Adoption Agencies (Panel and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2012

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness very much for bringing this matter to the Committee, and for her quite splendid chairmanship of our committee. I thank the Minister and Tim Loughton for the meeting last week. I am very flattered to have been confused with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, I must say. The meeting was extremely useful and I hope that we made it clear that members of the Select Committee share with the Government the objective of the best possible outcome. We have received powerful evidence about the impact of lack of permanence, particularly in the early years.

Given the jigsaw of interlocking procedures, it is important for the Government to explain why they are taking one step of several steps that may be available, and which I suspect will be taken quite soon, when a number have been identified. It is not always entirely clear why one step should be taken in isolation. I appreciate that one can argue it the other way—that if you have identified a step you should get on and do it—but this is quite a complex area.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the objective of the regulations is to remove both delay and duplication. Delay is, of course, a loaded term. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has experienced, as I have, that when one is arguing planning applications in local government, delay does not actually go to quality. She is agreeing with me. Taking time may sometimes be necessary. Taking time unnecessarily is a bad thing, of course. The duplication that the Explanatory Memorandum refers to, as the Norgrove report did, is between the panel and the court. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, will know how long a judge is typically given to read the papers—I suspect less time than a panel is, although I am always amazed at how quickly panels assimilate information.

The Government are not pointing to duplication between the panel and the decision-maker, who does not need the prior work of the panel, in the view of the Government. It seems to me that the decision-maker must need the same information as the panel, and Coram, to which the noble and learned Baroness has referred, regards the panel as providing quality assurance. Coram has given us some very helpful evidence, and the noble and learned Baroness has referred to the possible slippage in quality because of the loss of the independent element.

Coram also talks about adoption decision-making being delegated to less senior staff or the creation of a dedicated role that would not be integrated in the same way that the current post is. It also talks about the removal of independent panel chairs, and we have heard some very forceful evidence, particularly from BAAF, about the contribution made by independent members. The expertise from outside the authority brought to panels is really quite important. Alongside that, we are hearing quite a lot of concern about the lack of experience of adoption work among social workers. We asked the Local Government Association for its comments on these regulations, and, after a moment’s thought, one of the councillors who was at our session more or less said that authorities would invent a structure to replace panels. Admittedly, she might have been thinking about the abolition of panels as a whole, but it was a very practical response. If an authority sees a need to bring in outside expertise, it will find a way to do so.

The Government say that panels add no value, but I wonder whether the converse of that is the risk of abolishing what is excellent practice. We have heard that, in practice, panels meet frequently—weekly if necessary. If they do not meet often enough and are causing delay, their practice needs to be improved. I also wonder whether, if a panel is retained for matching a child with a family, that panel would not need to cover much of the groundwork that would have been covered by the panel dealing with placement.

When we met the Minister, Mr Loughton, he told us about the visits that he has made to sit in on and observe panels. He commented on the amount of material that panel members are expected to absorb, but he did not seem to say that they are failing. There are professionals, sometimes from different professions, who become skilled through the job that they are doing. I have to say that, as a society, we are very lucky that there are people who are prepared to do this job. I am not convinced that they should lose this role.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the very clear, coherent points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but I shall add to them. I am delighted that this debate is being held because the committee was extremely concerned when it saw the instrument. It is important to make the point that if the Government ask a Select Committee to undertake a task—in this instance to look at adoption—the committee should be kept well informed and other decisions should not be made without cognisance of the evidence that it is hearing and has heard. If it is not, we might as well all go home, rather than continue to work hard on the issues. I know that the chair is unable to say that but I think I can.

I shall say a little about some of the work around the family justice review, which was extremely complex and fraught. I know that because while it was being undertaken I was chair of CAFCASS, which was central to the disputes and discussions about delays and whether systems should be changed. David Norgrove did not say a great deal about panels but they are what I call low-hanging fruit. In looking at structures and systems, panels are one layer that you might be able to take out. You would then have removed a level of what looks like bureaucracy to move things forward. However, David Norgrove found an extreme level of mistrust between all the partners. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hill, spoke to him during that period. He was almost obsessed by the relationships between judges, social workers, CAFCASS and the other stakeholders in dealing with the issue. Therefore, finding good recommendations was important to him, and there is much in his report that takes us forward.

It is clear that, at present, many children spend far too long in care, moving in and out of it before decisions are made, and that we have to find ways of speeding this up. Views about adoption panels and whether they help or hinder the process are mixed. There is no systematic evidence. There has not been any decent inquiry into the working of panels. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have said about the evidence that we have heard from other parties, but people have anecdotal evidence that is as strong as any that might come from a review. I think that that would be useful. Personally, I am agnostic about panels and I suspect, as CAFCASS said, that they could be reviewed; that they come far too late in the process; and that the important thing is that the multi-professional information is gathered appropriately together to properly inform the decision. I do not think that the way in which that is processed has been properly looked at in relation to the decision to remove panels. Those are the things that would make a difference.

One of the other things that we know—I shall repeat this—is that when information gets to the judges, if they do not believe that they have enough expert information, they will commission experts to give it to them. A piece of work we have done recently is that of reducing the number of experts in court, particularly in the family courts, in order to reduce delay and speed up good quality decision making. It is quite clear that social workers and CAFCASS officers have a high level of expertise, but we also know that local authorities vary hugely one from another. What is the Minister going to do to make sure that when information goes to court, it does not add to delay because the judge is looking for the right information which he or she does not think has been quality tested? At the moment, they have the assurance that it has gone through a number of experts in a panel. It may be that there is an answer to this; I am looking for it.

I am also extremely concerned about the amount of work that falls on the shoulders of both decision-makers and independent reviewing officers. We have seen examples where the level of caseloads—certainly for independent reviewing officers and, I am sure, people up and down the country who have to make these decisions—is quite inappropriate in terms of being able to make the quality of decision that is needed. If Tim Loughton, when sitting in on panels, thought that they had a lot of material to digest, imagine what it would like for the decision-makers if they have to digest the material for themselves without having an expert opinion across a range of issues. They will be looking at psychiatric problems in some children who are going to be placed, or children with learning difficulties. We know that children who are being placed for adoption and coming through care are not straightforward babies with no difficulties. The panels help to assess that information before it is given to the judge in relation to the placement.

However keen you are on adoption, it is necessary to remember the balance between birth families and prospective adoptive families. There is a danger that, if you do not have good information on their families, which social workers in local authorities have to assess, there will be miscarriages of justice. That is of deep concern to me.

I would ask the Minister to answer the questions from the NSPCC which were repeated by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is extremely concerned about the mix of practice across the country. I also ask him to tell me how he, being responsible in central government, can ensure that local government, with all the decentralisation, do not overwhelm those who have to make these decisions so that quality decisions continue to be made. I will rest my arguments there.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I will follow the same theme but I hope that I will not be repetitive. A great deal is going on in the area of adoption, whether it is the Norgrove review, the March action plan or the existence of the Select Committee on which I am very pleased to serve.

I want to draw attention to paragraph 78, which records the decision and has already been quoted by the chairman, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It ends with the sentence she has already quoted:

“We believe that the court’s detailed scrutiny of these cases should be sufficient”.

It does not say “is sufficient” or “is known to be sufficient”: it says “should be sufficient”. It is quite important that that sentence is conditioned. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum should have quoted paragraph 78 in full and not selected the middle sentence. In my view, the Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument has a tendency to short-cut.

Let us take the words “should be” and look at what this enormously comprehensive report, with more than 100 recommendations, said on the relationship between courts and local authorities in paragraphs 3.45 and 3.46. It is worth reading this into the record:

“Our recommendations are intended to restore the respective responsibilities of courts and local authorities”.

If I may interpose, the word “restore” is a quite strong use of language. It implies that something is not as it used to be, even if not quite that it has broken down. The report continues:

“But to change the law does not tackle the root cause of the difficulties. This stems we believe from a deep-rooted distrust of local authorities … This in turn fuels dissatisfaction on the part of local authorities with the courts, further damaging relationships.”

Paragraph 3.46 states:

“The result is that the relationship between local authorities and courts can verge on the dysfunctional. For the system to work better it is not acceptable for each group to sit on the sidelines and criticise the other.”

It may be right to have taken away one of the responsibilities of panels. It could be right to remove the second opinion which may be provided very helpfully either to local authorities or to courts which might need it. It may be right to make them face up to the need to work successfully together. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that that is the Norgrove motivation. But it seems very risky.

We know that the performance of local authorities is uneven, for some quite good reasons such as the size of the authority or the ethnic mix in the authority. Political persuasion may have entered into it at some stage. We also know that the performance of the courts is very uneven. Our committee has not yet received as much evidence on that as we will have done when we come back in the autumn. Indeed, the government literature—the action plan in March or the Explanatory Memorandum—is quite cautious about criticising the courts. It is perhaps overcautious in the balance between its opinions on local authorities and the courts.

However, Norgrove is very clear. I think that he is saying that the front-line troops—the local authorities, the IROs and the social workers, and the courts with the judges—need to be in the front line. They need to get together and to perform without being intervened upon by outside experts and interests, which may be right as a long-term objective. Certainly, one would hope to find relationships between local authorities and courts in general becoming much better than they apparently are if this review is to be believed—and I see no reason to doubt it.

However, the Government will have to watch what happens very carefully, because it is not self-evident that removing this second opinion, this ability to put things together to the benefit of both the local authority and the court, will enhance the process of adoption. Delay has been mentioned as a reason. The evidence for it does not stand up. The evidence for duplication is dependent on there being confidence that the ability to perform exists both in the local authorities and the courts. If it does not, the duplication argument does not stand up either.

Education: 16-19 Bursary Fund

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As my noble friend says, local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that they make reasonable arrangements for young people post-16 for transport. The Government are monitoring the provision made. We will continue to remind them of that duty. As my noble friend also says, one of the purposes to which the 16-19 bursary fund can be put is to pay for transport costs. Particularly for providers in rural areas, that is an important use.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, the parents of young people with severe disabilities are extremely anxious since funding has transferred to local authorities. There is uncertainty that funding will remain not only for travel, through bursaries, but for places. Can the Minister assure me that local authorities will be required to ensure that those young people—some of the most vulnerable—are given the opportunities of their peers?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I very much agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of making sure that the group she talks about has those opportunities. The bursary fund has a specific sum, £1,200 a year, which is available to such groups to help with costs. As she knows, our proposals for reforming special educational needs generally, with the Bill to come, cover how we can try to increase such provision. Obviously, local authorities have an important part to play in that as well.

Young Children: Language Development

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am not aware of that research. I am sure my noble friend will be able to send it to me, and I will be very happy to look at it. The basic policy response of the Government on this is to improve the identification, first of all, and the assessment of these problems, to improve the support that we give to teachers and others working in early years settings, to work with voluntary organisations working with parents on this and to try to tackle it across a range of fronts.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

Does the Minister agree that this Question is about disabled children, and that disabled children need this sort of linguistic help throughout their educational career, particularly when they come to adolescence and early-adult years? What provision is he ensuring for those colleges and special schools where these disabled young people continue to attempt to develop their skills? I declare an interest as the president of Livability, which has two colleges and a school.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

In terms of the range of measures I have outlined in pre-school, school and later, we need to focus on this. I will, if I may, see if I can get some better particulars on the precise point raised by the noble Baroness and will follow up with her at a later date.

Sure Start

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the point of having much more information available to parents is that we hope that that will empower them to have more say in the system. We are also looking at trialling payment by results in Sure Start children’s centres, which we think will lead to better services, targeted more on those suffering from the greatest disadvantage. This approach will, I hope, improve the quality of the services delivered through this vital part of early years provision.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some correlation between the removal of a number of preventive services at local authority level, Sure Start centres being one, and the rise in the number of children who are coming before the courts? This October, a record number of children came before the courts and then went into care. Do the Government not have a view about the need for local authorities to continue to improve their preventive services to keep children with their families rather than having the high level of removal that is happening at the moment?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree on the importance of that. We must do all that we can to try to keep families together and children with their families. That strikes me as being vital and that is one reason why the Government are looking at ways of trying to trial more support for parents, looking at ways of putting extra funding into Relate to keep families together and, more generally, looking at the whole adoption system and the range of support that we make available for children. However, I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of that.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to be clear—since I know that many noble Lords want to speak, since I do not want any hares, or anything else, to get running, and since we should debate this amendment on its merits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said at the beginning—that the Government do not have any proposals to bring forward or change any legislation in the context of sex education. I hope that that will help to speed up our debate.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I want to engage in a discussion about the actual amendment and the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, more broadly raises, rather than getting into a debate that we said we were not going to have about sex education for the under-fives. I support the thrust of this amendment, in that it is about the kind of ethos that we want our children to be brought up in. I know that some noble Lords think that it is overprescriptive and that there are other ways of getting this into the regulations, the legislation or the way that Ofsted inspects, but it is crucial that this ethos is through schools.

Noble Lords will know that I spent many years setting up and establishing Childline. I spent the years I was not doing that working with children who are severely deprived or have been seriously sexually abused. I will come to that in a moment. These children are not a small minority; there is quite a sizable group of children who do not have the benefit of good, middle-class families—indeed, some families that are middle class have extraordinary difficulties, as any parent who has faced having children who are into drug or alcohol abuse will know. The one important issue for all these children is that the school can make a difference.

I am involved with a group of children at the moment who have all had extraordinarily difficult backgrounds. They have been before the court either because their parents are splitting up or because they have come into care. The one thing that has made a difference to those children is their school. They are all doing well. They have the sort of starred grades at GCSE that I could only have dreamt of. They are doing well because their schools have focused on their well-being.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for listening to our views and responding in the way that he has. It is quite rare in our proceedings to find a government amendment that has names from those on all other Benches attached to it. In this case the accolades and plaudits that the Minister will get from all noble Lords are well deserved.

In the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, of 6 October, the Minister said:

“While we work through with interested parties as to how the proposals in the Green Paper on SEN and disability will promote better collaboration, we are happy that the duty to co-operate should remain”.

When the legislation comes before us, which will result from the SEN Green Paper undoubtedly—I assume that will be some time next year—can my noble friend assure us that the duty to co-operate will not be deleted in that legislation without consultation with those of us who have expressed the wish to keep it in this legislation?

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

The Minister knows how much I welcome the amendment. I have not been part of the formal consultation but have managed to speak to him on a number of occasions informally and impressed on him the importance of local authorities and schools working together, simply because in doing so they learn each other’s minds. One area that has always improved is the safeguarding element between them because of working together. I thank the Minister for what he has done and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope that he will maintain that co-operation in the legislation throughout our future debates.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment—or everybody’s amendment, really. It clearly is right and proper that schools and children’s services play their part within the broader community. In a recent survey of almost 1,000 governors, carried out by the National Governors Association and the TES, a significant majority of governors agreed that schools should play a key role in the provision of children’s services in the area. Indeed, that makes sense, and is surely what the Government were aiming to do—to get everybody involved in children’s education to work together for their benefit.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but so many important comments have been made that I feel that I want to add my few words.

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that this is about safeguarding both the child and the teaching staff. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we need to engender trust in a school. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded me about his report on discipline, which I remember quite well. I remember having to write an essay on it—so he is to blame.

The problems of discipline in schools are not just to do with pupils. They are to do with that group of people we were talking about in a very positive way: parents, and—dare I say it?—the legal profession. You can just imagine a situation that happens daily: that of a teacher, say in primary school, who in innocence says “Come on, hand over that game you’ve got in your pocket”, stupidly goes to reach for it, and the next thing is that there is a legal action. So all that trust has evaporated.

The guidance has to be very clearly laid down. Pupils should not have mobile phones in classrooms—and this is hugely important. It is very dangerous, for all the reasons that we have heard. Of everything that has been said, that is probably the most important, because it is not just about grooming children, but about other pupils bullying each other through mobile phones.

So why on earth schools are allowing children to have mobile phones in schools, I do not understand. In small schools, they can be handed into the school office or, as has been suggested, go in a locker. I hope the guidance is very clear. It is about ensuring the protection and the safeguarding of the pupil, as much as the safeguarding of the teacher.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but it was in hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talk about clarity, that reminded me that I had had a letter from someone in a school. Your Lordships will understand why I quote it:

“Please could you register my welcome overall of the trust put in teachers and school leaders to manage behaviour more effectively in schools and colleges. However, I am concerned that the measures taken to improve the authority of teachers are being seen as threats to the child and to the member of staff concerned. Searches should be allowed by staff and good practice ensures that a teacher will ask for a witness for the search”.

It shows that the common sense that the ministry is trying to encourage exists in schools, but that there is a lack of clarity. The real need is for clear guidance, and indeed the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would help people to understand. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said that there are so many things that are believed in schools that are not actually the law or statute.

This has been a wonderful Second Reading debate, I have to say. I have thoroughly enjoyed some of the speeches, and not having had an opportunity to get to the actual Second Reading, I am now taking my opportunity, too. We have to remind ourselves that not everything was wonderful in the past, and that there are some things that are significantly better. One thing that is significantly better is child safeguarding. We abandon anything that continues to safeguard children, as the noble Baroness was saying with regard to Barnardo’s, at our risk.

I am not an educationalist but I suspect that my pedigree in safeguarding is probably as good as anyone in this House. I encourage the Minister to think carefully before abandoning those controls where it is quite clear that teachers have the common sense to think that they need a witness. But it is not always the teachers who end up doing these things. I have known of caretakers being asked to “take that mobile phone off young Jones”. It is about people who would have other motives for touching a child.

I also believe that no male adult should handle a young woman aged 12 or 13, and certainly not without a witness. If you talk to young girls, they say that they feel that that is an assault on their dignity and it is something that goes with them. I encourage the Minister to think carefully about ensuring that we have either the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—to confirm to the Front Bench, I am suggesting one of the amendments—or extremely clear guidance for teachers so that they know that they do not search in unsafe situations.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Perhaps I may start with some general comments about some of the themes that have emerged. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about her underlying point, consistency, and the difficulty that we as legislators have in translating what we are trying to do in classrooms so that teachers know where they stand. That links to the point again about clarity in guidance, to which I will come back later.

My noble friend Lord Cormack, who has not spoken on the Education Bill previously, made a powerful speech about the importance of trust, which we all share. By the same token, some of the discussion today highlighted tensions between wanting to get to a position where we trust professionals more—and I think we would all agree with that—while wanting to have our own safeguards in place to ensure that in trusting them the things we most care about are protected. That is a difficult balance. My noble friend Lord Storey also threw in parents and lawyers for good measure.

It is absolutely right that schools are operating in a far more complicated environment than was the case in the past. I very much recognise the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of the purpose of a school, which I think still holds true today. But they certainly have to operate in a far more complicated world where they are asked to do much more by society than was once the case. I recognise that there are anxieties, which I will attempt to address, about the extension of the powers on search. I see them as an attempt to provide greater space in a very small number of exceptional cases for professional judgment to be exercised by heads and teachers, and to try to enlarge the space where we can trust heads to make the judgments that they believe are right to safeguard the children in their care.

There was broad agreement that we want head teachers and teachers to be able to ensure the safety of the children. In fact, it is important to say that most schools are safe places in which children can learn. It is important to get that in proportion and not to imagine that we are confronted with a problem that does not exist—it is important to focus on the problem that does exist.

When the previous Government introduced searching legislation, they recognised that unfortunately there are instances where children have items that can cause harm or injury to themselves or to others. Under existing law, members of school or college staff can search for a number of harmful items, including knives and weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen items. We are proposing a small extension to those powers so that teachers can keep all potentially harmful items out of the classroom.

I want to set out briefly, on the record, the safeguards within the legislation that ensure these powers are used appropriately. A search of a student without their consent can only be carried out in certain circumstances. First, the staff member conducting the search must be designated by the head teacher or the principal. I agree that the head teacher should consider the skills of any staff member they are designating, and I am sure that most will do so. In the light of views that were expressed in the debate on this issue in Committee, we have taken on board the recommendation that, when designating a member of staff, the head teacher should consider whether that member of staff needs any additional training. That recommendation is included in the department’s published advice to schools.

Secondly, a member of staff must reasonably suspect that the pupil is in possession of a prohibited item. A pupil cannot be randomly searched on a whim. Thirdly, staff may not require the student to remove any clothing other than outer clothing. These conditions—which are in law—will remain unchanged. It is also the case that a search can only be carried out by someone of the same sex as the student and in the presence of a witness except—and this is the change which we are seeking to make—in certain emergency situations. The requirement that the searcher is the same sex as the pupil and that a witness is present will continue to apply in nearly all searches, as a number of noble Lords have argued. Where it is practical to summon a staff member of the same sex as the pupil and a witness then a teacher wishing to conduct a search must do so. There is no disagreement at all on that.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, used the right words—“common sense”. I cannot understand this. As a parent and as a teacher, I have no objection to same-day detentions. As has been said, if there is to be a sanction or punishment often it is best that it is done straight away. However, the notion that young people, children and students are kept behind at school without their parents or their carers knowing does not seem right and proper.

If a school organises an after-school activity, whether it be football, netball, swimming or whatever, parents give their permission for their children to take part in those activities, understanding that their children will have to make other arrangements to come home. Why cannot that be done for same-day detentions? All we are suggesting, which is eminently sensible and supported by all the unions bar one—of the unions supporting it, even the National Association of Head Teachers thinks that it is right and proper that parents are notified—is that when a same-day detention is held the parent is contacted, not through a message left on a voicemail, an e-mail or a text but actually contacted. If they cannot be contacted, the same-day detention would have to be held the next day. That is the right and proper common-sense approach.

I have had various e-mails today saying that it would be a breach of the law if the child was not safeguarded and so on, but in all this guidance, about which no doubt we will hear in a moment, I cannot find an understanding that the parent comes first—that the parent matters. I hope that in the guidance it is made absolutely clear how we will protect the well-being and safeguarding of children.

We have spoken about rural areas and the school bus, but in urban areas—in my own city—children often have to travel two miles across the city to go to school. On dark nights they are placed in a very vulnerable situation. If the parents know their child is being kept behind, they can make arrangements.

I hope the Minister will understand the real sense of concern about this issue and give an assurance that the guidelines will clearly spell out what we are asking.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I recognised that there would be a number of reasoned arguments and I stand with my colleagues who made them. I took a rather different way on this. During the summer I consulted a number of friends and my family—it was a random experiment—and it became absolutely clear that they did not believe that I was telling the truth when I said that it was the Government’s plan that when their child was going to be detained they would not be told. They said, “You are making it up”. That was the first response.

The second response from rural parents—I work and have friends in London but I live in a rural area—was, “But there is only one bus. They cannot be detained without notice because if they do not get on the bus they do not get home at all”. We have to remember that not every poor parent in a rural area has a car; they depend on that transport. There are no other bus services or taxis; you catch the school bus or you do not get home. The third response was the sheer indignation that this was “my” child, not owned by anyone else.

The common thread through all that was that the parents were quite keen for the child to be disciplined at school. There was no disagreement that the child should not receive their discipline, that detention might be the right answer, or that the closer it was to the incident the better little Jonny would learn from it. The disagreement was that parents had to know that their child was going to be detained so that they could ensure the protection of their child and were not worried out of their minds. I hope noble Lords will forgive my anecdotal bit of research but it was pretty consistent with the reasoned arguments that we have heard this evening.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 33, which I have added my name to. I will not rehearse the arguments that have been made by noble Lords who have already spoken except to say, as I said in Committee, that these issues about safeguarding are absolutely paramount. There is one area that no one has picked up on but of which I have personal experience. Looked-after children, foster children or children with difficult family arrangements often have complex arrangements at the school gate. For this particular group, it is always vital that the parent with the residency order knows exactly what is happening.

My own experience was at primary school level, where the school was fully on board with all the issues. In a large secondary school with 1,200 pupils, I worry that a teacher or head of department handing out a detention might not be aware of such complex arrangements. For such reasons, which also come back to safeguarding, this is really important. Amendment 33 does not ask for much. The key thing from this Side is for the Minister to please look again at the wording. We want a really clear statement that nothing will be done that will compromise the safety of the child. That is the absolute nub of it. We can all give many more anecdotes but fundamentally, at its root, this is about the safeguarding of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I have some amendments in this group. Like my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I welcome the Government’s amendments. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Phillips on his success in persuading the Government to improve this clause as far as they have. However, I join him in urging the Minister to consider whether he could go a little further. There is devastating logic in what my noble friend says. I am also aware of cases where the abusing teacher has been asked to go away quietly so that no more will be said about the matter. Speaking of logic, I have two amendments in this group which seek to follow government policy and prevent an unintended consequence of this section of the Bill.

Noble Lords may remember that in Committee, speaking to Clause 42 stand part, my noble friend Lady Brinton said on behalf of both of us:

“I would also like to ensure that, where there has been abuse, the subsequent inspection overtly inspects what action has been taken, and openly reports whether the failures that allowed the abuse to occur have been put right. … Parents expect it, and children deserve it”.—[Official Report, 12/9/11; col. GC 117.]

I hope that the Minister will agree with that because it was the 22nd recommendation of the report of Sir Roger Singleton of June 2009, which was agreed to by the then DCSF under the previous Government. Significantly, the DfE under this Government also confirmed adherence to that positive response given in June 2009. Indeed, I know that our honourable friend Mr Tim Loughton has been considering how he can implement this and other recommendations of the Singleton report. There was some news of that only this morning.

Of course, I am aware that Clause 13 only prevents a publication identifying a teacher who is the subject of an allegation. However, the difficulty sometimes arises where writing anything at all about an event might lead to readers having a very good idea of who it might have been. For example, if something occurred on a field trip and there had only been one field trip that year, then it would be possible to identify the alleged perpetrator. So my amendments seek to ensure that we do not fetter the ability of a regulator or a responsible Ofsted inspector to do their jobs properly and to write in their reports about what happened and how the school has, or has not, put measures in place to prevent a repetition. This is what Sir Roger Singleton recommended should happen and that wish has since been endorsed by the previous Government and the current one.

So I hope that the Minister will now see that, in tabling Amendments 50A and 50B, I am trying to avoid that unintended consequence. I believe that Clause 13 as currently written could prevent a regulator or inspector from producing an adequate school inspection report following a case of abuse; a report which stated what action the school has taken. Has my noble friend had time to consider these small, but, I hope, helpful amendments, since they seek to implement what I believe to be the intentions of the Government as well as of the previous Government; intentions which were so well set out by Sir Roger Singleton’s recommendations?

I support what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, have said about the research that has been circulated to us from York Consulting. I looked at that myself, quite independently of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, and it occurred to me too that there was not a single fact in there that supports the need for this legislation; not one fact that talked about hyped-up, unwarranted publication of the name of a teacher prior to charge. There were lots of statistics about the increase in the number of allegations, lots of statistics about how many of those were eventually found to be unwarranted, but not a thing about publicity. So I still have great reservations about this legislation, despite the fact that in Amendments 50A and 50B I am trying to improve it, because I just do not feel that the Government have yet disclosed to us the pressing need for it, despite what the teaching unions would perhaps like to see. I really would say to the teaching unions—and I have said to the teaching unions—give me the evidence. Where is the evidence about these large amounts of terrible publicity that have brought the Government to decide that they need this legislation? I simply have not seen it yet.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, despite the late hour I think that this debate should not be curtailed, because it is so important. I have to express my great disappointment in the Government for not listening to the arguments that were made so cogently in Committee and again by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I want to ask the Minister whether some of my experiences would not now be possible. For 13 years I was chief executive of Childline, the helpline for children in trouble and in danger, and this month that helpline is 25 years old. During the time it has been operating, it has cracked a large number of rings and groups and situations where teachers have been abusing children. Children have been able to telephone the helpline and describe what has been happening to them.

Let me tell your Lordships about two cases because they are crucial. We had a series of boys ringing independently from a particular school, all telling us about the same teacher and similar abuse. We were able to get those boys to talk to their parents, to get the parents to come together, and together to take that issue forward, which ended up in a very serious prosecution of that teacher who went to prison. The other situation was that of Crookham Court, a very famous case, where a group of teachers were preying, just as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, described, on a group of children. We intervened in that situation by getting the proprietor out of the school and getting my chair, who happened to be Esther Rantzen, into the school to bring the whole situation into the open. That was again a very famous case when a series of people went to prison for a long time for serial abuse of children in a school.

I believe that those two cases could not happen under these arrangements. We would be prevented from encouraging people to share information that brings serial abusers to court. I do not think that the Government intend that to happen. I do not wish to believe that the Minister and his colleagues would wish that to happen. I do not like speaking at length as it is late and I, too, would like to go home, but the only other point I want to make is that if the Minister had worked for years, as I have, with young people who have to come to court and describe their abuse—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made this point—he would know that it is extraordinarily difficult for children and young people to make allegations because they know they have to say it again. Would noble Lords like to have to stand up and tell me about their recent sexual experience? We ask children to talk about extraordinarily painful sexual abuse in court, which they find extremely difficult. That is why I spent nine years of my life working towards children, as witnesses, not having to face the court but being able to give their evidence behind a screen. I am proud of that achievement.

If the Government take it through, we will condemn a large number of children and their parents to terrific pain. I ask the Minister to take it back to his masters and convey the message in the strongest possible terms, otherwise I predict there will be cause to rue the day.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for terribly long but I would be grateful if I can say a few words as I raised this issue for the first time at Second Reading and then talked with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about it in Committee. As this is an issue that affects the media, I declare an interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. On Second Reading, I originally raised three concerns. The first was about the workability of these proposals and whether it was possible to muzzle the printed press and broadcast media in a digital age when gossip at the school gate would simply be transformed into dialogue on social media. The second was about the impact on press freedom and open justice, particularly because of the lack in this legislation of a public interest defence. The third, about which we have heard eloquent testimony this evening, was about the welfare of vulnerable children. Underlying all that was a belief that the case had not been made out for a substantial incursion into freedom of expression. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, spoke earlier of the latest statistics showing that only 2 per cent of cases related to malicious allegations. That is a very small number and in none of those has it been proved that publicity was responsible for that.

Those were my concerns. All that said, I am very grateful to the Government for having taken a number of those issues on board. Amendment 44 goes a considerable way to protecting the rights of children. It gives the courts the opportunity to balance the victim with the perpetrator of the crime. Amendment 49, which relates to individual teachers putting material into the public domain, again goes some way to dealing with the impact on the media and open justice, and I think helps to bring this legislation much more into line with the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects material which is in the public domain. That seems to me to be of especial importance in view of the concern I expressed about the impact of social media on this legislation.

I wish that the Government had been able to go further. Indeed, I wish that this clause had not been in the Bill in the first place. However, these changes seem practical and welcome, and may go some way to ensuring that these provisions will have a much less significant impact on the rights of children and on the free media than when the Bill was originally drafted.

I should add that, as a result of these amendments, and the explanations that the Minister has given today, I see no need for my own part—although it is still a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—to press Amendment 48 or Amendment 51, and withdraw my name and support from those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am aware of that, and we have discussed that point before. I know that is the case, and I defer to my noble friend who is a very distinguished lawyer, who I think used to do libel. To expect a teacher who finds himself the subject of a malicious campaign to take a libel case on his own account, financially, emotionally or in any other way, is not a practical course of action.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

In making that comment, does the Minister feel that a teacher cannot take that action but that a parent, with all the distress that they are feeling about their child having accused a teacher of abuse, can go to a judicial review with all that means without the support of other parents? That is simply not the real world. Does the Minister not agree that there is some imbalance in the two things that he has just described?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I did not say that a parent who has concerns would have to go to judicial review. I am arguing that for a parent who has those concerns— I agree 100 per cent with the noble Baroness that a parent would want to have them investigated and taken forward—there are a number of ways, whether through the police, the local authority, the LADO, and so on, to make sure that those concerns are investigated. I am not at all saying that if they have concerns I would expect them to have to go to judicial review.

We are absolutely clear that genuine victims of abuse must be able to disclose the abuse and that such reports must be investigated properly. These provisions do not interfere with that. They do not prevent the police interviewing witnesses. We think that effective investigations are possible without press reporting. The police can seek to lift the reporting restrictions if necessary to draw attention to an issue if they are seeking more information about a particular person.

The other amendment proposed by my noble friend would mean that reporting restrictions would lift when a person who is the subject of an allegation resigned or was dismissed from the relevant employment. He is concerned that without this amendment, Clause 13 may help schools cover up misconduct and argues that press reporting is an important check on such behaviour.

One difficulty with the amendment is that its implications would go well beyond this issue; for example, it would mean that any teacher who resigned to take up a post at another school would lose their protection against the reporting of allegations, even if the allegation was unfounded and had no influence on the teacher’s decision to resign. We are committed to ensuring that genuine allegations of abuse are investigated properly by the appropriate authorities. Schools have a statutory duty to investigate allegations and, where appropriate, to refer them to the relevant authority. Our new statutory guidance on this subject makes absolutely clear that if a person tenders his or her resignation or ceases to provide their services, that must not prevent an allegation being investigated. If it is well founded, the investigation will lead to the police bringing a charge or to the regulator holding a hearing. At that point, the reporting restrictions will lift. If there is insufficient evidence to reach this point, we think it is right that the teacher’s anonymity is protected and their reputation and career safeguarded.

I accept that a small minority of heads may in theory seek to cover up allegations or may not be as swift in acting on them as we would wish. However, I do not think that press reporting is the best or the only way to counter this possibility. If parents or others are not satisfied that schools are dealing with an allegation, they have recourse other than through the press: they can refer the case to the national regulator; they can ask the Secretary of State to investigate and exercise his powers of direction; they can go directly to the police if they consider a criminal offence may have been committed. In addition, if any person feels that there is a strong public interest in publishing details of identifying information about a teacher against whom allegations of criminal behaviour have been made, they can apply to the local magistrates for reporting restrictions to be lifted.

I will quickly reply to a couple of less contentious points. My noble friend Lord Phillips asked about government Amendment 42. In order to cover ambiguous allegations that someone might be guilty of an offence where, for example, a pupil claims, “I think it was teacher X who did it”, we have changed the definition from,

“an allegation that the person is guilty of a relevant criminal offence”,

to “may be” guilty of an offence.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley was worried that Clause 13 might unintentionally hinder Ofsted from including information in its reports that it would otherwise want to include. I recognise her concerns about that. In cases where a school is found to be failing to implement arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children appropriately, we expect inspectors to include judgments or commentary about such failings in published reports. In light of her concerns, my officials contacted Ofsted today to ask whether it thinks there is a risk that Clause 13 might constrain inspectors in making their reports. Ofsted said that inspectors would not feel constrained in reporting on a safeguarding issue. As a matter of general policy, they always take care in writing reports to ensure that no individuals can be identified. Of course, if the inspectors uncover safeguarding concerns during an inspection they can and should provide full detail, including the identities of those concerned to the appropriate authorities and the reporting restrictions would not interfere with that in any way.

Those were the less contentious ones. I understand the strength of the feeling of my noble friend Lord Phillips, and the passion with which he has argued this evening. I have been able to agree with him on two of the improvements to the clause that he has proposed. I know he will not agree with me but I think there are difficulties with the two further ones he has put forward—that they would weaken the protection that we are seeking to give to teachers—and I ask him to withdraw his amendments.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Brompton. Governments, who are made up of democratically elected MPs, and most Ministers—although not those in your Lordships' House, of course—sometimes forget that local authorities are democratically elected as well. I wonder what the point is of having a consultation on the opening of an academy if the local authority is fettered in any way in responding to that consultation—if local parents say that they would prefer to have a local authority school, thank you very much. Anything that fetters the opportunity of the local authority to respond to its own local people is not a good idea, and I support what the noble Baroness has just said.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, which provides that a local authority may set up a school. I also read the Explanatory Notes and thought that my concern might be covered. However, I have listened to the debate and I think that, unless there is some forward planning, there may be a discussion about a variety of schools but none of them may meet the needs of a particular group of pupils who are coming up for education at that time. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that there is some co-ordinated planning and that, if the proposal does not come forward, the local authority already has some plans to meet the requirements. Can the Minister tell me whether that is within the programme?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 111A. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on tabling it and congratulate the Committee on reaching it. I understand that it has been a long and winding road, and I hope that the weary travellers will not mind me joining them for this short step along their great trek.

My noble friend’s amendment changes the requirements to be met when a new school is proposed, so that the criteria are set out,

“which the design of the school must meet, following best practice as prescribed by the Secretary of State”.

I understand the Government’s desire to minimise the barriers to the creation of new schools, the introduction of greater variety in the school system and the liberation of new energies—and, of course, to minimise bureaucracy—but it would be a mistake to cut corners on planning and design. They go together, and it has been one of the achievements of your Lordships' House in recent years to amend the town and country planning system to require planners to take account of and have regard to the importance of good design. The Secretary of State’s outbursts against the architects associated with Building Schools for the Future programme were unwarranted and inappropriate. I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and chair of the Associate Parliamentary Group on Architecture and Planning.

I am very happy that it appears that a truce has now broken out between the Secretary of State and the RIBA. I was pleased to read in the 8 July edition of Building Design, in the report by the president of the RIBA, Ruth Reed, that she said that the Secretary of State had acknowledged that the James review was simplistic. Noble Lords will recall that the James review said that school design should be standardised to save money. She reported that the Secretary of State is,

“keen to get good value for money for school buildings. He is aware design matters and he did recognise that you have to invest in design … He certainly didn’t come across as someone who doesn’t like good design”.

It is encouraging to have that confirmation.

I entirely believe that Ministers want good design in school buildings. The question is how that good design can be assured or how we can do as much as possible to assure good design, particularly under the provisions of this legislation. If I may also quote from the circular that was sent out to members of the RIBA immediately after the meeting with the Secretary of State, we were told that one of the key outcomes of the meeting was an agreement to work with the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider how to achieve the best value from good school design, particularly in mapping out scenarios for the future delivery of schools. Ruth Reed said this was a productive meeting. She said:

“We have agreed to assist in identifying the constraints to achieving well designed schools including those in procurement and planning. Well designed schools”—

she observed—

“will always be value for money because they deliver optimum conditions for learning which last for decades to come.”

It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on the meeting between the president of the RIBA and the Secretary of State for Education, as well as with Mr Penrose, the Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with responsibility for architecture, if he would explain how his department intends to develop this work with the RIBA, whether he sees implications for this legislation and whether he thinks there may be a case for introducing an amendment to strengthen the commitments that the Government make in this legislation to the good design of school buildings.

Hitherto, I have lacked confidence that that would be the case. I understand that the department is consulting about making change of use easier, so that, for example, offices might be converted into new schools under permitted development rights. I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point. At face value it would appear that new schools might be opened in any old building. Perhaps he would tell us what guarantees that basic standards of health and safety, and of accessibility, can be assured by the Government.

More importantly, if “anything goes” in school design, there is a risk that the quality of education will suffer. Good design, as my noble friend said, and as the president of the RIBA also said, helps to create an environment that supports learning; is stimulating in the best sense; helps to restrain and minimise bad behaviour, ill discipline and vandalism; and creates the flexibility needed to accommodate different sorts of teaching groups and changes in the curriculum.

My noble friend’s Amendment 116A is to be debated in a later group, but she is right to stress the desirability of Ofsted reporting, among other matters, on the effectiveness of buildings and their design on the education provided in them. Design is only one of the factors that make for good education. Outstanding teachers teaching bright and motivated children will create good education in almost any circumstances. An extreme case that I am aware of was in Albania, after the fall of the Hoxha regime, when the schools were derelict shacks. There was no glass in the windows and there were no pencils for the children to write with. Yet when Albanian children visited my then constituency of Stratford-upon-Avon, I strongly suspect they had a better knowledge of Shakespeare than the children being educated in schools in Stratford-upon-Avon. They definitely had a better knowledge of Byron.

We have seen in the English public schools that good teachers teaching well-motivated pupils are able to provide first-class education in conditions of Hogarthian squalor. Good design is not more important than good teaching. Good design supports good teaching. Policy and the legislative framework should be such that the whole system and the standards set by the Government support the generality of teachers and pupils, in particular those who work in disadvantaged communities. Of course we should share experience. The system should support school leaders to benefit from the experience of design that has often been hard won in other places.

The report in the Times today of the Government’s announcement yesterday does little to encourage me to have confidence that we are going to see an insistence on good design in the new generation of schools that are to be built. One must, of course, welcome the announcement of funding for the rebuilding of schools and the building of new schools, but we are advised that this programme will be funded through public/private partnerships. We have seen in public/private partnership and PFI-funded school developments some environment and architectural atrocities, so I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us.

It is very difficult working through all the complexities of the contractual process of PFI to build in a requirement for good design. Because of this complexity, I understand that a handful of large contractors will bid for contracts and that contracts will be negotiated with the department or with the new funding agency for schools. I am worried about that because it seems to me that kind of system will not sufficiently provide for local factors to be taken into account. It is the sensitive and expert observation of local needs that is so often the key to good design, so I hope the Minister will be able to explain that the system that the Government are introducing will indeed provide assurances that design factors will have the prominence and the emphasis that they ought to have.

More broadly, I think the Government should think very carefully about the signal that they send about the importance and standing of education and schools if the policy is really that anything goes in school design. If grottily designed schools are to be permitted, the Government seem to be saying that grotty education is okay. That is absurd because that is not what the Government mean at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend in her amendment. I have been briefed by a number of organisations, including Save the Children, of which I was a trustee for many years. It is fully in support of the amendment, which would ensure that students were able to become school governors. I gather that they cannot be at the moment; they may play a very full role in the community, but they cannot become school governors unless there is a change in legislation to make it possible. Save the Children has reminded me about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the right for children and students to be involved in decisions that affect them. What can affect them more than the kind of education they have? It seems entirely reasonable that students should be allowed to become governors, which I am sure will add to the general weight and value of governors and ensure that students begin to feel a much greater sense of responsibility than if they are simply governed by other people. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it as well.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, your Lordships would not but expect me to support the idea that young people should be fully involved in boards. I serve on a number of boards that are fully integrated and that work. However, I am anxious about the rights and responsibilities aspect. If this amendment is incorporated into the legislation, what will the difference be between the responsibilities of adult governors and those of minors? That difference is made absolutely clear in voluntary organisations and non-departmental governing bodies on which young people sit with equal rights to speak. There is clarity about their accountability because they do not hold property or estate, which can be called on in a voluntary organisation. I know all the benefits of young people being fully involved—I do not want to repeat the speeches of my colleagues on that—but I want clarity on their protection as minors. We often forget that we as adults have that responsibility for them.

I support the separation of powers between heads and governing bodies. I know that there has been a great deal of debate, certainly in the voluntary sector, as to whether chief executives should be full members of trustee boards. However, that again brings a number of conflicts of interest below the line. If there is a difference of opinion between the majority of the trustees and a group of trustees with the head, and there are issues that take the group into disrepute, there are real dangers in that. One needs a head teacher who is a chief executive and gives advice independently, and the decision-making power within the governors. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that these powers should be separated, although I understand why the Government are trying to give teachers the status of being on the board.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

There is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in particular. Like him, I would take some persuading to support exempting schools.

I can understand the Government’s probable motivation: they believe that schools should be freed up from unnecessary burdens of inspection. The trend over the past few years has certainly been to lessen the burden of Ofsted inspections and the use of self-evaluation has been relatively successful in that regard. I am sure that the Government and the Minister would not for a second want anyone thinking that they do not think that schools should be accountable and that accountability is an important element of parental choice. Certainly, throughout our perennial debates on testing and tables as the drivers of choice—and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for his reviews around SATS at primary level—the mantra trotted out was that parents should not only look at the test results and the ranking tables, because those were put together by newspapers and, anyway, the Government do not rank schools, but at Ofsted inspections and other sources of information. An Ofsted inspection is always in the line that you have to take when talking about these issues. Yet if a school becomes exempt, all you can rely on is that data.

As the Government move towards opening up and publishing more and more data about schools, a richer picture can perhaps be formed. However, if the Minister were to persuade me that through better, more rigorous and richer publishing of data, we could get to the point of exempting outstanding schools, he would have to further persuade me that there are satisfactory forms of data. The data should relate not only to the achievement of pupils, the quality of teaching and the quality of leadership—difficult as some of those proxies might be in data terms—but to behaviour and safety. Are there good proxies for child safety, the subject of the amendment that I support from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; are there good proxies for,

“the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school”?

All these items should be covered in a chief inspector’s report on a school. The only way in which you could possibly justify exempting a school is by coming up with accurate proxies in data form for all of the measures that the Government say should be covered in an Ofsted report under Clause 40.

As I said earlier and as others have said during this debate, schools do go backwards—and sometimes they go backwards fairly quickly. People can be tempted and attracted by exempt schools. In some of the conversations that I have had with head teachers who are four or five years from retirement, they have said, “I have had my last Ofsted inspection so now I can do what I like”. That will free people up to innovate and to ignore the Schools Minister in the other place. When Nick Gibb goes on about synthetic phonics and prescribing what kind of text books to use, they can say, “Well, it does not really matter. I do not have to do that because I am not going to be inspected on it. As long as my results are all right and I carry on being outstanding, I can ignore Nick Gibb”. That is quite a persuasive argument but, in the end, it is not good enough and we need that accountability through inspection.

I want to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, half way on her interesting amendment. When I talk to head teachers now about Ofsted—which they do not admire without criticism—they tell me that they would like a much greater feeling that the people doing the inspection are head teachers who are currently in the workforce. Their worry is that the people who come round are sometimes a little out-of-date in terms of what is going on. There is a lot to be gained from peer review—from heads inspecting other heads. One of the most successful forms of school improvement that we have at the moment is the national leaders of education, who perform that kind of peer review function in respect of school improvement.

There might be a middle way—I will not call it a third way because that may confuse people—of having lighter touch inspections, still as Ofsted inspections, but, by and large, being carried out by head teachers inspecting each other. They would not inspect schools that they know or have an association with, because that independence would have to be there. That might enable Ofsted to carry out its own burden of inspection in a relatively lean way in terms of cost, yet still give the accountability which parents and those of us who have to care about the spending of public money need. In the end, that is very important.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I shall not repeat all the arguments about why we should continue with inspection because they have been made fairly clearly and in some depth. I shall make two points. I certainly support all those arguments, and I am not an uncritical observer of Ofsted, having been on the receiving end of its investigations, both positive and negative, in a number of roles and having had both positive and negative levels of inspections.

I am most concerned, and I speak from my experience as well as from my general understanding of safeguarding, that safeguarding will not be regularly inspected. I sit as chair of a safeguarding board and as chair of a number of organisations that have safeguarding boards, and I advise organisations that need to develop their safeguarding boards. In those roles, one thing I find is that whereas many social services establishments are keen to develop their safeguarding and to report on it, there is a culture within schools not to report but to develop their own safeguarding plans, if they possibly can, and not necessarily to co-operate with the wider organisation, if they are part of it. I understand all that, and I understand why. Reporting on something that has happened in your school has consequences, certainly if you have to report it to the local authority and it does not react appropriately, but also if the thing develops and you find that you have gone to the outside world. I understand that, but we cannot possibly have a regime where there is no inspection of safeguarding and safeguarding procedures.

I say to the Minister that if the Government intend that to happen, they are on an extraordinarily dangerous path. When we last discussed Ofsted, I was so vehement about some of the issues that I got sent off by the Minister to see the chief inspector—I got sent to see the headmaster. This was because I was concerned about the level of expertise of the people inspecting these sorts of areas; I will come to that again when we come to talk about boarding school inspections. I hope that the Minister will take the seriousness of this to the others in his Government who are looking at it. I predicted when children’s services went into children’s trusts that unless those heads of service who came from the education stream rather than the social care stream were thoroughly educated and understood safeguarding, there would be difficulties. I do not have to run through the series of cases for noble Lords to know that that prediction was unhappily proven. I simply encourage the Minister to look at that.

My second point is about visitors. I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is getting at in this—she knows I have huge respect for her—but as a director and an assistant director of social services in the past, I had responsibility for implementing visitor schemes developed by a series of previous Governments, none of which were ever truly successful. If you talk, as I do, to head teachers—I also talk to people in social care—you find that they have real anxieties about any old body being able to come into their school. There would be issues about how the people are selected and whether they are going to be totally lax, and not know what they are looking for, or the kind of busybodies who get into organisations and institutions and drive those who are trying to run the place absolutely mad. There is the whole question of qualification: how they are trained in observation, what they are looking for and whether they have to be CRB checked. There is a whole issue about visitors, which you have to be absolutely clear about before you embark on that sort of path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and I hope that she brings her amendment back on Report.

As we discussed on the previous group of amendments, the research I have been doing for the Localism Bill about how neighbourhood planning works within cities, and mostly within London, has drawn the comment from a number of the people involved that one of the principal problems they face is the actions of faith schools, in this case the very small ones—I am certainly not referring to the favourite cause of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy—both Christian and other denominations, which seem intent on focusing communities around themselves rather than reaching out more widely. That certainly relates to the point about community cohesion which the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, raised and which was the subject of long debates in 2006.

On the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho, I merely say that it is a well known problem that secondary schools take the prospectuses of FE colleges and others, lock them in the head’s cupboard and say that that is their duty to their pupils. This needs to be looked at, at least occasionally.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I will ask a brief but important question in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I should have stood up and asked her, but I have been told off before for standing up too soon, so I thought that I would wait.

I was unable to be present for the Statement yesterday about buildings, and I am sure that this might have been raised then. The question is whether or not a building should be a limiting factor in an Ofsted inspection’s outcome. Many schools now have huge problems with their standards, and I speak as a trustee of a college where the premises are totally inappropriate for the work that we are trying to do. This means that we can never get a good Ofsted inspection, despite the fact that the teaching is good and the pupils like going there. There would be nowhere else for these disabled young people to go if it did not exist. In the present economic climate, is this limiting factor appropriate when we know that it is not going to change? This school would have been redeveloped under the previous programme, which, of course, was abandoned.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Quirk and Lord Ouseley belong closely together because you do not have to visit many primary schools with children of disadvantaged backgrounds to discover that one of their chief difficulties is lack of linguistic capacity when moving from reception into primary school. That is why I support the amendments, as I do the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Flather. In view of what I said earlier, I shall not repeat myself, but there is a definition of community cohesion, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, from the Home Office, available at column 39 of volume 686 of Hansard.

Education Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I know that there are quite a number of people who, like me, should declare an interest in this, having been identified as a potential victim. I shall just tell my noble friend that he will have to argue very strongly against this amendment to stop me supporting it at a later stage.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I do not have an amendment and I do not have a speech, but I have a question: how do we come to be where we are in this debate at all? The Government have made it absolutely clear that they have an agenda about well-being, particularly about well-being for children. They have also made it clear that, when findings show that children in our country are less happy than in other parts of Europe, they want to do something about improving that position. They, like the previous Government, have also undertaken that elements of PSHE are very important in the curriculum. With due humility, the Minister might do well to go away with those people who have long lists of amendments and talk them through. I do not think that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Massey, are likely to give up. We will get somewhere that way.

Many of the arguments I would have made have now already been made but I intervened to put one argument particularly for a group of children who, without this education, will not have any benefit in these areas—that is, very poor and vulnerable children who come from some of the deepest, darkest estates in our country and with whom I spend quite a lot of time. These children are subject to relationship breakdown or find themselves in care. They do not get this kind of education in their homes. People will try and give it in residential care—foster carers will give it—but they will have interrupted relationships and care. They will not have that kind of secure relationship and understanding that many other children will have. It is for this group of children that I plead. They are children who are in conflict.

As the chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, I work with a young people’s board. I do not give many anecdotes when speaking in Committee but those children often talk about teachers in school giving them some of the elements that help them hold themselves together through extraordinarily conflicted experiences in their homes. Teachers are at this moment attempting to give this kind of education. It needs space, skill and structure. I cannot understand why we are at this point in the debate because this is what the Government want as well.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I support the Education Bill and particularly the determination to have a slimmed-down national curriculum. In the fascinating debate on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, was right to advocate,

“a balanced education with a minimum core”,—[Official Report, 11/7/11; col. GC 224.]

which allows room for the professionalism of teachers. I strongly approach that approach.

In the same debate on Amendment 83, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who unfortunately is not in his place and we know why, expressed the wish that children would get up in the morning wanting to go to school. The aim should be good teaching on core subjects that encourages all pupils to feel involved and indeed excited by a love of learning and increasing their knowledge. Maths would even bring alive the dreary subject of economics—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is no longer with us. History could be expanded to show how social structures evolve, informing pupils on how to react to differing situations. What better way to develop good communication skills than to learn lessons from the best communicators of the past by studying works of the great poets, authors and orators?

However, Amendments 88, 89, 90 and 98 would take us in a completely different direction. As we have heard, their effect would be to expand the curriculum to introduce statutory personal, social, health and economic education for all maintained schools. As we have already heard this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Layard, PSHE is extremely difficult to teach. Now we have a situation: how can we have a slimmed-down curriculum and yet put in it more and more issues that are extremely difficult to teach?