of the head’s ability to maintain good order and discipline being undermined. It is a matter of balance and reasonableness, which I accept is difficult to legislate for, but the test of reasonableness must apply. In other words, the local commissioner should be able to substitute his judgment only if the school’s decision or behaviour was unreasonable by the commonly held standards of the profession. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has tabled Amendments 284 and 285, about which we have some concerns. In these amendments, the local commissioner would be prevented from considering complaints about behaviour, the enforcement of school rules, or fixed-term exclusions. While we normally uphold the principle that the judgment of the head teacher should operate in these matters, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the head teacher might behave unreasonably in these matters. The noble Baroness’s amendments would therefore weaken the right of redress and take away the flexibility of the local commissioner, so we do not support them. Amendment 286 seeks to include academies in the arrangements for complaints to be heard. It seems wrong, especially as the number of academies grows, that children attending such schools should not have recourse to the local commissioner in the same way as their neighbours do. Why have academies been excluded, and what recourse do parents of academy pupils have if they have a serious complaint against the school? We will not move Amendment 288, in the light of the Government’s Amendment 288ZA about vexatious complaints, which we welcome. In Amendment 288AA, we address the right of the commissioner in certain circumstances, to be prescribed in future regulations, to extend the hearing of complaints to former pupils. The amendment would restrict this to circumstances in which it is in the public interest to do so. We are concerned that parents who have exercised their right to remove a child may retain an indefinite right to make complaints against their child’s former school. Some situations just cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and we cannot have this sort of thing hanging over the heads of schools indefinitely, so will the Minister indicate what will be in the regulations? Our Amendment 289 would ensure that when a parent refers a complaint to the local commissioner, he must allow the child the opportunity to comment on the matter. We cannot know about children’s experiences or hope to secure their best interests without asking them their views and listening to their perspectives. The amendment would ensure that, where children want to participate, the local commissioner will hear them and use their views to inform both the conduct of the investigation and the forming of their judgments. It would be an essential safeguard to ensure that children have the opportunity to remain engaged rather than risk becoming excluded throughout the local commissioner’s investigation. The amendment would not force a child to speak to the local commissioner where the child feels uncomfortable or chooses not to express an opinion. However, it would place a duty on the local commissioner to ask them whether they would like to contribute to the investigation. Amendment 290 would place a duty on the local commissioner to ensure the provision of an advocate to children and young people who make complaints about a school if they so wish. An advocate is an independent person who assists a young person to make his or her voice heard. Independent advocates have operated in children’s social care services since the late 1980s, following revelations of abuse and mistreatment in children’s homes. There is growing evidence that advocacy not only improves decision-making processes for children but safeguards their well-being. Advocates can demystify the process, raise the child’s understanding of the consequences of their view, help the child to express himself and support local resolutions through processes of arbitration and conciliation. Advocacy can be particularly helpful for disabled children, who face particular barriers to having their voice heard. As Sir William Utting put it in People Like Us: the Report of the Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home: “Children sometimes need someone with whom they can talk through a problem before deciding how best to deal with it”. Those are wise words. I beg to move.
Time
20:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness VermaMy Lords, we are broadly in favour of these clauses and the role which they give the local commissioner. I think most w…
Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative
Quote
My Lords, we are broadly in favour of these clauses and the role which they give the local commissioner. I think most would agree that it is very important to empower parents with due knowledge, understanding and control over what happens to their children at school. We should also acknowledge that it is useful, indeed necessary, to have some fixed process by which complaints can be made and addressed. At the moment, complaints which cannot be satisfied by the governing body of a school go directly to the Secretary of State, which is impractical and unnecessary. Nevertheless, as we have made clear time and time again, it is crucial that the rights and hard work of teachers are not dismissed. Any complaints system, by its very nature, is bound to be messy. This is even more true of a system which will come into force only when the complaint has risen above the level of the school’s governing body. Many factors have to be taken into account and the decision will not always be easy, nor will it always seem fair. It is therefore important to begin with a system which seems to strike the right balance between the rights of the parents, the rights of the pupil and the rights of the teachers. Teachers must be allowed to exert their authority and should have the power to enforce school rules without constant second-guessing. We on these Benches think it is crucial that our teachers are afforded the professional respect they deserve. To this end, we have tabled Amendment 285, which would mean that any decision taken to enforce the published school rules cannot be taken to the local commissioner and waste his valuable time. The school rules are there for all to see and, within the context of the school, surely it is right that teachers should be able to take proportionate action to enforce them. Does the Minister accept that we must trust the professionalism and expertise of our teachers to be able to do this? It may be that there are specific instances where a bad decision is made and action needs to be taken by parents. But in those circumstances, is the Minister saying that the only way of taking these specific complaints forward would be through the local commissioner? Our concern is that without narrowing the remit of complaints, teachers will not be able to impose the discipline which they need in order to get on with their main job of teaching. We accept that there is a balance to be found. Parents and pupils should have the right to complain against improper actions, but teachers must be allowed to impose discipline. We are concerned that without the proviso of being able to enforce the school rules, the Government are attempting to legislate against the professionalism of the many because of the impropriety of a few. Is existing legislation in place to deal with those who abuse the powers given to them to enforce the school rules? For the rest, does she agree that we should extend professional trust to teachers? In this vein, we have also tabled Amendment 287, which asks that the local commissioner must be satisfied that the complaint is not vexatious before investigating a complaint. We are therefore delighted that the Government have decided to concede this point and include these important words in the Bill. I should like to thank the Bill team for their hard work and effort which saw them coming to see our side of the argument. The National Union of Teachers cited this as a key concern and so welcomes its inclusion in the Bill. We have tabled Amendment 288C in order to probe the power of the local commissioner to disapply the time limit. Can the Minister give us any examples of when this might be necessary? Furthermore, does this power mean that all records will have to be kept indefinitely just in case the time limit is to be disapplied and a very old complaint reopened? In employment cases—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—the limit is three minutes—I mean, three months. That is the red wine speaking. Does the Minister feel that a different structure should be in place for school complaints? We have also tabled Amendment 284, which would restrict further what complaints can go to the local government commissioner. Appeals panels, which hear cases regarding permanent exclusions, already exist. These can overrule decisions made by teachers and do so in a quarter of cases. Half of those pupils are returned to the same school from which they were excluded. That is no way to encourage discipline or to support teachers in their difficult task of securing discipline before they even begin to teach. I should like also to declare my support for Amendment 283B, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It would be very useful to have appropriate regulations and guidance on these matters in order to ensure clarity for all concerned. We should be clear that, on the whole, we support the measures in these clauses. Nevertheless, key changes should be made and therefore key questions must be asked in order to make sure that the complaints procedure is effective and, more important, that it achieves the correct balance between the right of parents and pupils to complain and the duty of teachers to be able to enforce discipline without constantly having their professional behaviour called into disrepute.
Time
20:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonMy Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said, particularly about the right of appeal to return to a school. I am v…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said, particularly about the right of appeal to return to a school. I am very concerned about the high proportion of appeals which are allowed. The Minister can no doubt remember her school days, which are a good deal closer to her than mine are to me, but I have taught since then. When other pupils see a pupil who has rendered their lessons difficult if not impossible to follow because the staff cannot control him or her so their behaviour disrupts the lessons, and they see the same person come back in triumph some days later against the wishes of the teacher, the effect is very poor. It undermines entirely the authority of the teacher and restores the interruptions to the education of the other children. The situation is what it was before.
Time
20:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasI want to support for the most part my noble friend’s amendments. On Amendment 285, concerning the published rules of t…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
I want to support for the most part my noble friend’s amendments. On Amendment 285, concerning the published rules of the school, it is important that any arrangement upholds the school rules, but I do not think it is necessarily fair that a pupil has to be bound by rules that are introduced after they have joined the school. Changes to the dress code in particular may be imposed arbitrarily by the head of the school after a pupil has made the decision to join so that he or she is faced with no choice but to obey that rule. It is reasonable under those circumstances that the right of appeal can be exercised against it because that pupil did not have the choice of avoiding it by going to a different school. I would put a time limit on this and say that school rules cannot be appealed against if they were in force when the pupil applied to join the school, when it would have been the decision of the pupil or his or her parents to accept them. With regard to discipline, again it is important that this mechanism should not be able to reopen disciplinary decisions. I would not go along with the exact wording of my noble friend’s Amendment 284 where it states “relating to” because these problems often involve some kind of disciplinary procedure, although often the nub of the problem is elsewhere, such as the failure of the school to deal, for example, with bullying or recognise a special educational need. So I support the spirit of the amendment, but not the exact wording. As the Minister is the person to whom these complaints are sent, can she tell us what the two or three most frequent reasons for complaint are?
Time
20:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI am interested in the noble Lord’s question because I asked it myself. These complaints go to the Secretary of State s…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I am interested in the noble Lord’s question because I asked it myself. These complaints go to the Secretary of State so I do not see them. I thought I had the answer here, so by the time I reach the end of my remarks, I may be able to help. I will do my best to deal with the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned the effect on the authority of the teacher if a pupil complaint is upheld. The local government officer will uphold the decision only if the school has already acted reasonably. I am sorry, it is not the red wine in my case, but perhaps I am in need of a cup of coffee. I apologise to the Committee. The LGO will uphold the complaint only if the school has acted unreasonably. We cannot accept a situation where a pupil has no right of redress when a school has acted unreasonably. However, we all expect that schools will act reasonably 99.9 per cent of the time. I have attempted an explanation but I am sure noble Lord will come back to me. He is already.
Time
20:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonPerhaps the noble Baroness can seek inspiration as to the proportion of appeals made against exclusion which are carrie…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
Perhaps the noble Baroness can seek inspiration as to the proportion of appeals made against exclusion which are carried and the pupils returned. If they are as high as we hear, I am concerned.
Time
20:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, we have that information and I shall furnish the noble Lord with it. I cannot do so at the moment—I shall hav…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, we have that information and I shall furnish the noble Lord with it. I cannot do so at the moment—I shall have to write to him—but I know that information is available. In setting up the independent complaints service we want to make sure that parents and pupils whose complaints have not been dealt with fairly and properly have an effective route to seek redress. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that this service will not undermine the authority of schools or place any additional burdens on them. It is a delicate balance to strike. I am delighted that noble Lords have responded positively to our amendments on vexatious complaints. We do not want to encourage vexatious complaints, about which teaching unions have been concerned, and I am glad that we can be accommodating on that issue. As to whether or not a school’s authority may be undermined, which is the spirit behind Amendments 284 and 285, I emphasise again that what we are doing will not undermine a school’s authority. Schools will continue to agree their own behaviour policies and rules, which is absolutely right. They are the best bodies to do this and nothing we are doing will prevent them doing so. However, the service has to be able to consider complaints which relate to school rules. Not all schools apply their rules as they necessarily intended and surely pupils should have some route of redress in those areas. But where those rules and their implementation are reasonable and lawful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, would expect, there would be no expectation that they should be changed. The noble Baroness can be reassured about that. This is not about asking good schools to do anything that they are not already doing; it is about asking all schools to continue to strive to improve, to learn lessons where issues have led to formal complaints, and to go forward in the way we expect. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the prescribed functions of the head teacher. We will outline in regulations the functions of the head teacher, including their functions in relation to discipline. The functions for which a head teacher may be the subject of a complaint will be set out in regulations under Clause 199(2). I can reassure noble Lords that before we make these regulations, as you would expect, we will consult with stakeholders—including, importantly, teacher unions and parent representative bodies—on what might be included. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was concerned as to whether academies should be included in the service. Order-making powers under Clause 215 will allow us to bring academies into the service in the future. However, there are good reasons for deciding not to include them in the first place. They are schools facing significant issues, and many schools face challenging circumstances. Academies are often the solution for those longstanding problems in disadvantaged areas, and this represents a huge challenge for academy leadership. It would not be helpful to add to this by asking academies to help us to iron out the processes and structures of the service in these early stages, given that academies already have robust complaint procedures through the independent school standards regulations. If parents are not satisfied with the response to their complaint, it is heard by a panel that must include one person who is independent of the management and running of the school. There are processes there to offer safeguards to those wishing to complain in the context of an academy. On the question of disapplying normal conditions for the hearing of complaints, with regard to Amendment 288C, the local commissioner has some discretion to hear complaints if they are not made in writing or within the normal 12-month period. Sadly, not all parents are literate and there may be situations due to illness or incapacity where meeting the 12-month deadline might not be possible. I reassure noble Lords that the intention here is not to open the door for long-gone pupils to resurrect grievances from their school days. The testing phase will consider the circumstances when the commissioner might need to use that discretion. Again, we will work with teaching unions and others to ensure that we are all clear on the criteria that the service might use. On Amendment 288AA, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the intention behind Clause 200(6) is to give some limited flexibility. It is conceivable that a pupil may have a valid complaint about a school’s handling of their exam results but would be prevented from complaining because they have since left. We will need to continue consulting with stakeholders and will of course draw on the findings of the testing phase. None the less, I am sure that Parliament, in the shape of the Committee, will have an opportunity to scrutinise these as regulations too. On Amendments 289 and 290, regarding the involvement of pupils, let us remember that this is a service for pupils as well as for parents. I reassure noble Lords that, as a matter of course, the service will involve pupils if it feels that they are of an age and understanding to be able to voice their opinion. I assure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill that restricts the use of an advocate where the service feels it appropriate; for example, in the scenarios that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as for a child with disabilities. It is important to note, though, that advocacy may not be appropriate in every single case. If the legislation provided that the service must provide advocacy, the service would have to do so in every case, regardless of whether or not that was appropriate. In his current role, the commissioner has staff specifically trained in dealing with complaints from young people. These are considered and dealt with quickly. He also issues guidance aimed at young people that is easily available so that they are aware of what is available to them. We expect him to continue to do so with complaints about school issues. With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.
Time
20:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonI have a small suggestion to make, if it is not disruptive to the flow of the argument, about enforcing the school rule…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
I have a small suggestion to make, if it is not disruptive to the flow of the argument, about enforcing the school rules. There is overwhelming evidence that schools in which the pupils contribute to and agree to the school rules when they are formulated are much more orderly and better conducted than those where they do not. Would it be possible to introduce a convention or guidance that stipulates that, where a case involves rules in a school which have been agreed and contributed to by the pupils, there should be a presumption in favour of the enforcement of those rules rather more strongly on other occasions? That is something to think about. I have seen the difference that it makes. I assure the Minister that anything we can do to encourage the practice will be fruitful.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinAs the noble Lord suggests, there is a strong body of evidence to support his remarks. Home-school agreements, too, hav…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
As the noble Lord suggests, there is a strong body of evidence to support his remarks. Home-school agreements, too, have been a very effective way of ensuring that young people understand and adhere to the rules. I am aware that I did not respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the two or three most frequent complaints. I am advised that they are: SEN provision not being fulfilled—no surprise there, I am sure—about which there are approximately 900 complaints per year; pupils being bullied by other pupils, at approximately 120 complaints per year; and fixed-term exclusions not being applied fairly, which again is no surprise, at approximately 200 complaints per year.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he took the words right out of my mouth: I was going to make that very point about consultation with pupils; indeed, I seem to recall that, about two or three years ago, a Bill went through your Lordships' House wherein we managed to persuade the Government that pupils must be consulted on a school’s behaviour policy. That went into a Bill, did it not?
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I think that it was only a year ago.
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I think that it was only a year ago.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyOh, dear, it seems like three years ago. That is in legislation already, and it is very good practice. All the best sch…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
Oh, dear, it seems like three years ago. That is in legislation already, and it is very good practice. All the best schools consult their pupils and bring them along with the management team. I am most grateful to the Minister for telling us what will happen with academies. I understand her point that it is perhaps a little early to bring some of the academies into the process. She is quite right that they are often dealing with the most vulnerable children with the most difficult needs. As long as some kind of complaints process is in place at the moment, we would very much like to see the academies eventually brought into the main system when appropriate. On what happens when a pupil has left, the Minister gave an example which I admit had not occurred to me; that is, when it relates to the pupil’s exams and they have left the school. We look forward to the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations on that. I was grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that pupils would be involved if they made a complaint, that they would be given all the information that their parents would be given by the commissioner and that the commissioner would be able to provide an advocate where he felt it appropriate. It is important that the resources are available to provide that advocate, especially for children who find it difficult to make their views known. It is a service which does a lot of good. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI shall speak also to Amendment 292. We are proposing these amendments on behalf of the Special Education Consortium an…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I shall speak also to Amendment 292. We are proposing these amendments on behalf of the Special Education Consortium and the National Deaf Children’s Society. Schools that get a good or excellent rating from Ofsted may have their normal Ofsted inspection put off for at least a year and have a “quick check” or a “health check”. These two bodies are very anxious to ensure that schools do not get the health check without their special needs facilities being inspected by somebody who is qualified to inspect them. There is some evidence to show that schools that have been rated “good” or “excellent” sometimes have facilities for children with special educational needs that are not up to scratch, and they are very anxious to ensure that those schools are not given special treatment and allowed to put off their inspection without the authorities being absolutely clear that they are serving the more disadvantaged pupils and making sure that facilities for those pupils are up to scratch. I beg to move.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness VermaMy Lords, time and again, the theme of provision for those with special educational needs has been cited as an area tha…
Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative
Quote
My Lords, time and again, the theme of provision for those with special educational needs has been cited as an area that needs closer attention to detail in this Bill. We have heard many learned and erudite speeches and debates on the topic. The Government have also taken many amendments on provision for special educational needs or disabled people away to have a think and, one hopes, to come back on Report with something structured and workable. We want to ensure that no one is allowed to fall through the gaps or be left out in the cold. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the Minister will consider Amendment 291 very carefully.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green)My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, some time has passed since this amendment was tabled, and th…
Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green)Labour
Quote
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, some time has passed since this amendment was tabled, and there have been a number of significant developments since then which are relevant to it. First, the new school inspection arrangements, with their strengthened focus on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, are being implemented in schools across the country, starting this term. Secondly, the Lamb inquiry has, at the request of the Secretary of State, published an interim report addressing the specific issue of whether legislative measures are necessary to strengthen these arrangements in respect of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That report welcomed the new framework, but recommended that it should be underpinned by a duty on Ofsted to report on special educational needs and disabilities as part of school inspection. The Government have accepted this, and are committed to bringing forward this measure at the earliest opportunity. These developments provide an important context for considering this amendment. The noble Baroness rightly focuses on training of inspectors, an issue which Brian Lamb also considered in his August report. He recommended that training arrangements should indeed be strengthened, but did not conclude that legislation was needed to achieve this. We agree with that position, although we warmly support the noble Baroness’s view on the importance of the training. Inspectors’ expertise is routinely updated through a wide-ranging programme of professional development that regularly involves special educational needs and disability, while Ofsted is further enhancing its training arrangements so that school inspectors are provided with training on this important matter annually. It will respond formally following the publication of the final report of the Lamb inquiry, which is expected shortly. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether an interim statement should be issued where pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are judged not to be learning and progressing as well as pupils more generally. I believe that I can reassure the noble Baroness on this important matter. Under Ofsted’s new arrangements, a school will only be eligible for an interim statement—and a longer interval between inspections—where its previous inspection report shows the learning and progress of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities to be either “good” or “outstanding”. Any school which is “satisfactory” or “inadequate” in that respect will continue to be inspected within a three-year period. I hope that we cannot have a situation where a school might be assessed as generally good but where the SEN portion of that school would be only satisfactory. This provision would not allow it to have a longer period, so I hope that we have reassured your Lordships in that respect. On Amendment 292, proposing that academies should also receive the report, local authorities have no responsibilities in respect of academies so it would be inappropriate to impose a legal obligation for an academy’s reports to be sent to the local authority. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that because each academy must have at least one local authority representative on its governing body, and the reports will be placed in the public domain, local authorities will have access to those reports. In the light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI thank the Minister very much; that was a totally adequate and very satisfactory reply. I am extremely grateful to him…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the Minister very much; that was a totally adequate and very satisfactory reply. I am extremely grateful to him for giving me all the reassurance that we need on this issue. As he says, time has moved on; we have had the interim report from Brian Lamb and are expecting the final report. As the Minister rightly points out, the new inspection regime has been introduced and we are now getting far more emphasis on special educational needs. In the light of all his reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord De MauleyMy Lords, there are a great many issues in this group of amendments, and I hope that we shall manage to address them al…
Speaker
Lord De MauleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, there are a great many issues in this group of amendments, and I hope that we shall manage to address them all fully. This section of the Bill expands the powers to search that are laid out in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. It specifies a further list of items that can be searched for in a school or further education college. That list comprises alcohol, illegal drugs and property suspected of being stolen. Our Amendments 295 and 303, and Amendment 297, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, call into question the validity of having a very specific list of items for which these search powers can be used. We argue instead that teachers should be able to use the powers to search for anything that is against the published school or college rules. Surely every school has a set of rules; as long as they are published and easily accessible, there seems little excuse for pupils not to be aware of them. Taking that into account, does the Minister not agree that teachers should have the power to enforce those rules in order to maintain discipline in the classroom, and so be able to concentrate more fully on teaching? It may be that the item causing disruption is not on the list in the Bill, and may not be dangerous. However, it may be something that is against the school rules and causing disruption or disturbance to the point of having a detrimental effect on teaching. The examples that spring to mind may be things like pornography, or something merely disruptive such as the latest craze of new toy.
Time
21:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 297ZA, 300, 301, 302 and 303ZA, in my name. The issue of searching children and…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 297ZA, 300, 301, 302 and 303ZA, in my name. The issue of searching children and their property is a difficult one. The Government insist that Sir Alan Steer recommended the extension of the existing powers. However, I recall the Minister telling us in this House when those powers were first introduced that no further powers would be sought until Sir Alan had reviewed the operation of the existing powers and published a report. I do not recall seeing such a report and I do not believe that a private report to the Government is good enough. However, we have to deal with what the Government are proposing today, wherever it came from, and it has to be admitted that they have already made some sensible concessions. My concerns expressed in Amendment 297ZA relate to the safety of the teacher where he or she is doing a search without consent. The pupils may be objecting violently, so it is important for both the teacher’s sake and the pupil that the teacher has appropriate training in these situations. Anger can be defused with proper management. Attitude and body language can all add up to a situation that is either carried through without a problem or a situation that blows up into something uncontrolled. In addition, as my amendment says, a teacher must know what he is looking for, if we are allowing him to look for drugs; otherwise, he may not know crack from a sherbet fizz. Although some teachers may be familiar with today’s drugs, I suspect that most are not. It is really important to their credibility that they know what they are doing. There will be nothing worse for a teacher’s reputation in the school than being laughed at by the pupils if he confiscates something quite innocuous. Amendment 303ZA is exactly the same thing but relates, in Clause 237, to teachers in colleges of further or higher education. I would encourage teachers not to carry out such searches unless their CPD had properly equipped them to do so. We on these Benches wish to ensure that no teacher can be forced to carry out searches unless they are willing to do so, unless, of course, that is their job because they are a member of the school’s security staff. I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances in her letter of 15 June 2009, but I would like to have it from her own lips for the record. I say in parentheses how sad it is that we now have to have schools with such a thing as security staff. The Bill places the burden of proving that a seizure, retention or disposal was lawful on the person who carries out the seizure or disposal. This is a serious disincentive to the use of the power. It means that a teacher who uses it could be the subject of legal proceedings in which he would have to prove that what he had done was lawful. Our Amendment 300 would mean that to be lawful a seizure would have to comply only with new Section 550ZC. I hope that this would protect the teacher from cases brought under the Human Rights Act and would have a similar effect to that of Conservative Amendment 305. Amendments 301 and 302 would ensure that only a member of the school’s security staff could seize items found during a search, even if he did not conduct the search, and that he should be able to make the decision as to how to deal with any items found. This would reduce the potential liability of ordinary teachers and put the onus on properly trained security officers to seize and dispose of items. On some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that the items should include only those that might cause imminent harm—indeed, I have put my name to one of the amendments. Will the Minister consider including that criterion in the eventual regulations that specify what these items should include? I am afraid that I have no sympathy with the amendments about things that are against the school rules. For example, chewing gum may be against the rules, but it would be a bit over the top to use these powers to search for it. After all, this is not Singapore. However, for their own protection, teachers should hand over any drugs that are found to the police; otherwise, they would be open to suspicion that they wanted to keep the drugs for their own consumption. None of us would want that. If drugs are found on the premises, most schools already involve the police. That is probably the right approach—while drugs are still illegal.
Time
21:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, the Government have already made a number of concessions. One of the main issues should be the safety of teac…
Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, the Government have already made a number of concessions. One of the main issues should be the safety of teachers, which is why I support the emphasis of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on training in these areas. We must not forget that, when you are using any form of physical restraint, some children will have come from homes where they would consider that that was an immediate assault on them and react to it as such, as has been found when restraint is used in juvenile offender institutions. The list of prohibited items is already extensive, including offensive weapons, knives, blades, drugs, alcohol and so on. The additional amendments appear to be a catch-all for anything that a school wishes to designate as harmful. That might then include things such as pornography, moral harm and so on. Who would make decisions on whether harm is moral, physical or both? They are difficult areas to decide on. However, all of us share the concern for the teachers themselves, many of whom are reluctant to use these powers because of the potential for litigation against them. Incidentally, I agree entirely about drugs, which must be handed to the police. However, it would not be a waste of public resources for the school to call in the police when there is a difficult issue. They clearly have the powers and training to carry out these sorts of searches. On that basis, I support the amendments that I have spoken to.
Time
21:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I am grateful to various noble Lords for addressing my amendments. It makes it much easier for me to go throu…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to various noble Lords for addressing my amendments. It makes it much easier for me to go through them. I can see that Amendment 297 will not gain favour with the Liberal Democrats, but my general approach is that we should trust schools and teachers; we should not bind them in red tape as though they did not know how to behave. By and large, teachers and schools will conduct themselves sensibly. Any school that went in for excessive amounts of searching would soon find its discipline and morale breaking down. Such matters have to be handled sensibly and with caution. If one trusts schools, schools must also trust their pupils and, if the system of trust breaks down, one is in deep trouble. I am in favour of giving schools a fairly wide brief as regards the circumstances in which they can search. I believe that they will use it wisely. Hooking schools on technicalities just because we have not thought what the next problem will be and what will cause problems is foolish. I also agree with what my noble friend said about protecting teachers, although I have not addressed that in my amendments. It is enormously important that teachers should be presumed to be in the right and should not be presumed to be wrong when they undertake what is a difficult and tricky task of persuading a pupil to let themselves be searched. We ought to start by trusting teachers. In Amendment 297B, which would leave out lines 40 to 43 on page 140, I address the concept of schools’ security staff. I live in a cosseted world and I do not think that I have ever been into a school that employs security staff, other than perhaps a caretaker—for example, members of staff whose job is nothing but security, as defined in subsection (8) of new Section 550ZB. They are not teachers who have had training, but people who are employed solely for security reasons, as if our schools are to have bouncers walking around. I do not think that, even temporarily, that is the right way for a school to deal with a difficult situation or that it is right to have that as a constant feature of a school. I accept what the noble Baroness says about training teachers to do that. This ought to be done by teachers—the people with whom the pupil is familiar, someone who knows the pupil, who knows how to handle the pupil and who has been trained in such things—rather than by some security apparatchik who presumably spends most of their time sitting in a dark room watching telly, waiting for that one time in three months when someone blows the whistle because they want to check whether a boy has a knife. I question the idea of confining the powers to specialist security staff. Amendment 302A and the subsequent amendments relate to the discretion of teachers not to call in the police. As noble Baronesses have remarked, this is a difficult area to get right and they have favoured calling in the police on every occasion. I prefer to see the school and teachers in loco parentis. There are occasions when it should be in a teacher’s discretion not to place on a child’s record what is an extremely difficult black mark to eradicate. To be caught in the possession of drugs means that you will never be allowed to go to the United States as a result. You are dropping the child down a deep, black hole if you get them involved in a conviction for carrying drugs when perhaps all they have done is something foolish, idiotic and teenage. I want to trust teachers and to give them the kind of discretion that I expect schools and head teachers in the private sector ordinarily to exercise. When I see a drugs bust and 33 kids from Winchester had up for possessing pot, I do not believe that tipping all 33 children into police cells for the night is the right way to treat them. The school is there to look after them as a parent and it must judge whether the behaviour is idiocy or serious. I agree that that is difficult. I shall not press the amendment but, given the opposition from noble Baronesses whose views I greatly respect, I shall think and inquire about it. However, I believe that automatically tipping children into the hands of the police because of something that happens at school is a difficult way for a school to behave towards its children. It changes the spirit of the school and it is a difficult ask of the parents to consign their children into the hands of such uncaring and thoughtless institutions.
Time
21:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinThe extension to the existing power to search for weapons to cover alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property will furt…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
The extension to the existing power to search for weapons to cover alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property will further ensure the safety and well-being of learners. It will also allow staff to deal with less serious incidents where the involvement of the police is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explains, unnecessary and where incidents require an immediate response. In extending the scope of the power—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, talked about school rules—noble Lords have called for a power which ranges more broadly. I want to reassure noble Lords that the clause already covers most items that could fall into the category of harm that the Committee has discussed. It enables an authorised member of staff to search a pupil for any article made or adapted for use to cause injury, or intended by the person having it with him to be used to cause injury. Alcohol and illegal drugs are potentially harmful to learners and disruptive to school or college life, and both will be specified for the first time under the new search powers. These, together with the power to search for stolen items, are things that schools have told us—and, yes, Alan Steer has reported—they would be most likely to need to search for. We have strong reservations about introducing a broader search power either through the definition of harm or the published school rules of the institution. It is vital to remember that searching without consent is a serious infringement of the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is justifiable only under the specific terms set out in that article. We must ensure that the powers that enable those searches to take place also ensure that they are undertaken reasonably and proportionately. Earlier, we were talking about the UNCRC concerning the rights of the child. It is fair that we should continue to think about how we work with and support young people; it seems reasonable that here, too, we should act reasonably and proportionately. The more open-ended the power to search, the harder it is to justify the infringement of human rights. Our approach has been endorsed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is an important balance that we have been able to strike. Furthermore, it is important that school staff are clear about what they can and cannot search for. Otherwise, we risk causing confusion and uncertainty in schools. That would produce the opposite effect from what the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wants—empowering and trusting teachers. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked about items such as pornography—violent or extremist literature was also referred to in the other place—and why they are not included. We have no evidence yet that a power to search for those items is needed. Of course, Ministers could consider legislating to extend powers in the regulations further if and when a need was identified. We know that alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen items are specifically highlighted, especially by the 2008 report to the Secretary of State by Alan Steer, which we have already discussed. We need to trust schools, and there needs to be a two-way trust between pupils and teachers and teachers and pupils—and between the Government and teachers. Their rules can be perfectly reasonable; I accept that absolutely, but it does not necessarily follow that a search without consent for any item contrary to those rules is reasonable. The point of limiting the scope of the clause to five specific items—knives, other offensive weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs, and stolen items—is that we want to promote clarity and proportionality. The example of chewing gum given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a good one. Another example might be earrings. In a lot of schools with which I come into contact, earrings are strictly prohibited for very good reasons. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked specifically about the burden of proof on teachers. I shall come to that when I address other amendments. I recognise the noble Lord’s argument that it is impossible for us to predict what schools may need to search for in future. That is why I shall speak to the government amendments—I will not go through the whole list. They will create a regulation-making power to add to the list of prohibited items, as I just suggested. That will maintain the safeguards and clarity of a specified list while allowing the list to be extended if a justifiable need arises. I believe that that meets the concerns of noble Lords opposite. That regulation-making power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, to ensure a proper level of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about training. I have sympathy with her arguments, especially about Amendments 297ZA and 303A. However, it is unnecessary to provide a specific requirement for training in the Bill. Our current guidance on screening and searching of learners for weapons, which we intend to revise and strengthen, advises that no one should do a search without training. That is in the guidance. It is unnecessary to introduce a blanket training requirement for all staff. The training needs of individual staff are rightly the decision of the head teacher. Heads are best placed to decide about training, taking account of roles, previous experience, job responsibilities and the context of the school. These provisions require a head teacher to authorise a particular member of staff to undertake a search, and when doing so the head teacher would want to be satisfied that he or she is competent to do so.
Time
21:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the idea that any drugs that are fou…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the idea that any drugs that are found should be handed over to the police: that that would result in tipping young people into the criminal justice system in some way. I find that suggestion particularly worrying. The noble Lord said a lot of the things that I have often said myself in other contexts. The suggestion is not necessarily what I would want to happen if drugs were found—it might be the right thing to do or it might not—but I remain concerned about the potential for suspicion falling on a teacher who chooses not to hand the drugs over to the police. Perhaps we can have a word about that between now and Report. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has completely changed my opinion that drugs should always be handed over to the police. Maybe I am naive, but I had not really thought about the fact that that would necessarily tip a young person into the criminal justice system. That would not be the right thing at all. Perhaps we can talk about that issue between now and Report and see whether there is some way in which we can make sure that staff are protected should they make that judgment.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I support the noble Baroness on that. The phrase “dispose of” is careless, but there should be some way in wh…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness on that. The phrase “dispose of” is careless, but there should be some way in which that can be done so that no member of staff is suspected of retaining the stuff.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI am very happy to do as the noble Baroness suggests. While I am on my feet, I will try to be clearer than I may have b…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I am very happy to do as the noble Baroness suggests. While I am on my feet, I will try to be clearer than I may have been before. Teachers do have the discretion to decide whether or not to call the police. This is set out in new Section 550ZC(4) of the Education Act 1996 on the option to dispose of controlled drugs, and in new Section 550ZC(5)(b) of that Act on the option to return a stolen article to the owner or to dispose of it. However, I am happy for us to discuss this further between now and Report.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyCan we make it clear that, if drugs are found, they cannot be given back to the pupil but must either be disposed of be…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
Can we make it clear that, if drugs are found, they cannot be given back to the pupil but must either be disposed of before a witness, to ensure that they have been disposed of, or given to the police if the matter is really serious and that is the right judgment?
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I think we all knew at school that the stuff that was confiscated from us was used, although perhaps it was n…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I think we all knew at school that the stuff that was confiscated from us was used, although perhaps it was not quite the stuff under discussion.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord De MauleyMy Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Howe, for their contributions. They made some very valid…
Speaker
Lord De MauleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Howe, for their contributions. They made some very valid points. If I may say so, it was very refreshing to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, say that she had changed her mind. That was very helpful and just demonstrates how useful these debates really are. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his support, and I strongly agree with his comments on the need to trust teachers. This really is the critical point here—it is the point which the National Union of Teachers makes—and we are setting off down a dangerous path if we put that trust at risk. Having said that, I thank the Minister for her amendments and her words, about which I will need to think very carefully before Report. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, we have tabled Amendments 298 and 299 because, as we said in the previous debate, we firmly believe that we s…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, we have tabled Amendments 298 and 299 because, as we said in the previous debate, we firmly believe that we should place much more trust in the personal judgment and responsibilities of our teachers. These amendments would mean that neither the searcher nor the witness to the search of a pupil at school has to be of the same gender as the child. We have tabled these amendments for two main reasons. First, it is of vital importance that we trust our teachers. They are professional people who have already been through all the security checks necessary to become a teacher. We must not assume that even after that every teacher has to be restrained in some way and that without the law in place we would see a large number of cases of teachers abusing this power. The Minister may argue that this legislation is in place to help protect teachers from parents and children who are waiting in some way to accuse teachers of misconduct. My experience is that legislation based on the worst-case scenario very rarely becomes good legislation. Secondly, there is a very practical element to these questions. Does the Bill as it stands really mean that four teachers, two of each gender, would be required on every school trip which took girls and boys, and where prohibited items might be present? There is also the problem that, particularly in primary schools, there is an overwhelming lack of male teachers. Figures from 2008 show that, in local authority maintained nursery and primary schools, only 14 per cent of full-time teachers were male and 86 per cent were female. Recent figures from the General Teaching Council for England show that 27 per cent of primary schools in England have no registered male teachers. In that situation, what should female teachers needing to search a male child do? Why should they be put in a position where they cannot do anything because the assumption is that if you search a child of a different sex you must be doing something wrong? This assumption pervades our society at the moment, which is probably one reason why so few male teachers work in primary schools. I found a quotation from Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said: “One of the reasons they are put off is the assumption that, if you’re a male working in a primary school, there is a fair chance you will be accused of something some time or other”. Finally, the Minister must accept that we are talking about a search power which would only ever require a pupil to take off an outer layer of clothing and there would always have to be a witness. It is for those reasons that we have tabled amendments to this clause. We welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board many of the concerns expressed. We are very pleased that they have decided to come back to us with some new thoughts and have tabled their own amendments which would increase the flexibility and would allow the witness to be of a different gender from the child, or the student at an FE college, if it was not “reasonably practicable” to find a witness of the same sex. That is a step in the right direction, but does not go as far as we would like. Nevertheless, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her Bill team for the hard work that they have put into this difficult area. We are grateful for the government amendments which we now accept, but we would like the Government to go further. I beg to move.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)Before putting Amendment 298, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment…
Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)Conservative
Quote
Before putting Amendment 298, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 298A due to pre-emption.
Time
21:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI do not think that I have ever risen to speak at the point of changeover of chairmen before, and I am not sure of the…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I do not think that I have ever risen to speak at the point of changeover of chairmen before, and I am not sure of the protocol. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his remarks. During the Recess we were able to have discussions about these issues and respond to the concerns raised both in those meetings and during the debates in another place. As a result we are bringing forward amendments in response to concerns about the low proportion of male teachers in primary schools. For this reason, I propose to speak to the amendments tabled in my name which remove the requirement that a witness to the search be the same gender as the learner being searched where this is not practicable. I hope that noble Lords agree that this strikes an appropriate balance, but I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does not agree that it does so. However, we are talking about getting the balance right in realistic school situations without weakening the important safeguards in place for learners and, as he suggests, for staff as well. There is a need to maintain consistency across school establishments. We recognise the difficulties that these safeguards present, particularly to primary schools. However, the powers would be used only rarely in primary schools and the protection these safeguards provide are important for both pupils and staff. They will help to maintain the powers in place to ensure discipline and the orderly running of schools. I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments, but we have made moves towards what I believe will strike the right balance. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to support the government amendments and not press those tabled in the names of his noble friends Lady Verma and Lord De Mauley.
Time
22:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her positive and constructive response. She is moving a little on this, but…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her positive and constructive response. She is moving a little on this, but this does not mean she has to stop doing so. What I hope is that between now and the Report stage, she might give even further thought in particular to the difficulty of defining what is reasonably practicable. We can think of all sorts of circumstances in which this does have to go a little further than that. In the mean time, we shall reflect carefully on the points made by the noble Baroness, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 307, 307ZA, 307BA, 307BB and 307D. We move now to the issue of recording and…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 307, 307ZA, 307BA, 307BB and 307D. We move now to the issue of recording and reporting the use of force in schools. None of us wants to see members of staff using force on a child in school but we have to accept that sometimes teachers find themselves up against some very difficult situations and restraint becomes necessary to avoid a child injuring himself or another person, and teachers need clarity on this matter. However, we have some concerns about the way in which Clause 239 will operate, so we have tabled a group of amendments to tease this out. Amendment 306 would remove, “prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline”, from the list of purposes for which force may be used on a pupil. Since the Government first considered these powers there has been a development in the Court of Appeal. The judgment in R(AC) v Secretary of State for Justice 2008 established that rules allowing children in secure training centres to be restrained to ensure good order and discipline breached Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, interpreted in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to revise their proposals on the use of force in schools in line with this judgment. Section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 allows staff to use reasonable force in three circumstances, including maintaining good order and discipline. My amendment would remove that and I urge the Committee to accept it. Amendment 307 would introduce a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State concerning behaviour management training for members of staff in schools. This amendment is supported by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Children’s Society, the National Children’s Bureau, the NSPCC and Treehouse—as was the previous one—because they know, from all their practical experience with children, that situations where restraint might have been necessary can be avoided by well trained staff. If they were trained in de-escalation techniques, risk assessment and safe ways of using force where necessary, respecting children’s rights and dignity, we would have a much better situation and much less need for this sort of intervention, which should, of course, always be the last resort. The training should be a proper accredited course. Staff in secure training centres and children’s homes are required by law to undergo such training. It has not heretofore been regarded as being necessary for school staff; however, if the Government are to introduce these new powers, it becomes very necessary. I hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. Amendment 307ZA allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the governing body of the school about these recording and reporting powers, and the governors must have regard to it. If that is done, the governors will pay attention to this matter and develop a protocol in the school to which parents will be invited to sign up. It is important that pupils should also be made aware of this protocol. We need openness and accountability here. With regard to using physical interventions with a pupil with SEN, the child’s particular needs should be reflected in their individual education plan or behaviour plan. Where an individual protocol is in place, arising from a risk assessment, different levels of intervention may have been specified as being foreseeable. Parents should be shown, and agree to, such a protocol before it is necessary to use it. For other children, this is a matter in which the governors should take a serious interest. Amendment 307D would insert the same amendments into Clause 240, relating to further education colleges. Amendment 307BA tries to raise the bar a little with regard to those incidents that fall under the duties in Clause 239 to record and report the use of force. In our view, small incidents that do not infringe upon the children’s well-being, rights or dignity should not impose a duty to record and report. Amendment 307BB suggests that it should be down to the discretion of the head teacher to decide which incidents are of such seriousness that it is in the child’s interest to both record them and report them to each parent. Reporting them to a violent parent could result in a child being beaten at home for getting into physical violence. The head teacher must have some discretion in this; head teachers know their children, and we should trust them. The Government have included “significant” in line 17 on page 146. Will the Minister explain to the House what she means by that term with regard to the discretion and judgment of the head teacher? None of us wants to impose a heavy burden of unnecessary reporting and letter-writing upon a busy head, while at the same time we want to protect children’s rights. It is important that legislation gets the balance right so that there is a chance of the whole thing operating sensibly in practice on the ground. I beg to move.
Time
22:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, our Amendments 307A, 307B and 307C are designed simply to probe the Government’s intentions behind this secti…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, our Amendments 307A, 307B and 307C are designed simply to probe the Government’s intentions behind this section of the Bill. Amendment 307A would leave out lines 17 to 19, thus probing the requirement to record each significant incident where a member of staff used force on a pupil. Amendment 307B probes the meaning of the word “significant”, while Amendment 307C would leave out lines 25 and 26, which probes the need to record the incident as soon as is practicable.
Time
22:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, listening to this debate on the use of force against pupils, part of me has been here and part of me has been…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, listening to this debate on the use of force against pupils, part of me has been here and part of me has been 50 years ago, thinking what a pleasure it would have been to have my teachers spend so much time filling out incident report books.
Time
22:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I have enjoyed listening to this debate, because it raises some important and difficult issues. I want to wai…
Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to this debate, because it raises some important and difficult issues. I want to wait to hear what the Minister has to say, but with reference to Amendments 306 to 308, I am a little concerned about the number of teachers who would have to undergo this type of training. It would appear to be rather expensive, but, if it is really the best way forward, perhaps it is worth doing. On Amendment 306, the maintenance of good order and discipline at school or among pupils educated at the school, during a teaching session or otherwise, is a pretty tricky area. I would not want to see Amendment 308, with the use of physical prevention on a pupil leaving the room. I am all for using your authority, as far as is humanly possible, but physical prevention of somebody leaving a room is really going a little too far. I shall wait to be reassured on those issues by the Minister.
Time
22:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I shall do my best to respond to all the important points that noble Lords have raised. I start with a questi…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to all the important points that noble Lords have raised. I start with a question that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked, about whether the new clauses were in response to a specific incident. They are. There was a case a few years ago, although I do not wish to deluge the Committee further with information, in which an autistic girl was restrained many times without her parents being informed, which caused considerable concern and distress and has prompted us to look very carefully at the policy. I should be happy to write to noble Lords, giving some background on that very sad case. I start by looking at the core recording and reporting requirements in Amendments 307A, 307C and 307D. It is right that teachers and lecturers have the power to use reasonable force in appropriate circumstances, to protect those in their care. I think that that is understood in the Committee. Such incidents can be distressing to learners and staff. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we would hope that this was a matter of the last resort. It is appropriate, therefore, that a clear and contemporary report is made of each significant incident—and I recognise the importance of the word significant—and that a report is made to parents. This will act as a safeguard for both learners and for staff, who will be better able to refute malicious and inaccurate accusations. I am sure that that is what already happens in the vast majority of good schools. Recording and reporting is already a good practice which most schools and colleges follow. Making it a legislative requirement will ensure that best practice is applied consistently. The meaning of “significant” is an important question, which Amendments 307B and 307BA both probe; however, it is important to maintain a sensible balance. We would not want schools to have to make a report every time a teacher stopped a pupil who was leaning back in a chair or falling over, for example. That is why the use of the term “significant” is essential. We are working with our social partners to clarify the criteria that constitute “significant” and will set that out in our statutory guidance. The question of discretion is also important and is probed in Amendment 307BB. I appreciate fully the strength of feeling on whether head teachers should be able to exercise their discretion in reporting significant incidents of the use of force—again, there is the importance of “significant”. I believe, however, that the clause as drafted gets it right in requiring that parents must be told when a significant incident has occurred, which comes back to that important definition. Where the relationship between the parent and child is so fraught that such a report might have adverse consequences for the pupil or student, the clause would not prevent the report from reaching the parents through a third party—for example, the local social services department. Our first priority is the protection of vulnerable children. Ensuring that parents or guardians know what has happened to their children in school is an important means of providing that protection. If they do not know, how can they play any part in ensuring that issues are addressed? In a tiny minority of cases, we would expect alternative arrangements to be put in place for the parents to be informed. Amendment 306 would remove the power to use force to maintain good order and discipline. While the use of force must always be a last resort, it is important that teachers should have the option of using reasonable force to maintain authority in their classes—for example, to remove a disruptive child from a classroom. To forbid such action would lead to pupils being able to defy teachers’ authority and to disrupt other pupils’ learning without redress, which I am sure we must all agree we do not want to see. On the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, following the completion of the Smallridge and Williamson review, an Appeal Court judgment, as the noble Baroness said, ruled that force could not be used for the maintenance of good order and discipline in secure training centres. We do not, however, accept that banning it in schools is right as schools are, surely, a fundamentally different environment from the secure estate. Young people in the secure estate lack the home support that most pupils enjoy. They are in a closed environment and more likely to be alone with the staff members when force is being used on them than pupils in school. The paramount importance in schools of ensuring good order and discipline, in order that children can learn, is key. It is simply not acceptable for one disruptive pupil to be able to cause mayhem in a lesson. In some cases, while I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on this, the use of force to get the pupil out of the classroom may be the only option. Without that power, the disciplinary authority of teachers would also be fatally compromised. I shall finish on training, an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises again in Amendment 307. We recognise the importance of appropriate training for school staff in the use of force. Our existing guidance on the use of force highlights the importance of good training and recommends that schools set out their approach to relevant training in their use-of-force policy. Our guidance makes clear the principle that force should be used only as a last resort and covers de-escalation techniques, in the very way that the noble Baroness mentioned. As she knows, it is all about reducing risk and ensuring that proper risk assessments are made. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, discussed detentions in referring to Amendment 308. School staff already have the power to use reasonable force to prevent a pupil from committing an offence, causing injury, damaging property or prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline. In circumstances where a pupil walking out of a detention would clearly undermine good order and discipline, a member of staff would be able, if they judged it appropriate, to use reasonable force to prevent them from leaving. It is absolutely right that teachers should have the powers and tools that they need to keep good order in the classroom. Importantly, however, we must ensure that teachers know about the powers that they already have, which are pretty comprehensive. I hope, having addressed concerns, particularly around the key issue of the definition of “significant”, and our work with social partners—the teaching unions and professional associations—to ensure that we get this right and strike the right balance, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Time
22:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the group and I thank the Minister. Can she tell us…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the group and I thank the Minister. Can she tell us when we will get to see the statutory guidance on “significant”? I take it, from what she said, that it is for the head teacher to judge what “significant” means. Is that correct?
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness some positive news on when she will be able to get the guidance.…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness some positive news on when she will be able to get the guidance. My goodness! Again, there is a quality of service because we are working on such a special and important Bill. I am going to disappoint the Committee. I am advised that the statutory guidance will not be available before Report. However, I am sure that we will be able to keep the noble Baroness informed of how discussions are going with social partners.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyI thank the noble Baroness for that. I am somewhat reassured by what she said about training. It is terribly important,…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am somewhat reassured by what she said about training. It is terribly important, as she perhaps agrees. On maintaining good order and discipline, I fail to see why it is not appropriate to use force to maintain good order and discipline in a secure training centre but it is in a school. The noble Baroness says that it is a completely different context and that the young person is more likely to be alone with a member of staff in a secure training centre. On the other hand, this situation is more likely to happen in a secure training centre because of the nature of the personnel involved. I warn the Government: I am absolutely sure that there will be a test case on this. It is inevitable. On detention, I am distraught to hear that a teacher would have the right to use physical restraint to stop a child walking out of detention. If I had to use physical force to stop a child walking out of a room, I would regard myself as having failed completely in exerting my authority over that child; the last thing that I would do would be to demonstrate that through the use of force. What does one do? Wrestle them to the ground to stop them going out of the door? It is completely mad and self-defeating. However, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasThis was put down as a placeholder in case we got to the point where anything crept in from the Government’s side on th…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
This was put down as a placeholder in case we got to the point where anything crept in from the Government’s side on the subject of home education. However, I think that it has its own value. In the next Session we shall doubtless consider home education in detail so I do not want to trespass on that now, but there is a history in this country of a lack of contact and comprehension between Government and home educators. This is not the case in Scotland, where there is a settled arrangement whereby an intermediary body has developed which allows the home education community to communicate satisfactorily with the Scottish Government, and by and large things there proceed pretty well. Here when the Government announced their Badman review, I think that more than 2,000 home educators sent in individual views, and being home educators they were individual views and not copied out of some round robin. The Government must have found it impossible to deal with that variety, depth and passion of view. As a result, the home education community feels, probably quite rightly, that its views were ignored, although I do not blame the Government because I cannot see how a civil servant can ever be expected to get their mind around such an extraordinary variety of opinions and produce a coherent briefing for a Minister. What is needed is some form of intermediary body. I do not at all hold to the particular plan that I put down here; that was a case of working something out on paper to see what reaction I had to it. There has been a good deal of hostility to it from the home education community, as I expect there would be to any plan. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will express themselves open to an initiative in this area and say that they would welcome such an intermediary body if it could be created, or something that would enable the home education community to speak effectively to Government, and then perhaps if there is a known willingness something will happen. I beg to move.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is substantially keeping his powder dry until the next stage, so will I.
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is substantially keeping his powder dry until the next stage, so will I.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness VermaMy Lords, on 2 April this year in another place, my honourable friend Michael Gove asked the then Minister, Jim Knight,…
Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative
Quote
My Lords, on 2 April this year in another place, my honourable friend Michael Gove asked the then Minister, Jim Knight, “what percentage of (a) girls and (b) boys are receiving home schooling in each local authority area, broken down by ethnic group”. The Minister answered: “The information requested is not collected centrally”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/09; 1342W.] I understand that this is the case at the moment. Does the Minister consider that it might be useful to have a clearer picture of how much schooling occurs in this country? Moreover, might it not be useful and relevant in formulating the structure of education in this country to know who favours home schooling and what their reasons are for it? I will listen to the Minister’s response with great interest.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is absolutely right—it would be very helpful to know in a lot…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is absolutely right—it would be very helpful to know in a lot more detail the numbers and profiles of families and young people who are educated at home. There are wide-ranging figures from some 20,000 up to 100,000 plus. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, there is a lot of interest in the whole question of home education and how home educators are supported. I know that the amendment seeks to establish a new consultative committee at a national level, but it is interesting that he is flying a kite. It is helpful to fly a number of kites in this area because the diversity of opinion on it is challenging to grapple with. Home education is an established part of the British education system and there are great benefits where it works and where it is the best option for the child. I have met some very impressive young people who are a credit to their home education. We recognise the valuable contribution made by home educators and we certainly wish to see home education continue as a real option for parents. We do not wish to undermine it in any way. We want to ensure that home educators receive the right level of support to ensure that they can provide a suitable education for their children. On 9 October, we published our full response to Graham Badman’s report, Review of Elective Home Education in England. The response sets out our strong commitment to supporting home educators, particularly where children have special needs or wish to access examination centres or further education colleges, which I know many find difficult to do. It is important for home educators to have a voice in any decisions that affect them. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on that. In our response to the Badman report we recognise that consultation at local level is important if home educators are to receive the services that they need. That is why we undertook to include in any statutory guidance that we issue a recommendation that local authorities set up consultative forums for home educators to review local authority arrangements for monitoring and services provided to them. Putting these consultative structures in place at local, rather than national, level will ensure that decisions can be taken with a better understanding of the real needs of the local home-educating community and the range of educational services available in the area in which they live—and perhaps limit the diversity of the issues that have to be grappled with. There are a number of organisations—particularly Education Otherwise, which I have met—that are very good at voicing the concerns of home educators. However, I understand from the noble Lord’s introduction that this is a probing or placeholding amendment, and I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to put these sentiments on the record.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her considered reply, which I shall read tomorrow with care. I am dis…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her considered reply, which I shall read tomorrow with care. I am disappointed that she does not think that anything is needed nationally. Perhaps that means that she is not proposing in the next Session to bring forward any great national requirements on home educators. That would be good news, but I do not expect that to be the case. Many things that central government do have an effect on the home education community, not only as regards education but also as regards social security, health and in many areas in which regulations coming from the centre make life difficult for co-operation at local level. I see a role for continuing dialogue. I shall read what the noble Baroness has said but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI tabled this amendment at the behest of the 157 Group of the larger colleges to emphasise its welcome for the provisio…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I tabled this amendment at the behest of the 157 Group of the larger colleges to emphasise its welcome for the provisions in Clause 248. Last year’s education Act gave schools the responsibility and duty to promote the well being of their pupils. This clause goes somewhat further. The further education colleges are asked to promote, “the economic and social well-being of the local area”, and in so doing they should co-operate with other local institutions, including schools, colleges and employers. The amendment would add the words “and community cohesion” to economic and social well being. If truth be known it really adds very little: implicitly promoting economic and social well being in a local area must in itself help to promote social cohesion. The 157 Group wished to emphasise its vision of colleges as the vibrant and dynamic centres of activity in their locality, positively reaching out to serve their local communities, going out and finding out about skills gaps and employer needs, but also holding an open door and saying to the local population, “Come and talk to us and we will help you to fulfil your ambitions and aspirations in educational terms”. In that respect it is vital to recognise the role that further education colleges can play within their local communities, providing for educational needs from courses in basic literacy and numeracy on the one hand to foundation and honours degrees on the other. The larger colleges have anything between 15,000 and 30,000 students on their books and a turnover of up to £60 million. They are often larger than the local university and much larger than the schools. Increasingly, they are co-operating with both sets of institutions. The amendment seeks to say that they not only accept but positively welcome their role as movers and shakers within their local community. I beg to move.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Lucas“Cohesion” is a good word. I shall try to stick it into Clause 169 instead of “coherence”.
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
“Cohesion” is a good word. I shall try to stick it into Clause 169 instead of “coherence”.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenAmendment 314 proposes to add “community cohesion” to the objective of promoting the economic and social well being of…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
Amendment 314 proposes to add “community cohesion” to the objective of promoting the economic and social well being of a local area, to which further education corporations should have regard, similar to the duty on governing bodies of maintained schools in England, set out in Section 21 of the amended Education Act 2002. We are working with the further education sector on how the duty to have regard to the promotion of well being will be implemented. I can assure noble Lords, and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we will ensure that any guidance that relates to this makes it clear that the definition of economic and social well being of an area encompasses the important concept of “community cohesion”. We recognise the importance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, stressed, of larger colleges and their role in the community. We see the cohesion of communities in the local area as a significant contributor to their social and economic well being. We have already established a group of champion college principals to drive work on this and we will look to our champions to work with colleges on how best to fulfil their new duty. With these reassurances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI thank the Minister for his reply. We are both in accord on this and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the Minister for his reply. We are both in accord on this and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordAmendment 315 is about training teachers for vocational subjects. There is a problem in that those who have the QTS qua…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
Amendment 315 is about training teachers for vocational subjects. There is a problem in that those who have the QTS qualification have little training in vocational subjects. Those who teach vocational subjects in further education colleges have the QTLS qualification, which is not acceptable in an ordinary school unless they have a degree. Some of them come into vocational subjects without having degrees. I am in discussion with the Bill team and with Ministers on these issues and it would be sensible to pursue our discussion. Amendment 315A is about outdoor education and whether sufficient training is given to those going through the initial teacher training on how to handle outdoor expeditions. Do they know enough about writing risk assessments and the like? There is evidence that some of them do not have enough training to be confident in taking groups outside school. For that reason, many schools are not mounting as many expeditions. It is important that they do because there are many advantages in having expeditions of one sort or another outside the school. In both cases, we need to look at the training that is given and minor amendments are required. It would be sensible for us to pursue our discussions with Ministers and reach an agreement and on Report perhaps make a statement clarifying the situation.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI am happy to continue our discussions in the hope that they will be fruitful.
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I am happy to continue our discussions in the hope that they will be fruitful.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordWith that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
22:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 43 more speechesShow less

EnactedApprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning