Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2012
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much support the abolition of ContactPoint. Setting up a monumental database to cover every child in the country was a terrible waste of money. It had a danger of setting up a tick-box mentality, and there were safeguarding issues because it was quite widely accessible. We had to set up all kinds of safeguards for the people who had access to it. At least some of the savings should be spent on better training for professionals in the children’s workforce in how to work effectively with other professionals in the children’s workforce. That would be a far better way to spend the money, so I very much support the regulations.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Briefly, my Lords, as the Minister said, this is a very limited set of regulations in its intent. Given that ContactPoint has gone, I will not say anything about those regulations. I just put a couple of points on record in respect of the wider context that the Minister outlined.
First, as someone involved in the implementation of ContactPoint—sweating blood over it would not be too excessive a statement—it was never intended that it of itself could protect children. However, the recommendations from equally august people as Eileen Munro that we ought to try it came about because every inquiry, from Maria Colwell through to Jasmine Beckford, Victoria Climbié and even, to some extent, Baby Peter, identified to a lesser or greater extent the repeated failure, despite all those inquiries over 30 or 40 years, of professionals to share information properly.
One reason for that is that the local solutions that the Government are now asking local areas to put in place were always variable at best and, in many instances, were totally inadequate. They ran into the buffers of particular agencies—health is an example in many places—which felt that the law did not allow them to share information. It needs decisive government action to make it clear, as we tried to do, that those barriers do not exist. I do not mean this unkindly, but many professionals in local areas take a default position of, “We cannot share information”. That is what has happened and many children have lost their lives because of it.
There is a second, more practical reason, which ContactPoint, cumbersome though it might have been, was designed to address. For example, as a social worker, a referral from a school expressing concern about a child might land on your desk. If it is completely cold, your only contacts at that point are the school and the address of the child and their parents. You do not know, and it is often very difficult to find out, who else has been involved with or might have had concerns about that child in the recent past. It is very hard to get that information and put it together. You cannot call a case conference because you do not know who to call to it.
I must put on record that ContactPoint was never a database of information about children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, maintained; it was a database of professionals. It was simply a list of the people who were connected to a child, such as their school, their GP and any other professional who had provided a service. If you, as a professional, got a referral about a concern, you could look on the database not for the details of the child—their background, history or circumstances—but for a list of professionals who had been involved in one way or another. That does not transgress that child’s human rights or reveal any information about that child. You would have to go to the professionals and ask for the information in order to get it. The database would never have given it to you.
Therefore, I do not think that local solutions will cut it. We have tried them over decades and they have not worked. Facilitation from government is needed. While I am very much in favour of building up professionals’ capacity to use their judgment more effectively, I disagree profoundly with Eileen Munro’s belief that that will simply happen without central government drive, commitment and clarification—not necessarily prescription. I simply say to the Minister: be very wary. I am not at all sure that what is being put in place instead of ContactPoint will prevent the death of another child through the failure of professionals to share information. We need a stronger system to ensure that that does not happen. Much has been tried over the years and nothing has yet worked. I am sorry that ContactPoint did not have a chance to prove whether it could have been better.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, talked about sweating blood, and I can completely believe that she did. One starts with the simple thought that it must be possible with the use of technology in the modern age to share information more successfully than has been possible before, and there must be a rational way of delivering that through a national system. My own limited experience is that you say something in the department that sounds quite simple and before you blink you have procurement frameworks, complicated systems and national everything, and something that you thought was quite modest and rational turns into a huge thing with a life all of its own. Therefore, I understand how trying to implement it must have felt.
I also know, and it was clear from the noble Baroness’s remarks, how strongly she feels about the subject and how much she knows about it. She says, rightly, that our challenge is to try to make a more local approach work. With regard to her specific point, which I think was one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, originally raised, the misconceptions about data protection, either genuine or used as a pretext for a default position of doing nothing, have been a problem. In the revised guidance that we will be issuing later this year, as I mentioned, we will need to make that clear and respond to the point that misconceptions about data protection cannot be used as an excuse not to share information. Therefore, that is one way of dealing with the matter.
There are also other ways. One would not want to rule out the intelligent use of IT in certain settings in order to share information at an appropriate level. The example that I referred to—the work that we are doing with the Department of Health on sharing information regarding children who might be moved around from one A&E to another by their parents or carers—may be another way in which we can deal with that.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley regarding the money that we are saving, we have spent about £244 million on ContactPoint. We are committed to funding high-quality training—for example, with our programme of social work reform, building on the work of the social work task force that the previous Government introduced.
I accept the challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, set out. We are all committed to trying to ensure that it works. With that, on the narrow point on the revocation, I hope that we are able to accept these regulations.
Schools: Dyslexia
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend that this is an important issue that goes back a long way, but I have to disagree with him that no Governments have ever done anything. Recent figures that I have seen show that the improvement in educational attainment between 2006 and 2011 for children with specific learning difficulties, while much lower than we would like, doubled over that five-year period. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that previous Governments have not done anything. It is also fair to say that this Government share the determination of the previous Government to try to do whatever we can to address this issue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, many local authorities, as the Minister will know, have also taken the initiative and promoted dyslexia specialist primary schools in their areas as a base for teacher training and to disseminate best practice in other schools. But the Government are now forcing hundreds of primary schools to become academies, independent of the local authority and separate from other local schools. Does the Minister really think that that is compatible with the kind of local co-operation that we have all agreed here today is necessary to improve provision for young children with dyslexia and other special educational needs?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly agree with that last point about the need for co-operation. Where I probably take issue with the noble Baroness is around her premise that academies working together in chains are not able to work together and share in a collegiate way just as all other schools have been doing for a long time. We are seeing that kind of working together emerging through academy chains and clusters and through teaching schools. That is the way forward.
Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Like other colleagues, I thank the Minister for his statement and for sending me a copy of the letter from Sarah Teather with some of the Green Paper responses. I very much welcome in principle the idea of extending direct payments to families, children and young people and the potential for empowerment, choice and control that that gives.
I have a number of overarching points to raise with the Minister as well as in relation to the detail of how the instrument is worded. First, will the Minister say something about when the draft guidance to the pathfinder authorities will be published? The devil really is in the detail of how this scheme will be implemented. Had we had that guidance today, perhaps some of our questions might have been answered. Going forward, I think that the guidance will be critical.
Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about how he sees this pilot fitting into the wider scheme of personal budgets for families of disabled children and those with special educational needs, to which he, and others, referred? As we know, the Labour Government began the pilots for families with disabled children and the current Government announced in September last year the 20 pathfinders to which we have referred today to test the Green Paper proposals, including personal budgets and testing the healthcare element particularly of direct payments through the personal healthcare budget pilots. How far does the Minister see the pilots that we are discussing today, in those pathfinder sites, being integrated with the pilots already going on in relation to social care and healthcare budgets? The instrument is framed as if this is something separate, but a family with children with special educational needs will also very often have health needs—they may also have a physical disability. Does he envisage that these will be integrated so that the families themselves will be able to look across the range of services—of social care, health and education? How will that work? It is really very important that with direct payments for educational services, or those that could be purchased from an educational budget, the families themselves should have some flexibility about how the whole range of resources might be available.
Thirdly, the extent to which this achieves the objectives to which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred—a positive impact on families—will depend in part on the availability of alternative providers for the kinds of goods and services that the families might seek. What expectation or requirement do the Government have on local authorities actively to stimulate that market and support emerging providers in the voluntary sector, so that families seeking to use direct payments have real choice and there are options out there for them?
Finally, as an overarching point, as the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, have mentioned, there is a real concern about the total quantum of resources available here. Will the total amount of resources be sufficient to fund adequately the direct payments for those families or young people who seek to use them while not compromising the level of services available to other children?
On some specific issues in the instrument, paragraph 3 in Part 2 says that local authorities must consider the request for direct payments and paragraph 13 refers to the decision by the local authority that it is free not to make direct payments after a request by a family or young person. On what bases can the local authority decide not to make a direct payment? If the technical requirements are there and have been adhered to, such as the written consent and so on, what will be the criteria that the local authority has to consider in deciding whether to make a direct payment? This concerns the balance between the powers of the local authority to make those decisions as against the entitlement of families.
Secondly, how extensive or limited will be the ability to use direct payments and what do the Government envisage? Paragraph 10 says that,
“Before making direct payments, a local authority must … agree … the qualifying goods and services”,
to be served by direct payment. What does that mean in practice? Will the local authority have to agree not just the general but the specific service, or the specific piece of kit? Will it have to agree the provider and the cost? If all of that has to be agreed between the young person or the family and the local authority, there is not much flexibility left for anybody to do anything different. So what is the flexibility envisaged in how the direct payments will be operated?
Thirdly, the degree of control given potentially to the local authority in the instrument seems to provide very broad caveats for the local authority not to have to make direct payments. If the local authority feels that direct payments might have “an adverse impact” on other services or if it is not compatible with the efficient use of local authority resources, it can decide not to go along with direct payments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, while one wants to see powers that ensure the value for money and correct use of direct payments, those are very broad caveats that will allow a local authority not to go down the route of offering direct payments.
I say this because, as a Member of Parliament for many years, I had a number of experiences in relation to adult social care in which I felt that local authorities were very specifically not informing people about the potential to have direct payments. They were making it extremely difficult and took a general view that making direct payments available to some people was against the grain in terms of the efficient use of their resources. Looking at the responses to the Green Paper, I see that 19 per cent—which must largely be local authorities—replied that they had concerns that making direct payments to some individuals would in general almost certainly have a negative impact on the efficient use of resources and so on.
In relation to the monitoring review that the local authority is required to undertake—and it is right that it does—it would have been preferable had there been some reference to the local authority undertaking the review alongside the recipient or beneficiary of direct payments. A very top-heavy approach is envisaged in the statutory instrument with all the powers for decision-making resting with the local authorities. It is an interesting contrast to the way in which the Government have approached the balance of power and control between schools and local authorities, for instance. Here, we see the local authority being given all the control.
My fourth, and most important, point is about information, advice and support. It may well be that there will be some parents who are well able to take on the local authority to exercise the potential to use direct payments effectively, but there will be other families who cannot do that on their own. The quality of advice, information and support is very important. I also note that if the payment for advice and support comes from a third-party organisation, it has to come out of the direct payment. I wonder where that will leave families. Is it a payment for any advice and support in addition to that being given for the service? What implications will that have for the total quantum of resources?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome for this order and for the helpful suggestions that were made. I would never think that the noble Lord, Lord Low, was a wet blanket. The questions that he raises are proper questions in that they are the same questions that in our different ways we have all been grappling with over the past few months. The key issue is how we get the right balance—this is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford—between wanting to increase choice for individual parents, families, children and young people and wanting to do that in a way, in this most sensitive of areas, that does not undermine the provision for other children. Getting that balance right is what these pilots are intended to address.
The general answer that I have to a large number of the questions that have been raised is that the purpose and point of the pilot is to try to get answers to the questions that noble Lords have raised. We will know the answers to the points about the balance, what will happen in certain circumstances, what it will mean for different providers, how we know that in some cases local authorities might not want to approach this with an open mind and all the rest of it only once we have this pilot. The evaluation will help us to understand that, which is why, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Touhig and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, made clear, the evaluation is so important and why in the same spirit as we have tried to approach this whole process we will make sure that that evaluation is shared widely.
Some specific points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who I must now think of as the three in one, if that is not inappropriate in the Moses Room. He asked whether we would look at the experience of parents and young people as part of the evaluation, whether we would look at the impact on local authority-commissioned SEN services and how calculations of direct payments are made. When we finalise the details of the evaluation, those are all things that I am certainly happy for officials to look at. We expect interim findings from the valuation in April this year and then September this year, with a final report available in March 2013. That would be before the order needed to be renewed, if indeed it did.
On the point about guidance raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which was a fair question, officials will share a draft of the advice to pathfinders with the Special Educational Consortium. I will make sure that other noble Lords with an interest will also see it. We will do that in the coming weeks and we would welcome views because we need to get that guidance absolutely right.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, my Lords, there is, and my noble friend raises a good question. It seems that the order allows the local authority to review the decision that is taken. I may need to write generally on the arrangements for the review of decisions. Our view is that we have sufficiently robust arrangements for the purposes of the pilot, so they are in place, but I think I will need to follow up with my noble friend on precisely what they are. However, on the kind of issue that my noble friend spoke about—whether it has worked properly and whether a fair process has been carried out—we certainly think that, again, the evaluation will enable us to see whether the processes that have been put in place are working. If I have more particulars, I will write to my noble friend on that.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
The wording of the order, as far as I can see, simply says that if the local authority decides to refuse direct payments or in a review to change the current situation—to reduce the funding, or whatever—the beneficiary or the family can ask it to look again. However, after that, there is nothing as detailed on any recourse to any independent authority. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about that. Can he also answer my question about the criteria on which a local authority can refuse in the first place to decide that a particular family’s request is not going to be acceded to?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Some of the criteria are set out in the order—for instance, paragraphs 6 to 8 on when the local authority is not satisfied that the recipient is suitable and paragraph 11 on the effect on other services. The question that underlines this comes back to this central tension, which the noble Baroness quite rightly raised, between the duties and responsibilities on the local authority to continue to discharge its statutory duties, the budgets and everything that goes with that, and trying to arrive at a situation where there is more flexibility for individuals and their families. Given that the local authority ultimately has the statutory responsibility and the budget, we have to have a system in place whereby the local authority does not find itself exposed either financially or in other ways in a way that it cannot afford or deliver. From that point of view, that is the whole basis of the system that we currently have. We might get to another point—with our SEN Green Paper and further legislative steps—but until then it is within that framework that we have to operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, also asked a question about how these pilots integrate more generally into the work that is carrying on with the pathfinders and the work that is going on with health and social budgets. This pilot on direct payments is being undertaken as part of the broader pathfinder programme in 20 areas made up of 31 local authorities and their PCT partners. They are working together—or we hope that they will work together—to test the use of personal budgets including direct payments for health care and special educational provision alongside the development of the new education health and social care plans. The pathfinder programme is managed by a joint working group across the two departments; the whole recruitment phase to select the pathfinders and their support and evaluation teams is also a joint venture. It is probably also fair to say—this is a broad point that links to the noble Baroness’s questions—that the local authorities and others with whom we are working on these pilots are approaching it with an open mind, trying to see whether it is possible to introduce personal budgets and direct payments and to see what it would look like. It is clearly the case, as the noble Baroness very rightly said, that there may be some local authorities and others who do not particularly relish the thought of change, but the ones in the pathfinder, with whom we will be working to test these issues, will, we think, engage with that constructively.
Adoption
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
The noble Lord is exactly right: one wants to adopt a balanced approach to adoption. The fact is that the number of children being adopted has unfortunately been falling. Of around 3,000 children in care under the age of one last year, only 60 were placed in adoption. There are things that we ought to do to redress the balance, but the noble Lord’s underlying point is clearly important.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, the Government’s proposals will remove legal aid entirely from some 35,000 families a year who are in court for one reason or another concerning their children. Are the Government not concerned that without legal representation there will be severe delays in the hearing of these care cases, including children for whom the plan is adoption, adding further to the delay for these children?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, CAFCASS has an extremely important role to play in giving support through the legal process to the families and the children who are going through this process, and that support through CAFCASS remains in place.
Education and Skills Act 2008
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, if my noble friend had been able to sit in on some of our extremely lengthy deliberations on the Education Bill, particularly as we ground through Committee in the Moses Room, where all those present were extremely resilient in the hours they put into debating it, he would know that a significant part of the current Education Bill has precisely the sort of measure that he would welcome—giving greater authority to teachers to teach. We all know that orderly environments are environments where children are safer, and environments in which children are safer are those where they can learn better. Therefore, I completely accept the need for an orderly environment. What I do not accept is that there is necessarily an either/or between looking after the interests of children and wanting to make sure that they learn in an orderly environment. It is possible to do both.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, at Third Reading the Minister told us that he estimates about 95 per cent of schools have a school council or some form of consultation process for pupils. That means that, despite the guidance he referred to, for pupils at more than 1,000 schools there is no such forum that we know about. Contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, does the Minister agree that engaging with pupils is not only good practice for the schools, but also encourages responsibility and active citizenship among the pupils? Therefore, in addition to the guidance, what do the Government intend to do to ensure that all schools have some appropriate consultation and active participation mechanisms for students?
Lord Hill of Oareford
In all these things, one needs to strike a balance between seeking to move in the direction of involving children and being overly prescriptive in the ways one goes about doing it. We think the balance is about right in terms of the degree of guidance that we give and the way that schools are responding. One of the other developments, which will probably not be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, is that the Government have said that they are looking at ways of strengthening the role of the office of the Children's Commissioner, and are thereby looking at making sure that children’s rights as set out under the UN convention would be enforced.
Sure Start
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I do not agree with the last point made by the right reverend Prelate. I hope the figures I was able to announce to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, demonstrate that local authorities are working extremely hard to spend the money they get through the early intervention grant and maintain the important services delivered through Sure Start children’s centres. Of the 152 local authorities, I think I am right in saying that 119 have announced no change at all to the number of Sure Start children’s centres that they have; of the others a range of measures has been taken. The point of doing away with the ring-fence is to give local authorities greater responsibility and we think that is the right approach.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, for the first time ever we have the prospect, through Sure Start, of a universal integrated service for the under-fives and their parents. It is clear, however, that local authorities are not only closing centres but are cutting their budgets dramatically—11 per cent this year, 21 per cent next year—in response to the Government’s significant cuts in the early intervention grant and the removal of the ring-fence, referred to by the right reverend Prelate. Will the Minister accept that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that this universal service continues instead of passing the buck to local authorities and that every parent has the right to access Sure Start? Will he at least consider bringing back the ring-fence for Sure Start funding?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I explained in my answer to the right reverend Prelate, there is a difference of opinion between us and the party opposite about the ring-fence. It is our view that giving local authorities greater discretion over their budget is the right way to go forward; to treat them like the responsible bodies that they are. I recognise there is not as much money around as there was before—I cannot deny that that is the case—but we believe the right way is to put the same funding into the EIG for Sure Start children’s centres, which are an extremely important service. We want to focus them on providing better services for the most disadvantaged and we think that is the right way forward.
Education Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, after our discussions about admissions on Monday, I move to a number of government amendments which achieve two important things. The first introduces an important new clause that makes it possible for anyone to object to a school’s admission arrangements by referring an objection to the office of the schools adjudicator. His duty to consider all concerns that are raised to him in this way remains. This new clause builds on Clause 62, which extends the adjudicator’s remit to include all academies and free schools so that admissions to all state-funded schools will be covered by the same organisation. Our other amendments relate to the issue we discussed on Monday about national oversight of and accountability for the admissions system. Our Clause 34 would have removed a duty on local authorities to send their annual report on admissions in their area to the adjudicator. This is because in the statutory code we are placing that duty on local authorities to report locally to local people.
However, during Committee I listened with care to noble Lords’ concerns about the adjudicator not getting these reports to help flesh out his and the Secretary of State’s national picture on admissions. Noble Lords were worried that, without these reports, the adjudicator would see admissions only where things have gone wrong or might have gone wrong whereas these reports also set out the areas where things are going right, which is the vast majority. Noble Lords were concerned that this would remove a thread of accountability running from schools through local authorities through the adjudicator to the Secretary of State, which was not our intention. So we are addressing that concern with Amendments 64 to 67. They place a duty on local authorities to send their reports to the adjudicator in addition to being published locally. This will ensure his national oversight and he will continue to be able to take these reports into account when deciding whether to investigate a school’s admission arrangements. I hope that noble Lords will agree that our moves on admissions are aimed at achieving and promoting fair access and that these amendments will help achieve that end. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my letter about these amendments and for the Keeling schedule which helps us to understand the impact of these further amendments. I welcome the moves that he has made and those new measures that he has just described. However, I would welcome clarification on two points before we get to Third Reading. In his letter to me in relation to my query about possibly seeing the draft regulations relating to these measures, the Minister says he believes that the admissions code should be the prime document and that regulations merely reflect the code rather than being a separate source of guidance. But the measures, even as amended in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, provide for regulations which may make provision,
“as to any conditions which must be satisfied before … an objection can be referred to the adjudicator under subsection (2) or … the adjudicator is required to determine an objection referred to him”.
I understand that to mean that, in addition to the admissions code, which will not go into such matters, any regulations coming forward can stipulate conditions that parents or, as the Minister said, any person or body—including the local authority— must meet before making an objection to a school’s admissions procedure. As we have not seen the draft regulations, we have no idea of the conditions that the Government may be thinking of imposing. They could create additional hurdles for people to overcome before they can avail themselves of the opportunities to object to admission authorities’ policy and practices that the government amendments have created for them. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that my understanding is correct and, if so, what conditions the Government may be thinking of including in regulations. It is important that we have an idea of those before this matter is decided.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it remains our intention to bring the new codes into force from February 2012. While there is no legal requirement for us to publish a further draft of the code, we intend to do so as quickly as possible, with a planned date of 31 October. Alongside those draft codes, we expect to publish draft regulations and to consult on them for four weeks ahead of laying the codes formally before Parliament on 1 December. I would be very happy to share a set of the draft regulations with the noble Baroness so that she can see them in good time.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Is it possible to see those draft regulations before Third Reading so that that issue is clarified before the Bill is finally disposed of?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point. Let me check where we have got to on the draft regulations and come back to the noble Baroness, if I may.
To clarify the point about binding the judgment of the adjudicator and what happens if the admissions authority does not do what the adjudicator says, the judgment of the adjudicator is final and legally binding. It cannot be ignored. The school or local authority must implement that decision without undue delay or find itself in breach of the statutory duty to have admissions arrangements compliant with the code. If they fail to do that, they risk judicial review or direction by the Secretary of State.
So the adjudicator’s ruling is binding. The difference is that instead of the current situation whereby the adjudicator specifies how the admissions authority must change its arrangements to comply with his ruling, his ruling will still be binding and it will be the duty of the admissions authority to comply with his ruling and change their admissions arrangements to make sure that they are compliant.
I take the point raised by the two noble Lords about vexatious complaints. We are proposing to put in place a couple of safeguards. First, the adjudicator would not have to reconsider his decision if someone were putting in repeated allegations and accusations on which he had already decided. Secondly, we are making it clear that there cannot be anonymous allegations of that sort to try to ensure that the system works properly.
“(1) Where a new school is to be established there should be local determination as to the appropriate category of new school, based on a local assessment of need and local consultation, including with parents and the local authority.
(2) The category of the new school shall not be presumed prior to the assessment of need and consultation with parents in subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State shall not provide a funding incentive which supports one category of school over another.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, Clause 36 introduces a new presumption that every new school in the future will be an academy. The clause further restricts the power of local authorities to determine what is the most appropriate type of school when a new school is needed. Under the clause, before publishing proposals for a competition for the establishment of a new school, the local authority must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State or the local authority with the consent of the Secretary of State to halt such a competition at an early first stage before the closing date for proposals to be submitted. The clause means that academy proposals in that process will no longer need to be submitted to local authorities for approval but will instead be referred directly to the Secretary of State for him to decide if he wishes to enter into academy arrangements with the proposer. The clause places a duty on local authorities to seek proposals for the establishment of an academy if a new school is needed, not any other type of school. It specifically denies the local authority the ability to publish any of its own proposals for a new foundation or community school in a Section 7 competition.
The Government's proposals essentially do three things. First, if a new school is needed in an area, they skew the whole process massively so that academies have an immediate head start over other types of school through this presumption, which will be enshrined in law. Secondly, they mean that a local community school is possible only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. Thirdly, they limit the role of the local authority and parents to have a say in the type of school, according to local need and the best fit with the local school system. At the very least, this appears to fly in the face of the localism agenda that the Government appear to be promoting elsewhere, but also it seems wrong in principle. Clause 36, with the presumption in favour of academies for every new school, gets to the very heart of the Government’s intentions and presents the most profound change and challenge to our education system.
As we have noted before, the Government’s vision is that eventually every school should be an academy. This clause will apply to primary schools, secondary schools, special schools, every kind of school—all schools as academies with power to determine their own admissions, and no formal links with local authorities or other schools. It is Death by default of local community schools leading potentially to thousands of atomised schools all linked, in theory, to the Secretary of State though in practice the Secretary of State and his officials could not possibly manage effectively so many relationships. Therefore schools will, to all intents and purposes, be free floating. The significance of Clause 36 cannot be overstated.
Amendments 70A and 73A seek simply to create a level playing field. Amendment 70A would mean that where a new school needs to be established, there should be local determination as to the category of school based on an assessment of local need and consultation, including with parents; that the category or type of new school would not be presumed prior to that consultation and assessment; and that the Secretary of State shall not provide any funding incentive which supports one category of school over another. Amendment 73A would consequently remove Schedule 12 to the Bill.
When this was discussed in Grand Committee, the Minister told us that the provisions do not mean that every new school would be an academy, but as the Bill stands any proposal for a new school would go forward only if a satisfactory academy solution could not be found. In that situation, the local authority would then be required by the Secretary of State to run a competition that includes the possibility of different kinds of schools. It is only if the second stage of the process fails that the local authority could bring forward proposals for a community school. The dice are loaded heavily in favour of academies and against local community schools, which can go forward only as a last resort. Our amendments would remove that presumption, restore neutrality between the appropriateness of different kinds of schools for different situations, and allow the decision to be made locally on the basis of what is best for the children and families in that area.
The presumption also seems to restrict parental choice, both in the decision about the type of school needed and in moving, in time, to one type of school only—the academy. The Government profess to be in favour of parental choice. Nick Gibb in the other place said that the intention behind Schedule 12 is,
“to increase parental choice by diversifying provisions and ensuring that parents have a genuine choice of school to which they send their children”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education Bill Committee 29/3/11; col. 790.]
It is difficult to see how these proposals succeed in that objective. By contrast, our amendments would put parents at the centre of decision-making and thereby ensure a wider range of types of school—more diversity in the system—by not presuming there is a one-size-fits-all solution, the academy. This seems to us to be a more mature approach and a fairer approach, opening up all options equally for local people to consider.
I hope that these amendments will be given the support of the House, particularly from those noble Lords across all Benches who, while open to the potential of academies to improve standards—as indeed I am and my colleagues are—do not believe that academies are necessarily the best and the only solution in every situation, and who want to see local involvement in decisions about new schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In response, I shall touch on some of the points made.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Massey and the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate relate to the number of places in denominational schools for children who are predominantly—although, as was said, not exclusively—from families of faith. I understand and respect the fact that that is a very important issue for people of faith, as, indeed, it is for those of none. I do not want to go down the route of debating that issue except to acknowledge that I have heard both sides of that debate. The main thrust of the amendment is potentially relevant to all new schools in the future, and therefore to a much wider group of children. I therefore want to focus on the presumption.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I have discerned that the principles of local determination on these matters and of retaining a wide diversity of schools in a locality—a balance, as my noble friend Lady Turner said—are shared and supported on both sides of the debate. I therefore hope that both sides will support my amendment as my noble friend Lord Touhig has correctly identified it.
As for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, although I very much welcome her support for local involvement in decision-making on local schools, I do not feel that her amendments go far enough. She is not seeking to delete paragraph 6(1) from Schedule 11, which enshrines the presumption that where a new school is needed the local authority,
“must seek proposals for the establishment of an Academy”.
That is the core of Clause 36, to which we object. Given the resolution on academies at her party's most recent conference, it is somewhat surprising that the Front Bench here is apparently prepared to support a presumption in favour of academies. I do not support her amendment because it still does not challenge that presumption.
In response to the Minister I would say, as I am sure he would expect, that there is no divide at all between us on the desire to raise standards in schools, to increase opportunities for children—particularly those whose start in life has been more disadvantaged—and to achieve diversity of school provision. I take issue somewhat with his claim that the Government are merely extending the Labour Government’s policies on academies. The language used by the current Government may be similar but the scale of their intentions make this policy, and its outcome for the system of education in this country as a whole, qualitatively very different indeed.
I agree as well that, in the beginning of our embarking on the road of academies in disadvantaged areas, some local authorities were resistant to the idea. But things have moved on. The Labour Government in particular demonstrated that, by selective targeting of academies in the most disadvantaged areas, standards in those places and for those children could rise substantially. It is a very different matter for the current Government to propose to enshrine in law a presumption that every new school in the future should be an academy, with community schools only as a last resort.
It is also a very different proposition to say there should be a presumption that every school is able to become an academy regardless of whether it is equipped to handle the greater autonomy that such status brings. Although we on this side support academies in principle, the principles of local determination and a diversity of provision from which parents can choose are more important. We are not convinced by the Government’s argument. It is, by anybody’s standards, a step too far to enshrine this presumption in law. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I welcome the affirmative resolution procedure introduced by Amendment 74, which will mean that Parliament will have to consider any further proposals by the Government to change and particularly to extend the exemption from inspections for any other categories of school. That is a bottom-line issue and I am pleased to see that the Government have brought forward those amendments. However, and we will go on to debate this in the next group, the principle of exempting any public service from the possibility of inspection in the future is a principle that we cannot support. Risk assessment and proportionality is one thing—for a long time it has been the approach adopted by Ofsted and supported, as it has developed, by successive Ministers including myself and my predecessors in the previous Government —but exemption, potentially for ever, even for a school judged to be outstanding is quite another.
Do the Government intend to exempt, for example, excellent hospitals from further inspections? What about excellent nursing homes or care homes for the elderly? I suspect not, because the Health Secretary announced today increases in the inspection of hospitals, including no-notice inspections, of which I entirely approve and think there should be more of in relation to schools as well.
I note in the Minister’s response to the Committee and in his letter to me, which my noble friend Lady Morgan has outlined, the actions that he has agreed Ofsted will take in relation to outstanding schools if this measure is approved. They will try to minimise the dangers—there are dangers, not just to safeguarding but to educational standards—that could arise from the government decision wholly to exempt such schools from inspection.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, let me respond briefly to the specific point about safeguarding raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, alluded to. I can confirm that the thematic survey of safeguarding will take place and will be used to inform the judgments that we make going forward about that important issue.
I turn to the core point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the thinking behind the Government’s approach. I recognise the points of view that she put across: wanting a more proportionate approach based on having far more data about how schools are doing generally and publishing those so that parents can see the whole time how the school is doing, but having the position that if schools are performing well—delivering what parents want, delivering strong results—we need not make them be inspected in the same way as all other schools.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Just while the Minister is on that point, would he concede my main point, which is that it is not necessary to exempt outstanding schools from inspection in law in order to have the different, proportionate approach that he talks about?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The reason why we are making this change and doing it now is because we are putting on a statutory basis the approach that we want. That is why we are doing it. In practice, the vast majority of secondary schools will be inspected through a thematic survey visit over a five-year period. The risk assessment arrangements will trigger inspections. The starting point is that we think it builds on the principle of proportionality that already exists in inspections. With these increased safeguards in place, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have encouraged us to strengthen those and look at this again, we think that it will deliver a proportionate and effective system.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I add my voice to those who have already spoken. I am greatly saddened by this Government’s attitude to inspection, which seems to me to be coloured by too many years in opposition listening to schools complaining about inspection. Indeed, inspection under the previous Government was not generally taking a constructive turn, but then, we had not constructed it in a constructive way ourselves previously. I had hoped that this Government would go back to first principles and ask what inspection is for. If you start by saying that it is to make sure that our children are receiving the best possible education, then you need a system which is much faster to react than the current one. It can take Ofsted three years to pick up that a school is going wrong, because their data are always backward-looking and they always want two years of that before they believe that there is any trend in place. So in the schools that I have seen and known to have gone wrong, it has been the third year or the beginning of the fourth when Ofsted have come to call and by then, a lot of children’s educations have been harmed. I would have been looking to produce something which was much faster to react, rather than something which is going to be slower to react.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, it is essential that inspectors, the people who are seeing a lot of schools, see the very best. The point about the best schools is that they are utterly surprising and jaw-dropping when you see them: you could not believe that what they are doing could be done. When you have seen it, you start to understand how other schools could do it too, but if you have not seen it, you just do not know; you just accept that the ordinary way of doing things is sufficient, that the platitudes that, “We are doing well by our children here” are right, because it is okay by the current average, rather than being anywhere near the potential of the children. When you see the difference that a really good school can make, you understand that there is a long way to go; not that schools are bad at the moment, but that the good schools can be a great deal better than they are. That understanding comes from going round outstanding schools and being able, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, to set your yardstick on the basis of what you know can be achieved with children like these in a school that really understands how to deal with them.
We do not have that; we have something that goes backwards. We have a decision to remove outstanding schools from the purview of Ofsted. However, things change. I came across a school by chance the other day—Glenthorne in Sutton. It is sprouting all sorts of new initiatives. You can study three A-levels and golf, as well as tennis and football, to a professional standard. It is great to see these initiatives but no one will take a look at them. No one will know whether they are going right or being balanced correctly. It will be three years before anything shows in the figures. However, a good, experienced head, going around six months into the project, would know whether it was going right. To think that you can do this by remote control—that we are looking after the future of our children by stepping back in this way—is a profound misconception. I am afraid I despair of changing the Government’s mind at the moment, but give it a year or two, let an outstanding school or two crash, and then we will think about it again.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I cannot improve on the contributions that we have heard from my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Quirk and Lord Lucas. I just want to add a few more points to the debate.
The first is one of principle. I believe strongly that not just the Government but we in this House and the other place are guardians of the public when they use public services. We have to take very seriously the arrangements we make to ensure the safety as well as the standards of those services. Secondly, as we have seen, the possibility of an inspection in any public service is not a guarantee of high standards. However, the certainty of no inspection surely means a huge risk of declining standards and, in this case, a risk to children. Thirdly, our experience in other sectors, particularly in health and social care recently, shows that pulling back too far on inspection has led to serious risk to patients and older people. Fourthly, there is the point that I made in my previous contribution, which, with respect, I do not think the Minister answered fully. Exempting outstanding schools completely is not necessary in order for them to have a qualitatively different inspection regime. We should keep them in the framework of inspection.
My noble friend Lady Morris asked the Minister to take a deep breath and think again about his position and responsibilities. I ask noble Lords also to think from the point of view of a parent of a child at a school, with which they may well be very happy as an outstanding school. However, they would not be happy to know that it would never be inspected again. A further point is that when parents are looking for a school for their children, they look not only at a school’s results but on the internet for Ofsted reports. In this instance, a few years down the line there will be no up-to-date Ofsted reports for those parents who are looking for a school to examine. They will not know the difference between the school as it was when it was outstanding and the school as it is further down the line. On this issue we all have a responsibility to consider all the points made, particularly the dangers inherent in this approach, and whether we are happy to support them.
Education Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I do not object in principle to the proposals. They were consulted on in 2009 by my Government. We decided at that stage against moving in this direction. I agree that the impact on students when these errors occur is very bad. I agree, too, with measures in general to drive up performance, although it is interesting to contrast them with the approach of this Government to driving up performance in schools, which is to absolve them of every possible requirement, whereas in this instance further financial sanctions are being sought. It is a moot point whether Ofqual needs these powers or whether the existing powers that the Minister has referred to of withdrawing accreditation or giving a direction are both more appropriate and more effective. The Minister agreed that these are strong powers.
I will make three points and will be grateful if the Minister will respond to them. First, I echo some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the rushed nature of this publication. It begs the question of whether the detail has been properly thought through, with only eight days for providers to have any kind of discussion with Ofqual about how it might work. Consequently, no information is available on a number of important questions. For example, in what circumstances will the financial penalties be imposed? What level of apparent errors will be the threshold for financial penalties to kick in? What will be the levels of penalties and how will they be determined? What will the maximum penalty be? What will be the mechanism for an independent appeals process for providers, and what safeguards will there be that it will be a fair and transparent process? Will the Government issue guidance to Ofqual on how it should conduct itself? The Minister may say that Ofqual will have a full consultation for 12 weeks on some of these questions, but as noble Lords are being asked to consider the measures now, it would have been helpful to have had some indication of the Government's view about how this will work.
My second question is: are financial penalties appropriate? We have heard that Pearson has replied with some comments, but I am more concerned with the majority of exam boards, which are charitable, not-for-profit organisations. Seventy-five per cent of all GCSEs and A-levels are delivered by not-for-profit organisations. There is already in the system a degree of potential financial instability for the exam boards, because government policy decisions, for instance on changing the structures of GCSEs, have an immediate financial impact on them. Therefore, there is a danger to the not-for-profit organisations that this may further jeopardise their financial stability. As we have heard, schools, too, are concerned that if the not-for-profit organisations take any financial penalty, ultimately they will have to pass it on to schools; they will not necessarily be able to absorb it.
Finally, I am concerned that there are clear parameters and guidance on how Ofqual must use the powers in ways that will protect it from having to respond to what will inevitably be media pressure and perhaps the appearance of political pressure concerning the way it implements these decisions and applies financial penalties. What safeguards does the Minister envisage to ensure that protection? One not-for-profit exam board has suggested that Ofqual should deal with these matters through a more distant complaints procedure, so that it will be clearly separate from government and shielded to some extent from the barrage of perhaps understandable media pressure that will accompany these issues.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lingfield and Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for their broad welcome for the measures, and the recognition that this responds to a need.
On the speed of the consultation, referred to by my noble friend Lady Sharp and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, we responded to the points that were raised in Grand Committee. A legislative opportunity presented itself with this Education Bill and we had before us the failures of this summer. I know that the previous Government consulted. Our case would be that, with the legislative opportunity there and the evidence of the failures that we had this summer, which the previous Government had not had, it was sensible to act while the opportunity presented itself, but I take my noble friend’s point about the importance of consultation. Ofqual will consult on the detailed implementation of its powers, which will be a full 12-week consultation.
In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, Ofqual will publish a statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework, which will set out how and in what circumstances its powers will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectations that only serious or persistent breaches could lead to a fine.
On the question of appeals, there will be an appeal to the independent First-tier Tribunal, in line with other regulators. I know that concerns were raised about fines being passed on to schools, effectively. Ofqual will have powers to cap those fees if it thinks that it is necessary to do so. I understand the point that obviously some of the big awarding bodies are charities, but some of them are charities with very large tens of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover. Our basic point is that a pupil or student on the wrong end of a duff examination paper is not too bothered whether that paper has been set by a charity or a commercial organisation. That is why we think that it is appropriate to give this extra power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, is right that there are two powers but we feel that in essence they are not sufficiently nuanced. Giving this additional power we hope will lead not to large amounts of fining but to better and more accurate examination papers.
Education Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the government amendments not to repeal the duties in Clauses 30 and 31. The Minister probably had to do some convincing back at the ranch, so to speak. It would be rather surprising if he did not, but I am certainly glad that those provisions will remain on the statute book.
I have a few questions about the situation now. Despite the measures in the government amendments, there is some confusion about the Government’s commitment. I perhaps echo something of where the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is coming from. Amendment 62 restores Section 10 of the Child Care Act 2000—the duty to co-operate to improve well-being. That Section 10 refers to “academy” as one of the schools on which the duty is imposed, but as we know, Clause 52 of the Bill creates three different types of academies: academy schools; 16 to 19 academies; and alternative provision academies. First, for the avoidance of doubt, is it the Minister’s understanding that the duty to co-operate will apply to those three types of new academies, as well as the generic term in the Child Care Act?
Secondly, there has been a revocation of regulations that were introduced some time ago to apply the duty to pupil referral units. The Government have already revoked that requirement. Can the Minister assure us that he will now overturn this revocation and bring pupil referral units back into the duty to co-operate, as was originally the case before the Government acted?
“( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “requirements” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.
( ) In section 84 (code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “other matters” insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 63A and 66A, which relate to Clause 34, on the subject of admissions. Amendment 63A would require the code on school admissions to have a duty to ensure fair access to opportunity for education. Amendment 66A would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education and training. We regard those two amendments as consequential, one on another.
Let us remind ourselves briefly of the very important debate we had in Grand Committee. Many concerns were expressed about the provisions in the Bill, and the way the Government were changing the arrangements on admissions. As it stands, the Bill introduces a number of changes to admissions. These include reductions in the powers of the school adjudicator. The Bill removes the power of the adjudicator to direct a school or a local authority to change those of its admissions policies which breach the code. It removes the power of the adjudicator to look more widely at school admissions and practices when they receive a specific complaint. It also abolishes local admissions forums, which can resolve parents’ issues locally and avoid complaints going to the adjudicator.
The Government have brought forward some minor amendments, which we will discuss after this group. I thank the Minister now, as I will later, for his Keeling schedule, and the efforts he has made to explain those amendments. They are important, but they do not address the subject of the amendments in the current group. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to promote fair access to education, and to ensure that the admissions code also required fair access to opportunity for education.
So why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because academies are their own admissions authorities and as the number of academies grows, which is the Government’s intention, to a point where most or all of our 20,000-odd schools are academies, parents making applications will face a bewildering and inconsistent patchwork of different admission arrangements at different schools.
In fact, there is already information that this is the case in some boroughs where the majority of secondary schools are academies. For example, someone might live very close to a school, but that school does not have as one of its admission criteria proximity of the pupil’s home to the school, so the pupil could not satisfy that criterion. But the same child may live too far away from the next nearest school which does admit pupils on the basis of proximity. There is a real problem for parents in the future as more schools become academies. Schools that are highly performing are often very popular and it is crucial to ensure that access is fair so that children from all backgrounds can benefit. Even the most articulate parents and those who know the system best might struggle in a borough in which every single school operates a different set of admissions criteria, but for those for whom English is a second language or who feel they can navigate the system less well, the risk must surely be that their children simply end up in those schools that are undersubscribed and where others choose not to apply. However, since it is not yet the case that every school is an outstanding school, parents’ ability to choose a school in a transparent way within a fair and consistent admissions system is even more important.
In Grand Committee, I noted that the new draft admissions code contains the word “fair” 26 times, including in the line:
“The purpose of the Code is to ensure that all school places for maintained schools … and Academies are allocated and offered in an open and fair way”.
But using the word “fair” so many times does not give the code the duty to ensure that fairness, and that is what these amendments would achieve. They would also hold the Secretary of State accountable for ensuring that access is fair. This goes to the crux of the debate in Grand Committee because, leaving aside the detail of the Government’s arrangements, there is a great deal of concern that responsibility for ensuring fair access should be built into the arrangements on admissions. Some similar amendments to those I am putting forward today were tabled in Grand Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that what concerned her was that someone should have oversight as to whether fair access is going on. I agree with her, and I note that the noble Baroness and her colleagues have tabled similar amendments.
In Grand Committee the Minister told us that the draft admissions code is designed to ensure fair access and local authorities are under a duty to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring fair access to opportunity for education and training. But in an increasing number of cases, particularly at secondary level, whereas I have already said that there are no or few schools in which the local authority is the admissions authority, because they are all academies, it is difficult to see how this will protect parents and children. That is because so far as admissions are concerned, the local authority is irrelevant. So Amendment 66A would give the Secretary of State a duty to promote fair access, while Amendment 63A would ensure that all admissions authorities, when setting their criteria, would have to set them so as to ensure fairness of access. The Liberal Democrat amendment also tabled in this group would have the same effect as our Amendment 66A, but we have used the term “promote fair access” while they have used the words,
“to ensure fair access … as far as is reasonably practicable”.
I do not think that there is much to choose between them.
This is not a debate about the detail of the Government’s proposals. It is an argument that says: given the changes the Government are making—dismantling to some extent the checks and balances in the current system on admissions—and the ambition that every school should be an academy and therefore its own admissions authority, it is vital, in our view, that there is an overarching obligation on the admissions code to ensure fair access and that the Secretary of State has an overarching duty to be accountable for promoting fair access overall.
As I said in Committee, it is not that we are not in favour of more freedom and autonomy for schools, but we believe in trying to achieve a balance between the interests of schools on the one hand and the interests of parents and children on the other. There should be a duty outside the school system itself—that is, in the admissions code and with the Secretary of State—to ensure that that fairness is really built into the system and that the system is really operating in that way. I beg to move.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point. One way to tackle this might be to ask the chief adjudicator to look at the concern that has been raised about what happens where there is a range of admissions authorities. The chief adjudicator would be the right person to look at that, report on it and comment on it in his annual report so that people can see what is going on. I will follow up that point with my right honourable friend to see whether that might be a way of addressing those concerns.
As I said, local authorities have a duty to refer any arrangements that they suspect may be unfair to the adjudicator. That role gives them oversight of all arrangements, be they at maintained or academy schools. In carrying out all of their functions in the provision of education local authorities have a duty under Section 13A of the Education Act 1996 to ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training. We think that the duty should be at that level.
Ensuring fair access was the reason for the introduction of the admissions code and is central in its current revision. We hope that the new revised code, which was consulted on over the summer and will be laid before Parliament shortly, makes the code easier to understand while protecting and extending safeguards for vulnerable groups. The changes in this Bill extending the adjudicator’s remit to include academies and free schools, and the government amendments which will allow anyone to object to the adjudicator, are aimed at achieving and promoting fair access. We think that sufficient safeguards are in place to make sure that the oversight to which noble Lords have referred is in place. The changes we have made will help the admissions arrangements, not weaken them as the noble Baroness suggests. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, he was trying to be helpful. However, a number of issues are still outstanding. I also thank other noble Baronesses and my noble friends for contributing to the debate as well. It is somewhat disappointing that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she tabled her amendment to enable the Minister to say what he had to say, as she spoke with great conviction in Committee about the necessity for an overarching duty precisely for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out; namely, that this issue—
Baroness Walmsley
Perhaps I may clarify the situation for the benefit of the noble Baroness. I have been convinced by my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the duty is there and that it is no longer necessary for me to press my amendment. I have been satisfied on the issue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
As I hope to point out, I did not hear the Minister say anything which suggested that that duty already exists in statute. He said that it is not strictly necessary. I will try to unpick what I think he said. I am surprised that the noble Baroness is satisfied by that.
Lord Avebury
Perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear the Minister say that he will write to my noble friend giving her the statutory reference. Is not that enough?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I do not have a statutory reference. I am just responding to the words that the Minister himself chose to use. If I might get to that point, I will perhaps explain what I mean.
My noble friend Lady Morris rightly said that, even in the context of trying to free head teachers to run schools, it really does not make sense to enable each school to decide which pupils to admit and which to reject. In a local system, this atomisation of admission decisions by individual schools means that some children will be left out and that the interests of children as a whole will not be protected. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth gave some good examples from his experience of how some schools will not abide by the admission codes and will not comply. The examples we have seen of that confirm the need for a duty or power outwith the system. That is the point that we were trying to get across to noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Morris said it should be a referee; I would say a guardian of the rights of children and parents in this system. The Minister said that the duty on the Secretary of State was not strictly necessary, but when he went on to talk about what powers and duties the Secretary of State has in law, he said that the Secretary of State had full oversight of admissions through the school adjudicator. This gets to the principle of the role of government. We are seeking an active agency within government to make sure that admissions are fair across all children—not to have oversight through the adjudicator only. That is not an active requirement on the Secretary of State, either through the admissions code or directly on the Secretary of State himself. Yes, the Secretary of State has the power to ask the adjudicator to investigate, but that is not the same as the Secretary of State having the duty to satisfy Parliament that he is pursuing by every means possible the principle of fair access.
The Minister also said that he thought that the right level for that duty was the local authority. As I said in my opening remarks, local authorities will have a co-ordinating role on the admissions code, but that is a co-ordination in relation to the administration of the admissions, not to the actual decisions that schools will make. That is not where the qualitative decision lies; the local authorities have no power at all under the proposed arrangements to challenge. They will have a power to refer to the adjudicator if they think a school is not in compliance, but they do not have that overall duty, at least where most schools are academies, to ensure fair access. There is nobody actually holding that ring in the system at the local level or nationally. That is why we feel very strongly, on a point of principle, that it is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of children and parents. That is where democratic accountability lies in this regard, in our view—to protect) the interests of citizens who are, in this case, children and parents. Given the ambition of the Government that every school should be an academy and be its own admissions authority, and given the other changes that the Government are making to the system, we feel that these amendments are necessary. I wish to press the amendment.
Education Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I am grateful for the Minister giving way. Will she consider this point? She is stressing that the other requirements, particularly that the school act reasonably, are sufficient safeguards. Would she agree that in removing the requirement to give parents notice she is, in a sense, changing the threshold of what schools could regard as reasonable? Reasonableness is going to mean something else and it could mean—would mean I would argue—that it would be reasonable for the school not to try to inform parents. Therefore, the stress she is putting on the safeguard of reasonableness would actually be completely diminished.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I take the point the noble Baroness makes. However, we have to accept that schools take massive care of the children in their care and do not take these measures lightly. We are talking about short periods of detention after school for pupils who can get home safely; those who do not need to catch the school bus and so on. All those are already enshrined in the care and the regulation. We seek—and we hear the very grave concerns being expressed by noble Lords—to make quite sure the guidance is strengthened to ensure that child safety is never compromised by the school’s actions. We feel that the safeguards already in place strike the right balance between ensuring that children are safe and allowing schools to take proportionate action—to use their discretion and professional judgment—to establish the arrangements that work best for them.
We hope that my noble friends and the noble Baronesses will agree to work with us to see how we can strengthen the guidance that goes with these measures and meanwhile will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
“Locally based cooperation and collaboration
The Government must issue guidance to encourage locally based cooperation and collaboration between schools in areas including—(a) behaviour,(b) attendance and registration,(c) peer improvement,(d) raising standards.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 6 which repeals the duty on secondary schools to co-operate with other schools to promote good behaviour, discipline and attendance and to make an annual report to the children’s trust board on how they have done so. Through behaviour and attendance partnerships, schools have worked together; for example, to help children at risk of exclusion, or to place in another mainstream school, through managed moves. Partnerships enable groups of schools to collectively fund specialist support for children with behavioural problems; for example, to employ a parent support worker, or whatever, and to provide the resources that individual schools, especially small schools, may not be able to afford on their own. That means that parents’ ability to access specialist support for a child with, for example, behavioural problems could be reduced.
This amendment takes at face value the Government’s commitment, stated at Grand Committee, that although they want to repeal the requirement on schools to engage in behaviour and attendance partnerships, they support the principle that schools should co-operate and work together to resolve a range of issues, rather than work alone. The original behaviour and attendance partnerships came into being following Sir Alan Steer’s Behaviour Review: an Initial Response, which said:
“It remains my firm view that all secondary schools—including new and existing Academies, Foundation schools and Pupil Referral Units—should participate in behaviour partnerships”.
I recognise—we discussed this in Committee—that partnerships work best when all the partners are committed to working together and are not simply ticking boxes to meet requirements. However, as I mentioned in Grand Committee, Sir Alan Steer also said:
“Good collaboration between schools is often prevented by what are perceived as unfair practices operated by a minority of schools in admissions and exclusions”.
So without partnership working being required and in addition to the broader fragmentation of the education system that this Government risk bringing in, there is a real risk that schools will stop collaborating in this important area. There is also a real danger that this may signal to schools that the general collaboration and co-operation that the Government say they want to foster is not something that schools are required to do or that the Government are particularly concerned about. That could have a negative impact on partnerships that exist, albeit voluntarily, at the moment. So while our amendment would not maintain behaviour and attendance partnerships in statute, it would require the Government to issue a clear statement of their view that partnership working is beneficial and is to be expected from schools. It would require the Government to issue guidance to encourage local co-operation and collaboration between schools in areas including behaviour, attendance and registration, peer improvement—schools working together—and raising standards. It could address other issues as well: for instance, schools co-operating on what happens to excluded pupils; identifying children missing from any school in a locality; and so on.
If we are all agreed—and I think we are—that schools working together will achieve the best outcomes for children generally, and particularly those with behavioural difficulties or at risk of exclusion, then it makes sense for the Government to signal their clear expectation by providing guidance to schools to help them work together and to set out what they would like schools to do. I hope, given the comments in Grand Committee and the Government’s commitment to school collaboration and working together, that the Minister will accept the amendment and I look forward very much to his response. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I understand the intention of the amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which is to promote co-operation and collaboration between schools to improve behaviour, attendance and standards. I agree with her about the importance of this. It goes with the grain of the existing culture in schools, which by its nature tends to be collegiate. I also agreed with her when she said that these kinds of partnerships work better when they are formed voluntarily, when they bubble up and take the shape that individual schools want them to take. I hope that I am as keen as her to encourage co-operation and schools learning from each other.
Where we differ—perhaps the only point in this amendment—is that I am not convinced that government guidance on these issues will deliver change locally. We think that it is best led by professionals on the ground. I accept that in some cases, legislation can help, such as for example, the duty on all state-funded schools to participate in a fair access protocol, which will remain. That is a good example of a solution to a specific problem. But we know that the previous set of guidance on behaviour and bullying from the department ran to some 600 pages, which is difficult for schools to take on board. The direction that we seek is to help schools to learn from each other. I just want to mention a few of those today. One would be our proposals for teaching schools. We are hoping to set up a network of teaching schools around the country and have announced the first 100. Those schools have a track record of working with others to raise standards for children and young people beyond their own school.
Under that model, groups of schools will work together within a teaching school alliance supported by the leadership of a teaching school. These alliances can work across local authorities and involve many different types of organisations. This first wave of teaching schools will be given the opportunity to take the lead in a variety of specialist areas including improving pupil performance and behaviour in schools. We have also asked the national college to build on the work started under the previous Government, designating excellent head teachers to be local and national leaders of education who will work to support underperforming schools. The college is now creating a new group of specialist leaders in education. They will be outstanding leaders in their particular field of expertise, which could include pupil achievement, quality of teaching or behaviour management. Teaching schools will designate specialist leaders and deploy them into schools that need support, thus ensuring a school-driven approach to improvement.
The noble Baroness talked about academies briefly. I know that she has some concerns but one of the features has been partnerships that have been formed to support school improvement in the widest sense. Before entering into a funding agreement with an academy, we ask them to identify a school or group of schools that they will work with to improve their performance. That collaboration is a vital part of our overall strategy to tackle long-term problems and inequalities that sadly exist in parts of our education system. The practical benefits of this collaboration are obvious. Young people can enjoy a wider range of facilities and try out new subjects; underused resources will be employed better; teachers will have more opportunities themselves for learning and professional development.
These partnerships with academies are a natural progression from those informal, local partnerships between schools that have been developing for a number of years and which I know the previous Government were keen to encourage. The fact that these ideas are emerging from within the system rather than being imposed by central or local government to my mind makes the effect all the more significant and the benefits likely to be greater. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, will agree that these systems for peer-to-peer and school-to-school support will make a contribution to improving standards of attainment, behaviour and attendance. I recognise that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating but I believe that they build on the ideas behind some of the previous Government’s successful initiatives, and we think that that is a better way forward than issuing more guidance. We are committed to ensuring that all schools will have access to the expertise that they may need to address these issues. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I welcome the information he has given us about teaching schools. I support that initiative. In a sense, the whole idea of teaching schools substantiates the points I was making in support of guidance: those schools that are designated as teaching schools will be under no illusion that in order to be so designated they will have to accept the expectation that they will collaborate and disseminate good practice with other schools—it will part of the deal for being a teaching school.
I had hoped that the Minister would see the distinction in this amendment. It is not placing a duty on schools at all, but rather placing a duty on the Secretary of State to signal the clear expectation of the Government that schools, in taking public money and being responsible for the education of our children, will understand that there is an expectation that they work together and collaborate. I think most schools are willing to do that, but, as Sir Alan Steer said, not all schools are. That is why we thought that this would be an appropriate signal for the Government to send. I can see that the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment. While I am disappointed in that, I accept that that is the Government’s position, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I should like to speak briefly to this and the other government amendments which make up the majority of this group. A number of these amendments were prompted by the debate about Clause 13 that we had in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lord Phillips and a number of other Peers were concerned that the way the clause was drafted might lead a judge to place undue weight on the welfare of the teacher involved when considering applications to lift reporting restrictions. It was not our intention to skew the judge’s consideration to the disadvantage of the pupil, or pupils, who had made the allegation.
Amendment 44 therefore makes it clear that courts must have regard both to the welfare of the teacher and to the alleged victim of the offence when deciding whether to lift reporting restrictions. My noble friend was also concerned that the clause could lead to one-sided reporting of an allegation. It provided that the written consent of the individual about whom allegations had been made should be a defence to a charge of breaching the restrictions. However, that could lead to a situation where a teacher defended himself publicly against an allegation while those making the allegation were unable to respond.
We thought that my noble friend Lord Phillips was right to say that when a teacher is responsible for a publication identifying him or her as the subject of an allegation, then restrictions should lift and other parties should then be able to publish their side of the story. Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 53 and 54 make this change. The remaining amendments are technical improvements to the drafting of parts of Clause 13 following discussions between officials at the Department for Education and officials at the Lord Chief Justice’s office. They do not represent a change to the policy intention behind the clause.
Amendment 42 clarifies that tentative allegations that a teacher may be guilty of an offence should be treated in the same way as firmer allegations that they are guilty. Amendment 43 and consequential Amendments 45, 46 and 50 clarify that applications for reporting restrictions to lift should be made to the magistrates’ court, with appeals going to the Crown Court. Amendment 50 and the paving Amendment 47 help the clause more accurately to reflect our original policy intention that reporting restrictions should lift automatically when a teacher is charged. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I do not want to oppose any of the amendments that the Minister has tabled but I want to sound a cautionary note and put it on the record following our extensive discussion of the principles underlining the Government’s proposals in Clause 13. We had an extensive debate in Grand Committee and part of it was around the question that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, put acutely: whether the Government had made the case that teachers are in a unique position in relation to allegations of abuse, such that the restriction on reporting was justified. He said that,
“if Clause 13 goes through unamended, it will repose in the teaching profession a privilege unique in English law”.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. GC 158.]
I want to preface my remarks with great concern for any person in any profession against whom allegations of child abuse are made and are not true. I completely understand the concerns about blighting a career and suspending a person in an anxious time while investigations take place. I have a son who is a teacher at a primary school and many sisters and some brothers-in-law who are teachers, so I am appraised of and concerned about that side of the argument. I also understand why the teaching unions make it. However, I am also concerned about safeguarding children and that is the difficult territory that we are in here.
The Government offered, in response to our debate in Grand Committee, to do some research to see what the figures were. That research has now been published and was referred to in the press at the weekend. When noble Lords look at the figures, they will see that of the cases examined—more than 12,000 where allegations were referred to local authority designated officers—under a quarter were in relation to teachers. If you add in the smaller, but none the less substantial, numbers of non-teaching school support staff, it is still well under a half of all the allegations. It is more telling that for teachers—this was the headline in the press—nearly half of the allegations, which came to 2,800 cases, were classified as unsubstantiated.
This does not mean that there was no truth in the allegation but that the threshold of evidence for prosecution could not be reached. This is difficult territory because most of those allegations will depend only on the word of the pupil against that of the teacher. There will not be witnesses present in most of those allegations. “Unsubstantiated” means that there was insufficient evidence to proceed; it is not a judgment about whether the allegations were true. Even more telling than that is that only 2 per cent of the allegations against teachers and FE lecturers were classified as malicious. The guidance issued by the Government in August makes great play of, and refers extensively to, malicious allegations, and yet we now have from the research a finding that only 2 per cent of allegations were malicious.
I am not going to oppose the amendments. I understand why the Government have acceded to the pressure from the unions, although we decided at the time, because of the problems that arise and the concerns about safeguarding, not to accede to that pressure because it opens up the other argument about where to draw the line. As I say, there were smaller but substantial numbers of non-teaching staff—some 1,700—against whom allegations were also made. I simply sound a cautionary note to the Minister. I hope that we do not find further down the line that a serial abuser—there have been serial abusers in schools—gets away with abuse over a long period because none of his—they are generally men—crimes could be reported because the evidence in relation to each one never reached the threshold for prosecution. I hope that in passing this legislation we are not responsible for the preventable abuse of any child. I say this without wanting to castigate the Government, but it is very difficult territory and I am not sure we are in the right place. I understand why the Government have done this but we will have to watch the situation very carefully.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my name is attached to all the government amendments bar one. As the Minister said, these amendments arise out of the debate in Grand Committee and I welcome them all. The only amendment about which I have reservations —because I do not understand it—is the first one, which would insert “or may be” in line 12 on page 20. It would then say that:
“This section applies where a person who is or may be employed or engaged as a teacher”.
Perhaps the Minister could explain the purport of that insertion when he responds.
The only thing I cannot resist saying is that sometimes we make life difficult for ourselves—or, more truthfully, for those who have to understand this legislation. There are two references in Amendment 49 to “a matter”. It states that,
“the person who is the subject of the allegation includes a matter in a publication”.
Such arcane language is surely to be avoided if at all possible. Why we cannot say “includes information in a publication” I do not know, except that there is reference in an earlier subsection to “matter”.
Amendments 48 and 51 concern a more important issue. They represent the two most important amendments I put forward in Grand Committee, which the Government decided not to accept. I have reworded the second of these amendments, Amendment 51, but the first is more or less verbatim the amendment that was argued in Committee. I remind the House that in Committee on 6 July—in cols. GC 158 to 178—not a single Member of the Committee objected to any of the amendments put forward, largely for the reasons that we have just heard. In my view, and I think in that of all who have spoken so far in relation to Clause 13, this is utterly wrong in principle. As has already been said, it will be the first time in English law that free speech has been curtailed in this way and where a statement that is true can be the subject of a criminal prosecution. It is not an issue just of press freedom but of individual freedom. It will curtail the freedom of speech no less of worried parents or guardians. The full panoply of criminal law can be arraigned against a parent who suffers the greatest anxiety in relation to a child, where the child maintains that he or she is being abused. The parent is prevented by law from publicising the allegation of the child, however true, and for what? To protect teachers.
There is no one in this House more admiring of teachers than I am. I find myself in a very strange position on this clause. I wish it were not teachers at whom I seem to be aiming my gun. Freedom of speech and protection of children come before the pain and embarrassment which undoubtedly occur for some teachers with regard to false allegations. I have to say—I do not like saying it—that my Government are bending over so far to placate the teaching profession, and perhaps make up a little to that profession for other actions that they have opposed, that they are committing us to a law which our successors will think was a blot on the great and fundamental freedom of speech that is indispensable, particularly today.
I was a governor for 10 years of one comprehensive school and of another comprehensive school as a parent governor. My wife is a state school teacher. The prejudice that I have is for the teaching profession but I do not speak from ignorance. I should quickly say what I said last time: it is almost a declaration of interest. I was unfortunately at a school where a predatory pederast was allowed for 12 years to do his doleful work. He eventually resigned or was dismissed—one does not know which—in the middle of a term. He was never seen again and absolutely nothing was made of it although he had blighted the lives of dozens of children. The reason that nothing was heard of it is the reason why nothing is heard of these cases in today’s educational world. It is no good the Minister saying that there are regulations for this and obligations to report on that. For schools that suffer some of the worst abuses—fortunately they are few—the truth is that the cost to the school’s reputation and standing of the truth being publicised will be devastating. Often, as in my own case, the governors hushed up the whole grisly affair, as governors today will, if they can, hush up grisly affairs of a comparable nature. That is why I have put forward these amendments and persist in them.