Ofsted Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their contributions and for outlining the common theme of the questions I have been asked about the RHSE curriculum. In fact, we have been acting on the WESC report from 2016. That was the beginning of the development of the new curriculum, which was updated from the 2000 curriculum. We have been working very hard since 2016, so the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, can be reassured that we have taken action and have been developing that curriculum. We responded to the contributions from teachers that they wanted resource and help. There is a portal for teacher resources, and various webinar-type training sessions have been run as well.

Even though we have all lived through the pandemic, the RHSE curriculum, which is compulsory in all schools —private, independent and state-funded—was brought into effect in September 2020. We gave schools some flexibility about how they introduce it—for instance, there has been a requirement for them to consult with parents on the curriculum and the resources during the pandemic—but as of September this year they need to be delivering that curriculum. A great deal of work and effort has gone into developing appropriate support for teachers, but we recognise that Ofsted’s review asks us to go even further, saying that teachers do not have the confidence to teach this curriculum, so we are working to see what more we can do on the portal and to support teachers to deliver this curriculum.

I am pleased to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that the Welsh equivalent of Ofsted will now be doing a review following the publication of the Ofsted review. I thank Her Majesty’s chief inspector and her team for doing such a swift and thorough review, and I thank the 900 young people who took part, talking to the team and discussing matters that were perhaps not the easiest to discuss.

The Government have responded to feedback on issues of peer-on-peer abuse going back to about 2016, when schools responded to the annual Keeping Children Safe in Education consultations by saying they were not confident in dealing with the issue of peer-on-peer abuse manifesting particularly in sexual abuse and sexual harassment. We updated the guidance: there is now a chapter on this particular matter, and there is stand-alone guidance on peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual abuse in schools. We have developed that as a response to the sector. Although the Ofsted review makes recommendations relating to the other statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, there was no specific requirement, because we have been working hard with the contribution of the sector year on year.

As I said, the guidance is out for consultation each year—one year for technical consultation and the next for substantive review. We have responded to that. That is not to say there is not more we need to do. There are issues around the low-level concerns, and that spreads beyond the peer-on-peer abuse and into workforce/children issues: what do you do when you have low-level concerns that are below the threshold for report? How do you deal with those disciplinary matters? We will be looking at low-level concerns.

On the issues to do with online safety, the online safety Bill will, of course, come with pre-legislative scrutiny, so noble Lords will have an opportunity to look at that in detail. The Secretary of State has also asked the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, to specifically look at the issue of access to pornography. I will take back specific questions on Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which I was not, unfortunately, familiar with, to see about that issue.

The Office for Students is asking universities to review their practices on how they deal with these allegations and how they fulfil their duties to protect students while they are on campus. As far as I am aware, this is inspected as part of the new Ofsted framework. It came in when Ofsted was not there, if I remember correctly, from September 2020, but Ofsted came back in some form and is now back fully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned, the ISI was also involved on the reference group for the review, I believe. We are working closely and there are recommendations on how it is to conduct its own inspections, its training of inspectors and making sure that it talks to young people about these issues—not just bullying and other things but grasping the nettle when it is in schools to talk appropriately to single-sex groups of pupils while it does its inspection.

It is a learning process. We are not starting from nothing. As I say, there has been a lot to do and we have worked very hard on guidance to try to aid schools in this role. The NSPCC helpline is also open until October for young people who have posted on Everyone’s Invited to phone and get the appropriate help and be put through to appropriate agencies, if that is needed. There are also recommendations in terms of the safeguarding partnerships which we put into statute, requiring the police, health and the local authority to work together, and the review asks them to reach out to schools, as they are increasingly part of the process for schools to safeguard their students by referring specific concerns.

This is very much a sense check for us at the moment as to what has been going on. Yes, we have been appalled by the levels, but we are grateful to have had this moment when they were revealed. The review is just one part of a work in progress. We should not underestimate this and I am grateful that the review pointed out the need to professionalise the role of the designated safeguarding lead in our schools. Those people do an amazing job, often dealing with workforce/children issues, with peer-on-peer issues and with children’s social care issues. We should not underestimate what is expected of them in what they are trying to deliver in schools for us. It was clear to me when I met some head teachers the strains that there are on DSLs. They often have to look at these images and then go home to their families: it is a really difficult job. We are looking at the model of the SENCO to see what more we can do to professionalise the DSLs, but I pay tribute to our schools: they really are doing their best to deal with this issue.

Peer-on-peer abuse is very difficult, particularly when a lot of this is not in the criminal justice system. That leaves schools adjudicating, sometimes on issues that may be criminal but do not go down the criminal justice path: how do they protect the victim instead of the criminal justice system? It is a very difficult behaviour and safeguarding issue in our schools and it will be a work in progress to help them fulfil those duties to safeguard our young people.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to all the staff who are making provision available to pupils in our schools and to those who are remote learning. In response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, first, in relation to for the timing of the decision to close schools, obviously we made it very clear that that would be a last resort. The pace of the spread of the disease was such that, unfortunately, decisions could not necessarily be made as timeously as we would have liked.

For exams, there cannot be a plan B, because the department is working on a number of contingency plans. The disease means that the circumstances presented can be varied. Those contingency plans form the basis of the consultation that Ofqual will set out. We are aware that parents, children and schools need certainty as soon as we can provide it, but Ofqual must first conduct a valid consultation, which will take weeks rather than months.

In relation to online provision, strengthened guidance and direction has been given to schools on the number of hours per day they need to deliver, their accountability, and their monitoring daily to see whether students are engaging with it. We have spent more than £300 million on digital support for online learning, and we have provided considerable support to schools themselves, linking some schools to other schools that were very good at such online provision, and were using technology before the Covid crisis. We have funded schools’ access to either Microsoft Education or Google Classroom, and more than 2 million accounts have been opened. Schools have been enabled to deliver this, which is why the direction is now in place.

By the end of next week, more than 750 million laptops will have been delivered to schools and children. It is not possible for officials in the department to identify the children who need the laptops: that is a job for schools, which know their pupils better than anybody. And yes, a contextual decision can be made by head teachers: if to access to a device or connectivity are a significant problem for a child, the head teacher and school leadership have the discretion to make a place available to that child. But, with the provision that I have just outlined, we do not expect that to involve thousands of children.

BTECs were not an afterthought. The examination and assessment system for BTECs is a rolling system, and when the decision was made to close schools we were aware that, unlike for GCSEs and A-levels, the content for certain of those assessments had already been taught, and children were about to sit the exams this week. Some of those exams are a pathway into work, so we tolds colleges that we would allow them to decide—in consultation with students, obviously, particularly those who needed that assessment to enter the next occupational stage. So it was right to give colleges that discretion.

The early years sector remains fully open, including maintained nurseries and nursery provision within school premises. The data that I have says that children from 0 to five years old are the lowest of all the cohorts in our population for the presence of Covid, and there is no evidence that these settings are a vector of transmission. Early years settings are educational settings, and we have learned more and more over the years about how essential that stage is for very young children. Also, that is one type of education that cannot be delivered remotely, so it is important that those settings remain open.

As for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the expert group on differential learning will still be in place, and that information will be available to the department and to Ofqual. As I have said, there is no evidence of any more of a risk of the disease within school settings. This is really about limiting the number of contacts; they reflect community transmission, and we had to close schools to limit those contacts.

The noble Lord mentioned vulnerable children and the pupils who need teaching the most—disadvantaged children—and their access to the online curriculum. For them it is essential that there be a means of redress if parents raise questions, although of course we expect them to talk to the class teacher and the head teacher about the provision first. Overwhelmingly, schools are doing a wonderful job, but there are certain situations in which, if provision is not good enough, pupils and their parents should have a means of redress. So Ofsted will conduct monitoring visits, and can make a monitoring visit to any grade of school if there is a basis on which to go in because of the quality of remote education.

We are aware that a number of homes rely on the mobile phone network to access broadband for children to access the education curriculum remotely. I pay tribute to a number of major mobile phone networks, which we have worked with. For parents who rely on this, we have arranged for the data cap to be lifted to a level that enables children to access the amount of remote education specified in the direction—either three, four or five hours. It will be lifted every month, on the basis that that additional limit gives those children access. We cannot guarantee what families then do with it, but that is the formula that we have arranged with many mobile phone companies.

As the Secretary of State made clear, there should be some training and support for teachers for the exams. Whether there is a form of moderation is a matter for the consultation. As I have said, there will be issues to do with differential learning loss.

Free school meals are available. The eligibility criteria have not changed. As many noble Lords know, sometimes there is a lag with the census figures used for funding, but this is flexible. We have recommended that schools make food parcels and local vouchers available, not only because the catering suppliers need their business but because they have purchased food. We do not want food waste as a result of schools being closed. However, if those two means do not work, we will have some form of national voucher scheme, but it is important that caterers that were anticipating delivering school meals should use that food, if at all possible.

Settings for alternative provision are open on the same basis. It depends, as some children are dual-registered with their mainstream school still and are under the responsibility of the local authority. Local authorities also have a responsibility for children’s social care.

I had not noticed anything to do with the portal, but schools guidance, including the remote information I have outlined, is up. There is an edtech part of that site, which I encourage noble Lords to look at, because it is easily accessible and all secondary schools and about half of primaries can order more laptops through that site. In relation to catch-up funding, £650 million is going directly to schools. A portion has already been allocated, but we have delayed the other portions based on needing new census figures to accurately give schools the correct sums.

Finally, 60% of tuition partners in the National Tutoring Programme had the ability to move online. The academic mentors, who were the other limb and are important for disadvantaged students, should also have moved remotely. We are doing what we can, but we recognise that reopening is important for children and we will do that as soon as public health allows. We are aware that catch-up has taken on a different dynamic with, sadly, this second decision to close schools.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As Minister for Women, one of my specific concerns is the underachievement of Gypsy Roma in most categories. The Government are firmly committed to delivering a cross-government strategy to tackle these inequalities. I will have to come back to her on the specific point about BAME; I presume that BAME registration would include that as an ethnicity but I will double-check. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who is the MHCLG lead on this issue, wrote to local authority chief executives in April to point out the specific support that those communities might need in terms of services such as water sanitation and waste disposal on their sites. We have been working closely with the various representative organisations to ensure, again, that the message gets out to communities that might be harder to reach than others.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, in April the Government produced statistics on the furlough scheme on a local authority and parliamentary constituency basis, and then they stopped. First, will the Minister find out why? Secondly, can she see whether it is possible to produce up-to-date data on that basis so that decision-makers at national and local level can work out whether there is a correlation between access to furlough payments and infection rates?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, we are working closely with the Office for National Statistics and analysts from PHE. I will have to check with them and will write to the noble Baroness in relation to the specific data, which I have to confess I was not aware was out in that form and then not out in that form.

Gender Recognition Act 2004

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her appointment. I would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness. It is key to remember that the relationships and health education guidance that the department has put out was put out partly in response to the IICSA inquiry, which recommended that relationships education was a way to protect children so they would know what was a healthy relationship and when someone was perhaps approaching them for ulterior motives.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the terms in which it was asked, emanates directly from a campaign supported by, among others, the Heritage Foundation in America, which intends to deny trans women in particular the equality and dignity that they deserve. Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any evidence—as opposed to assertion—that public services are in any doubt about how to ensure the safety of women and trans women in public services under the terms of the Equality Act as it exists now?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the data is not collected centrally. A number of providers, including public providers, are making use of the single-sex space exemption. It must not be forgotten that people are electing a gender-specific service—a single-sex toilet, for example—each and every day, and in the overwhelming majority of situations there is not a problem. The Government do not want to interfere with that.

Gender Recognition Act Consultation

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Friday 25th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, there has indeed been an extensive consultation on this matter. There were numerous contributions, including those outlined by the noble Lord. The matter of medical diagnosis is one for clinicians. After due consideration, the balance has been taken that the issues were to do with cost, bureaucracy and access to healthcare. The system as outlined in the Statement has been changed: the fee has been reduced to a nominal amount and the process has been digitalised.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

Digitalising a system that dehumanises our fellow citizens is not kindness; it is callous and cynical, as the repeated use of the phrase “trans people and women” shows. I have one question for the Minister. Do this Government intend to amend the Equality Act or any of the guidance issued under it—yes or no?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear from the response to the consultation that there will be no need for legislative action on this matter, so any guidance that is followed is as stands.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Berridge and Baroness Barker

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker]

Because the potential exists for that to happen. To go back to some recent examples, what if, prior to the implementation of this, a local authority could see this coming and proceeded to employ a lot of people who had an objection to performing this kind of ceremony? I just do not like that we are going to set down in law the fact that some of our citizens will be treated differently in the public space. I accept that they will be treated differently in the religious setting, but in terms of public services that is wrong.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, it is clear from all these debates and amendments that the feelings on either side are incredibly deeply held. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I can tell your Lordships that we were trying to put forward proposals that were proportionate, reasonable and—in my view; obviously I am not speaking on behalf of other members of the committee—sought to strike some kind of balance. The proposal that has been put forward is limited and reasonable.

I have been sent the same e-mail about the governing body of registrars, saying that there was not a problem, so I specifically asked Members of the other place if they had received representations. The Member for Bermondsey, Mr Simon Hughes, said he had received letters from individual registrars asking him to make some provision in the Bill. Obviously no member of the committee is going to put forward a proposal that is not based on some form of evidence, so there were those concerns.

Secondly, I have read many papers during my time on that committee but I recall reading that in Holland—one of the most liberal societies in continental Europe—they have made some provision for freedom of conscience among their registrars. So I ask my noble friend the Minister, when considering the proposal, to look at what Holland has done to try to balance these rights.