Young People: Staying Put Scheme

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that the extension to the age of 25 for those who are in education was a fairly recent extension from the age of 21. I will take up the noble Baroness’s second point with my honourable friend Mr Timpson.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I am sure that none of us as parents would want to be forced to turn our son or daughter out of the house on the day of their 18th birthday but that is happening to thousands of young people in care. The Minister has effectively said, as the Government constantly say, that it is up to local authorities. However, this is a very special case because these young people are in the care of the state; the Government have ultimate responsibility for their well-being and cannot pass the buck to local authorities. Will the Government give young people in care the entitlement to stay in their placement after the age of 18, if it is in their interests to do so, and ensure that local authorities provide the support for that to happen? Will they further ensure that any planned changes to housing benefit and welfare reform being considered by the Government do not further disadvantage young people in care?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, it is not a question of the Government seeking to pass the buck to local authorities. As the noble Baroness will know much better than me, that is where the statutory responsibility lies and where we think that it should be. Given those statutory duties, I am sure she will have seen the recent Section 251 returns around the funding that local authorities are putting into looked-after children—it has shown a small increase over the past year, which reflects the priority that is being attached to it—and the statutory framework that is in place.

On the noble Baroness’s second point about whatever changes may be made to the benefits system and seeking to make sure that the interests particularly of this most disadvantaged group of care leavers are taken into account, she is right that we need to make sure that those concerns are properly considered. I know that my colleagues will be doing that as policy is developed.

Schools: Parenthood Education

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I think that the contribution that parents make to school governing bodies is varied. The connection between parents and schools is an important one, but that goes beyond the direct parental role and into the whole provision of education.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, the latest figures for teenage pregnancy rates—that is, for the year 2010—were the lowest for 40 years. That was driven by the Labour Government’s strategy centrally, delivered locally by teenage pregnancy co-ordinators. However, the coalition Government have disbanded the very small teenage pregnancy unit in the Minister’s department, which led on that. A third of the teenage pregnancy co-ordinators have been cut, many in high-risk areas. Do the Government have any concerns about losing the considerable and very difficult progress made in turning this intractable and historic situation around? What action are they taking to ensure that the downward trend in teenage conceptions continues, including, but not exclusively, the provision of sex and relationship education in schools?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The noble Baroness is right that the trend has been falling. As she says, the figure is at the lowest level since 1969. That is very welcome and I recognise that it is obviously in part down to the work of the previous Government. It is obviously important that the work delivered through PSHE and sex and relationship education is carried forward. That is something we are reviewing as part of that broader review to which I have already referred. Also, on the delivery of these services, and the progress that has been made on bringing down teenage pregnancy rates by local authorities, the Government think that the local authority is the lead on this. There is a quite a variation between different local authorities across the country but I am certainly in agreement with the noble Baroness that we need to make sure that that work continues.

Schools: Pupil Premium

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

One of the important principles of the pupil premium is that schools can decide how to spend that money. If they are sensible they will go to a range of providers to help to narrow those gaps.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, it is welcome news that in the future schools will be required to report on how they spend the pupil premium but many pupils have already lost out because, according to Ofsted, the money that schools have had has been misspent. Will the Government go further now and ring-fence the pupil premium and give schools the proper guidance that my noble friend Lord Touhig referred to? That would ensure that the money really is focused on individual disadvantaged children with schools purchasing interventions that we know work.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Spreading good practice, yes, ring-fence, no, my Lords.

Education (Exemption from School Inspection) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, inspections into faith schools concerning the arrangements that those schools make around their religious education will continue in any case, even for exempt schools. If there are concerns of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about individual schools, whether by parents, local authorities or others, those would be referred to Ofsted and Ofsted would need to take a view as to whether it needed to act.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and my noble friends and noble Baronesses opposite for their very thoughtful and detailed contributions to what has been a very important debate. It has boiled down to three crucial questions. I will be brief because I am mindful of colleagues who want to carry on with the main business. I will not delay the House but I would like to bring these three items to our attention.

First, is external inspection necessary, even if it is not of itself now sufficient, to assure quality of education for pupils and to reassure the public? Notwithstanding the contribution of the Minister and the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I do not think we have had an answer to that tonight, even though the Minister said he would address the Motion—and the first part of the Motion is about the undermining of that principle of regular inspection of public services. In every other service, the answer to that question is yes. In some critical services, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Hunt, inspection is not becoming lighter touch; it is becoming tighter. We have not heard the argument for schools uniquely to be exempt from inspection. We have not heard the Government’s answer to that question tonight.

Secondly, do we have the evidence that, contrary to other public services, outstanding schools exceptionally remain outstanding once they have been judged so to be? The answer is no, as we have heard. All the evidence says that many outstanding schools decline in standards; some decline dramatically and quickly, as my noble friend Lady Massey pointed out. If they can fall dramatically in relation to educational standards, they can certainly fall dramatically as well in relation to safeguarding and those other issues particularly germane to vulnerable children that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned about, and I share his concern.

Thirdly, the Government’s argument comes down to the fact that the safety net, the annual desktop risk assessment, is there as a catch-all. As my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out, not only is this becoming an edifice in itself, but in my view it can never be a substitute for directly observing what is going on and talking to parents and teachers. I am afraid what came to mind when I was listening to the arguments in favour of this as an effective safety net was the Baby P case in Haringey, when I was a Minister, when we learned that Ofsted had very recently completed a desktop assessment of social care in Haringey, which obviously had failed to uncover the very serious problems in policy and practice. It seems to be common sense that a desktop analysis of data is never actually going to reveal what is going on.

I hope that the Minister has at least appreciated the genuine strength of feeling and concern on this side of the House—and I suspect elsewhere. I am not going to press this matter to a vote at this late hour but I hope that the Government will reflect and monitor what happens as a result of this measure. If this measure has some of the negative consequences that we fear in even one school, many children will have their educational years blighted unnecessarily and avoidably, and I think we all agree that that would be a tragedy. I withdraw the Motion.

Schools: Careers Advisers

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the recent publication of statutory guidance on careers marks an important step, as schools prepare for the introduction of the new duty to secure independent careers guidance from September. Schools will be expected to work in partnership with expert careers guidance providers as appropriate to ensure that pupils receive impartial advice. The statutory guidance is clear; face-to-face careers guidance can help pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to make informed choices and successful transitions.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Government have commendably continued the work of the previous Labour Government to establish a national careers service for adults, and the Business Secretary has specified the qualifications that advisers must have and that face-to-face advice must be provided to target groups of adults. Why, then, has the Education Secretary allowed schools complete discretion—because that is what the guidance does; there is nothing required of schools—in the quality of service provided to young people? Has not therefore the Secretary of State for Education really failed in his duty to young people by not setting even a minimum standard of service that every school must meet?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we had these debates at length during the passage of the Education Act. As the noble Baroness will know, it is the Government’s view, and our starting point—and it is what we are trying to do across the piece—to trust schools and heads and people running schools to make the best judgments in the interests of their children. That is something that we are seeking to do across the board. It is not the case that the guidance does not provide any framework at all in terms of what schools should take into account. It is clear, for instance, that they should secure access to independent face-to-face careers advice when they judge that it is appropriate, particularly for children who are disadvantaged and with special educational needs. I agree with her about the importance of careers guidance and advice, and there are a range of ways in which we are seeking to do that and to increase employer involvement in schools, whether through studio schools and UTCs or through getting 100,000 employers to come into schools to explain how children can prepare themselves for the world of work.

Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I apologise to the Committee, and in particular to the Minister, for being absent at the start of the debate. I mistakenly took a phone call at the wrong time and missed the change indicated on the monitor, which I had been watching. I hope that I missed nothing crucial—

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Obviously, the noble Baroness did.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My apologies again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we debated the substance of the policy when the legislation was debated in Committee and I do not intend to reopen it. I shall confine myself to the regulations and I want to put two particular points to the Minister. The first concerns the guidance on the use of the powers, which will be forthcoming on the back of these regulations. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the current position.

When the guidance Screening, Searching and Confiscation, published earlier this year, was debated in the other place, the Minister said that it would be updated to reflect the more recent changes to the law and that new guidance would be published before implementation on 1 April this year. Will the Minister confirm that? The guidance written so far, which I have looked at on the website, says nothing about what will constitute the reasonable suspicion that a teacher must have to justify a search without consent. It says:

“The teacher must decide in each particular case what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion”,

and gives two examples. One is hearing other pupils talking about an item, which is fairly uncontentious. If a teacher hears talk from other pupils, that is fairly obviously reasonable grounds for suspicion. The other example is that,

“they might notice a pupil behaving in a way that causes them to be suspicious”.

That is fairly wide because it could be anything. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance will make it clear, as I believe it should, that after such a search without consent, the teacher must be able to say specifically what constituted the reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that that should usually be hard intelligence or evidence rather than the teacher just feeling suspicious? For example, what would be reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify taking away and looking through a phone, a laptop or an iPad? A pupil might be behaving inappropriately in a class, fiddling with the item or looking at e-mails, but surely that alone would not justify reasonable suspicion of, for instance, the presence of pornographic images to justify a search without consent. There is a lot of grey area here, and I should like to be reassured that the guidance will help teachers to define the thresholds for suspicion in such circumstances.

Regarding another point on the guidance, I could not see any distinction in the current guidance between the approach to situations involving children of different ages—younger children as opposed to older children—in secondary schools. Will the guidance also address that issue?

My second substantive point concerns recording and monitoring the use of these powers. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government had no plans to monitor the use of the powers or to require schools to keep a log of incidents in which the powers have been used. I am particularly concerned about the powers to search without consent. I am in favour of giving teachers these powers, but this extension of powers should require schools to keep a record of the incidents in which they are used.

One may think about similar situations, for instance, in children’s homes—and I have visited very many in a previous life. I always asked to look at the incident log to see whether discipline had been used and recorded appropriately. The use of police powers requires the recording of incidents. In any part of society where professionals in authority are given powers of search and confiscation over other people, it seems only right, and a necessary and visible counterbalance to those powers—necessary though they are—that a record should be required. The Minister may come back and say something about not wanting to burden schools, but this is not about burdening schools with unnecessary requirements. Keeping a record is a reasonable and essential counterbalance to the extension of powers, and we should require schools to do so.

Similarly, there should be a requirement that data using those records be kept for monitoring, so that, for instance, any differential deployment of these powers in respect of different groups of children will be visible. We know the concern that police stop-and-search powers are used disproportionately on young black men. We would want to know—would we not?—if, however unconsciously and inadvertently, these powers of teachers could be shown to have been used differentially in relation to specific groups of children rather than others. Yet, if the information is not recorded by schools, and is not monitored by the Government and inspected by Ofsted, we will have no way of knowing just how these powers are being used, whether they are being used appropriately and whether, however inadvertently or unconsciously, specific groups of children are the subject of these powers in a differential way.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on her ingenuity in raising some issues that are possibly within the scope of the regulations. I know her feelings on the subject, which we debated at length. The only thing that I would say is, as the revised guidance that she will have seen makes clear, the provisions that allow search by the opposite sex are very much to be used in exceptional circumstances, and the assumption is that in nearly every other circumstance that will not be the case. We had that debate previously.

So far as the PSHE review is concerned—again, the way in which my noble friend managed seamlessly to move from one of her favourite topics to another through the means of the regulation was a wonder to behold—she will know that we had hoped to be in a position at the beginning of the year to come forward with proposals on how we can improve PSHE, but the timescale on reporting back on the national curriculum generally has slowed down, and the proposals on PSHE are being aligned with that. All that I can say is that the issue is still work in progress, and proposals will come later in the year.

As for the guidance, which relates to a point made by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, we are on track to publish it on 1 April. However, given some of the points raised, it would be sensible if I shared it in advance of publication so that we can ensure that it deals with the issue clearly and my noble friend can see whether it addresses the question of searching children with autism, for example.

On the point about recording and monitoring, the noble Baroness was right. It is our view that we do not need to set up a detailed and complicated system of recording and monitoring. On her specific point, I understand the concern about what might be a disproportionate effect on some groups—particularly, for example, black boys. The search powers have been in place since 2007 and were extended again in 2009. The fact that we have not collectively been made aware that there is a particular problem with the way that they are exercised gives some comfort. We would rely on parents, staff and others to make their concerns known. If they were flagged up with us, we would want to act on them because, like the noble Baroness, we want to ensure that the powers are used, first, proportionately and, secondly, in an equitable fashion.

On the noble Baroness’s fair point about what is the definition of reasonable suspicion, there is no definition of reasonable suspicion, for fairly obvious reasons. There are many things in legislation that it is hard to define precisely but, over time, practice and custom grows up. We do not have plans to specify that, but I hope that the guidance which, as I said, I will happily share with the noble Baroness, will provide some help in that area so that teachers will be clear on what they are able to do and what they are not.

I hope that that gives some satisfaction and that we will be able to approve the regulations.

Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I am grateful for those comments and for the support expressed for the development of alternative provision academies. I can tell my noble friend Lady Walmsley that in the first round we had a number of proposals for alternative provision free schools. I hope that they will be able to open this September and that, in the round for 2013 that closed at the end of February, there will be more application for alternative provision free schools. There is a lot of enthusiasm for them.

My noble friend is right that there are questions about this. In some ways, they link to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the referral mechanism. Unlike with mainstream schools where, as it were, parental choice is the determinant of the placement, it is still the case with alternative provision free schools that the local authority or a school is the referral mechanism. That leads to some questions that we need to work through about when some providers want to set up in areas where a local authority may be less keen on a more varied landscape. If the local authority is not prepared to make that referral, there are issues for us to think through. I know those issues are very much in my noble friend’s mind.

Let me do my best on the thrust of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. If there are some things that I do not pick up, I will follow them up. On the accountability of alternative provision academies to the local community, their funding agreements will require them to be at the heart of their local community. They will be accountable through their performance, which will be published in the same way as other schools. They will be inspected by Ofsted like other academies. There are a number of accountability mechanisms. They are obviously accountable through the funding agreement that they sign with the Secretary of State.

On funding, currently they will be funded through interim arrangements. The noble Baroness referred to an earlier announcement that we made, saying that the funding would come out of what is called the higher needs block. The principle of that, as she knows from other areas of academy funding, is to have equivalence with the funding that would go to a PRU. That is what we want to replicate. We want an AP academy to get the same funding that it would have received as a maintained PRU. We have put interim arrangements in place to make sure that that happens. The longer-term answer to the noble Baroness’s question will come out of our response—which we will publish before too long—to the consultation, which has ended, on our broader reforms to the funding system. As part of that, we will set out our longer-term thoughts on how funding for alternative provision academies and other parts of what one might call higher needs funding—such as special needs funding—will be dealt with going forward. I hope that we will be able to make that clear before too long.

I was asked another question on the role of the local authority. As the noble Baroness said, local authorities will retain their Section 19 duties to arrange suitable full-time education. That relationship with a converted PRU would obviously change a bit over time in the sense that the local authority role would move from being the direct provider to a commissioner of services, along the lines that I think were set out in the schools White Paper of 2005.

An important contextual point in all this is that we all want as few children as possible to go into alternative provision, and the earlier we can pick them up and put support in place, the fewer will end up doing so. Therefore, as part of the broader context, we are running trials based on the very good work that went on in Cambridgeshire to give schools responsibility, including budgetary responsibility, for an excluded child. That gives a school an added incentive to make sure that the child is looked after as well as possible and reintegrated as quickly as possible, if that is the right course of action.

As I have already touched on, pupils will be referred to AP academies in the same way as they currently are to PRUs. Under the new system, we would expect schools to work closely with professionals to ensure that pupils get the provision which best meets their needs. We do not think that we should be more prescriptive than that at this point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked me whether AP academies will be obliged to accept a pupil. Again, the referral mechanism will be the same as now, so the success of an AP academy will depend on its ability to meet the needs of its local community. If a local authority or other commissioner does not think that the alternative provision academy is doing a good job, it will not want to refer pupils to it, and I think that that will act as a discipline for the schools to make sure that the children are properly looked after. It will therefore be in the interests of AP academies to have strong links with the local authority and with local schools.

I hope that I have dealt with the main points. I shall obviously read the noble Baroness’s comments and, if I can add anything further, I shall write to her. With that, I hope that we can accept the order.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Perhaps I may come back briefly on the point that the Minister has just made. My question about referrals hinges not on whether the changed status of the alternative provision organisation as an academy means that if a local authority is not happy it might not want to make a referral but, rather, whether the changed status—the independent status as an academy—means that an APA will be able to refuse to take a referral, unlike the current situation with PRUs. Therefore, my question was whether the change in status would change the power of the APA.

While I am on my feet, I wish to make two other quick points. The Minister mentioned that the pilots would look at whether the referring schools could have continuing budget responsibility for a child and continuing responsibility for his or her progression through school, and I know that the Government are looking at that. However, does the Minister envisage that with APAs the referring school will continue to have responsibility for overseeing the progress of the child and for holding the ring in bringing people together to look at the issues and at whether the child is making progress? If the referring school does not do that, who will? It does not seem to be right for a child simply to be placed in an APA and for the APA to be the sole arbiter of what happens to that child in future. I think that, as is currently the case with pupil referral units, somebody outside the APA should monitor the situation, call case conferences if necessary and make sure that decisions are taken in the best interests of the child.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, again, I shall give short answers and will follow up further in writing. On the pilots, my understanding is that, alongside continuing budget responsibility, APAs will have responsibility for the child’s progress, and I think that they would perform the kind of role that the noble Baroness is contemplating.

On her first question—whether the greater independence of an alternative provision academy would mean that it could refuse pupils; and I am sorry if I got it the other way around—she will know that currently PRUs are able to refuse children if those units feel that the provision they offer is unsuitable, and they can suggest another provider that might better meet the children’s needs. We think that AP academies would continue to play a similar role, and that in general they would have an interest in taking a pupil for the right reasons—and for financial reasons, if one wants to think of it that way. We would envisage them advising local authorities and schools on the best way to choose the right provision for an individual child. That is my “off the top of the head” answer, but if I can add anything further, I certainly will. I hope that we can support the order.

Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 16th January 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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—

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I want to briefly speak to Amendment 31 in this group. This is a very simple amendment which would ensure that Clause 4 on exclusions and all that we have been talking about would apply also to academies. As the clause stands, it says:

“Regulations may make provision for this section and for regulations made under this section to apply, with prescribed modifications, in relation to Academies or a description of Academy”.

This amendment simply changes the “may” to “must”, so that the exclusions legislation and the guidance covered in Clause 4 apply equally to all state-funded schools. We cannot see any reason why these provisions, especially with the movement already made by the Government in guidance, should not apply also to academies. Why should the parents of children at academies not have the right to a special needs expert at the review panel? Why should the detailed requirements now in the guidance on the head teacher at the decision-making stage, on the governing body and on the review panel not also apply to the arrangements in academies?

Apart from the point of principle, there is a very practical reason why we need to do this. It is clear that the Government, in clauses we will discuss later—with presumptions that all new schools will be academies, with powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in schools that are in difficulties so that they immediately become academies—intend, as they have made clear, that as many schools as possible, if not all schools, should become academies in the fullness of time. If that is to happen, if we have many more schools becoming academies, I cannot see why we are discussing this legislation. If it does not apply to academies, it raises the question of the point of the guidance—it will become redundant if all schools become academies and this clause does not apply to academies. So we have very practical reasons for making sure, right at the outset, that this applies to all state-funded schools, including academies. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, let me start by talking about supporting pupils to participate appropriately in the exclusion process. I very much agree that that is important. The guidance on exclusions, which I have circulated, makes clear our view that pupils should be actively supported to participate at all stages of the process. In strengthening this aspect of the guidance we sought the views of the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. In response to its suggestions, the guidance now sets out: first, that head teachers should take steps to allow a pupil to present his case before an exclusion decision is made and take account of significant contributory factors, such as bereavement or bullying, that come to light after an incident of poor behaviour; secondly, that consideration should be given to how to enable and encourage the excluded pupil to participate in governing body reviews and independent review panels; and, thirdly, that independent review panels should be conducted in a non-threatening and non-adversarial manner. I am happy to discuss this draft guidance with my noble friend Lady Walmsley and will consider any suggestions that she may have.

I also agree with her point that schools should be able to agree with a parent clear measures to address poor behaviour when a pupil returns to school following exclusion. She talked about parenting orders and contracts. In fact, schools do have the power to agree a parenting contract or to apply for a parenting order, so I hope she will feel reassured that that is possible as things stand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the question of how the new exclusions process will be applied to academies. I can reassure noble Lords that the requirements will be the same on all state-funded schools, including academies and free schools. We have already updated academy funding agreements to reflect the changes proposed in the Bill, but the Bill also allows us to apply requirements that are placed on maintained schools equally on academies through regulations. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness. As for training, which is an important issue, if a parent requests an independent review of an exclusion decision it is important that independent review panel members have the capacity to perform their role effectively. As is currently the case, local authorities and academies will be required to provide training to panel members every two years on specific areas set out in regulations. No individual will be permitted to be a panel member without receiving this training, which must cover issues such as the legislative requirements in relation to exclusions; the need for the panel to observe procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice; and the duties of the review panel under the Equality Act 2010.

I understand the point made by my noble friend about the quality of training that some local authorities may provide or commission, but I am not sure that we would want to introduce a requirement for independence which would prevent a local authority which can deliver high-quality training itself from doing so. We want to draw on best practice in training for other bodies that make important administrative decisions. To that end, we are talking to the Ministry of Justice about what more we can do to support this training to ensure that local authorities are clear about the new requirements and are able to develop or commission effective training.

Sure Start

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not have that specific answer to hand. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help me, because I know the party opposite has done some work on that. I think the number amounts to 1.5 per cent of all Sure Start children’s centres.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, dozens of Sure Start children’s centres have already closed and many more will do so. Equally importantly, services are really being cut back in the remaining centres. The noble Lord neglected to say that the early intervention grant has been reduced by 22 per cent in real terms. Yet, for a tiny fraction of the cost of the health reorganisation, the Government could have protected children’s centres. Does this not reflect the fact that the Government are out of touch, particularly with women’s concerns, and why so many women now think that the Government are going in the wrong direction?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not accept in any respect the point that the noble Baroness makes. From our debates during the passage of the Education Bill—I will not bore the House by repeating them—she will know about the money and funding that the Government have put into a whole range of priorities, including addressing the children in greatest disadvantage and seeking to help mothers and families who are struggling with those problems, as well as a whole series of initiatives and trials. We will continue with those. But to come back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, there is a difference in the way certain local authorities have prioritised their spending, which we have to accept.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Having been prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I should like to make a brief intervention, which I hope the Minister will address in his summing up. If he does not, we can come back to it. It seems to me that our view on this amendment may depend on what we define to be a “teacher”. I do not know if there is any definition in law as to what a teacher is. Certainly, for clarification, I do not think that we are saying, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is saying, that everyone who stands in front of a class and delivers teaching should have a professional teaching qualification.

However, the spirit of the amendment is that it is very important that every child and every class in a school, and every subject area in a secondary school, should have a qualified teacher with oversight of the progression of each pupil and the delivery of the materials in relation to the subject being taught. That is the key issue. Certainly, the previous Government provided for considerable diversification of people in the classroom teaching and talking to pupils—for example, teaching assistants and learning mentors. There are many potential uses of people with great expertise in their field, but who may not be qualified teachers, to come in and give their expertise and enthusiasm to pupils. I believe fundamentally that the progression of each pupil should be under the oversight of someone with a teaching qualification and, if appropriate, in the subject area. Seeing the preparation that my son, who is a primary school teacher, carries out and the expertise gained from his basic training that he brings to bear on both those issues—the progression of each child and the way in which subject matter is delivered—has further convinced me that this provision is right. That is not to say that people with a basic teaching qualification should not also undertake continuing professional development. Of course they should and all qualified teachers are required to do so. However, there is added value to be gained from the professional training which people without that training cannot bring to those two tasks. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government’s position on that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Storey said about the importance of a high-quality professional teaching workforce. As the noble Baroness said, in some of our earlier debates in Committee we have talked about some of the Government’s plans for improving teacher quality such as raising the bar for entrants to ITT, strengthening performance management arrangements, our proposals for teaching schools and the expansion of Teach First, which the previous Government introduced and to which I shall come back in a moment.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning continuing professional training. I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the importance of that. We have also asked the Coates review to revise and improve the standards that underpin QTS, and we have announced that we will adopt the clearer and more focused standards recommended by the review. Therefore, we are not talking about some wholesale move away from a commitment to the highest possible standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we require academies to employ teachers with QTS through their funding agreements. The decision not to require QTS for all staff in free schools is simply intended to allow the possibility of greater innovation at the edges of the maintained sector. We have done this because we are keen to give free schools the ability to recruit experienced teachers who might have a background in FE, the higher education sectors, the independent sector or in other walks of life, who can bring their wider experience to bear in the classroom. It may be a way of getting—I have seen this in a school where I was a governor—a brilliant mathematician with a brilliant degree into teaching more speedily when there is a desperate need. It may be a way—this point was raised by my noble friend Lord Storey—of getting people from the Armed Forces, who might be able to engage particularly well with teenage boys. There are practical cases at the margins where this extra flexibility might help.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will recall, during the passage of the Academies Act we made commitments to ensure that additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable groups regardless of the type of school they attend. The free school funding agreement requires free schools to appoint a special educational needs co-ordinator and a designated teacher with responsibility for children in care, who hold qualified teacher status.

My next point links with the more general point made by the right reverend Prelate. Free school applications have to undergo a rigorous assessment process and have to demonstrate how they intend to deliver the highest quality of teaching and learning. However, as he argued, more generally they will be directly accountable to their parent and pupil bodies for the quality of education provided. Clearly, they will want to provide the highest quality education both in order to be approved and to continue to succeed. Like other academies and state-funded schools, they will be required to collect performance data and publish their results, and they will be inspected by Ofsted under the same framework that applies to all publicly funded schools, including on safeguarding. As free schools are intended to respond to parental demand for change in local education provision, it will be incumbent on free school academy trusts to ensure that their teaching staff are properly equipped to deliver their particular educational vision.

The core of the Government’s argument is that all Governments seek to innovate. The previous Government took the decision to set up Teach First, which is an innovation I applaud; it was intended to bring about more flexible entry into the profession. I am sure that at the time there were some people who argued that this was a dangerous innovation, and I am glad to say that the previous Government persevered with it. We see this as being no different. It is a modest innovation, it is a permissive measure, and it is subject to the strict accountability measures that I have set out. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The view of the Government is the same as it was a year ago. It is the view that the House reached after debates and, indeed, votes; namely, that we do not need to prescribe lists of people, short or long, in legislation in the way that perhaps happened in the past.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

If the Secretary of State received an application and the consultation that had been done beforehand did not include the views of parents and staff, what would his attitude be in making a decision on the basis of that consultation?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The view that the Secretary of State would take is that schools that are converting need to comply with the terms of the legislation—the Academies Act—which requires that they should consult such people as they think are appropriate.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

We have had a number of occasions when, because the Minister is a very reasonable person, we have not pressed to the point where we have got a satisfactory answer from him. This is one of those occasions. We had a similar situation not long ago in relation to qualified teachers. What would the view of the Secretary of State be if he received an application that did not inform him of the views of parents? What action would he take to ask why? Would he ask the applicants to go back and get them? Would the Secretary of State be happy to make a decision without knowing what local parents thought about the proposal?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

It is clearly the case that the governing body wanting to convert has to consult the groups it considers appropriate. If people felt that they had not had a chance to be consulted and were to raise those complaints with the department, that would clearly be something that the department would have to take into account in reaching the decision that it takes. It is not possible for me to go through every possible circumstance that one can possibly come up with and give an answer. There is a clear legislative framework within which the department operates.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I want to press this again because this is not about what the applicants think. This is about the point at which there is an application on the table for a decision by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to tell us what would be the view of the Secretary of State. Does he think he could make a decision without knowing the views of local parents? What would be in the Secretary of State’s mind and what would the Government at that point require in order to make a decision? If he were to say that the Government would require to know what parents think, I would say that that requirement ought to be laid upon the applicants in the way that they frame the consultation. However, at the moment I am asking: what is the Government’s view about what they need to make a decision?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am sorry not to be able to be more helpful to the noble Baroness because I know that she is also extremely reasonable. She will no doubt keep pressing and we can return to this another time. But the Government’s position is that the legislative requirement on a converting governing body is set out in the Academies Act 2010. The Government take into account whether or not schools have demonstrated that they have complied with those requirements, which are set out clearly and were inserted as a result of debate on this Bill last summer.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I was coming to that point. I have not got very far with my response. On precisely that point, my noble friend Lady Brinton raised the issue of who should do the consulting when schools are considering converting to academy status. As we have just been discussing, the starting point of the Government is that it should be carried out by the school’s governing body. However, this approach might not always work with underperforming schools that are eligible for intervention. There may be rare occasions when the governing body of the underperforming school seeks to block the development of an academy solution by refusing to consult. Clause 55 resolves this issue, as my noble friend pointed out, by permitting the proposed sponsor to do the consulting.

My noble friend suggests that the local authority would be a better alternative than the proposed sponsor. Clause 55 relates to schools that are failing their pupils and we think need radical improvement. We know that the evidence shows that converting such schools into academies with excellent sponsors can bring about that improvement. Becoming an academy involves, by definition, moving out of local authority control, so it seemed to us it was not right for the local authority to lead the consultation. It is the sponsor who has been identified as able to transform the school, so in our view they are better placed to consult on its future direction. But that consultation has to be carried out in a proper way.

My noble friend also raised important points about the local authority role in decisions about new and additional academies, such as free schools. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that what her amendment seeks to put into law is already happening in practice. As a result of views expressed during the passage of the Academies Act, the Government introduced a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to take account of the impact of free school proposals on other schools. In meeting this requirement, the department seeks the view of relevant local authorities. In addition, any group wishing to set up a free school has to consult locally on its proposals. The consultation report is an important part of its application to the department. In deciding whether to approve a free school proposal, the Secretary of State therefore takes account of the views of the local authority and other interested parties, including on the issue of the level of need for additional school places.

We know that in practice, many local authorities are already playing a more active role than this. Some are building the free schools programme into their strategic schools planning and have provided proposers with support in areas such as finding sites, getting planning permission and working out levels of demand. It is the case that we do not believe that free schools should be set up only where local authorities identify that they are needed. The key point is to try to make the system more responsive to parental demand by giving parents, teachers or community groups the opportunity to do so.

We accept that consultation is important. It should be conducted in an open way. It should be appropriate to local circumstances. The Academies Act and this Bill provide for such consultation and I would therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I thank those Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I also support the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would further refine reasonable requirements regarding how and by whom the consultation should be undertaken. I absolutely agree that it should be undertaken by people without a vested interest in the outcome. I also agree with her that the proposed new schools should comply with local authority requirements regarding the need for new schools.

The fact that this matter was debated a year ago when we discussed the Academies Bill—as the Minister said—does not mean that we should miss an opportunity to correct something that needs to be corrected. There are two key questions here: why should decisions on the scope and timing of consultation be left to the governing body to determine and why should a party with an interest in pursuing the objective of an academy be allowed to undertake the consultation? Unfortunately, the Minister did not answer either of those questions at all, let alone unsatisfactorily. His constant recourse to the legislative requirements for consultation, as if they have nothing at all to do with the Government, was very strange indeed.

My questions sought to ascertain what the Government require by way of information about the views of parents, staff, pupils and local authorities—four key groups—when the Government finally take a decision. Will they take a view at that point in the decision-making on the adequacy of the consultation, and therefore on the quality of the information that the Secretary of State has to enable him to make an informed decision? I am afraid that the Minister implied that the Government will require no information on the views of those groups. The governing body may decide not to consult those people or decide to consult them only after the Secretary of State has made a decision. That is simply not right. I think that all of us in this Room know that it is not right. I have some sympathy with the Minister as he is reasonable and he has been placed in a position of arguing for the demonstrably unarguable. I have no doubt that we will return to this on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 12th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Before the Minister speaks, perhaps I may ask whether he will address a particular point in his summing up. The point raised by my noble friend is very important in the light of the education system—or lack of an education system, if I may put it like that—that will arise if all the Government’s changes go through. The very important question is: who will be responsible for looking after the very small groups of children who are, by definition, not very visible because they are small in number but are none the less, for all kinds of reasons that noble Lords have identified, very disadvantaged when it comes to taking up opportunities for education? Given that local authorities will not have any locus in local areas if the Government’s objective of the majority of schools being academies and free schools comes to fruition, I should be grateful if, in responding, the Minister could say where responsibility will lie for looking at the achievement, or lack of it, of these small groups of children, working with schools in some way but without the power and leverage to do so. Who will ensure that schools do better by these very small groups of children? In the new world that the Government will take us into where academies are going to be everywhere and will not be focused on disadvantaged children, I cannot see where that responsibility will lie and where the leverage with individual schools to do better by these children will come from.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, it is clear from this debate—as has often been the case—that promoting the highest possible quality of education for the most vulnerable children in society is a subject dear to the heart of the Committee. We have set out in our schools White Paper, published last year, and more recently in our Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, our overall plans on how we want to achieve this,. These include the pupil premium, which will deliver an extra £2.5 billion a year by 2014 to support the education of the most disadvantaged children. My letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury on 25 August set out the overall the statutory framework and range of measures in place to support vulnerable children. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, the White Paper was absolutely clear that the local authority retains its responsibilities for vulnerable children, and the Bill does not affect its statutory duties in any way.

However, the nub of this debate is around Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who are of particular concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and to my noble friend Lord Avebury. He is absolutely right that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils continue to underachieve significantly relative to their peers and are still much more likely to leave school without completing their formal education. This year, under one-quarter of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils achieved level 4 in English and maths at the end of key stage 2, compared with 73 per cent of all pupils. At key stage 4, just 10.8 per cent of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils achieved five or more good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, compared with about 55 per cent of all pupils. These are stark differences. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils have the worst attendance of any minority ethnic group and there is a marked decline in enrolment between primary and secondary school level, a point that has been made. They have the highest levels of permanent and fixed-term exclusions.

Local authorities have a key role to play in addressing this issue. They are under a statutory duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age that is appropriate to their age, ability, aptitudes and any special educational needs they may have. This duty applies regardless of a child’s ethnicity, immigration status, mother tongue or rights of residence in a particular area.

Along with schools and colleges, local authorities have a range of safeguarding duties for vulnerable pupils, as well as duties to establish as far as possible the identities of those children of compulsory school age who are missing education. We are currently revising statutory guidance to clarify how local authorities can best carry out their duties to identify children who are missing education. I say to my noble friend that we expect to strengthen current references to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils in the revised guidance and I should be happy in due course to share that in draft form with him, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and anyone else who is interested.

It is also the case that Ministers in my department are working, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with a range of government departments to ensure that the range of inequalities faced by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are properly addressed. That working group expects to publish before the end of the year a report on how the Government will tackle the issue, including a package of measures designed specifically to raise educational aspirations, attainment and attendance. We are grateful to the work carried out by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller education stakeholder group, chaired by my noble friend Lord Avebury, for the contributions that it has made so far, and I look forward to working with the group over the coming weeks to develop further plans in that area.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we have already discussed the principles underlying the Government’s education reforms: increasing school autonomy, improving the quality of teaching, and strengthening accountability. Back in 2005, in their schools White Paper, the previous Government set out their vision for all schools becoming autonomous and for the local authority to become more of a commissioner than a provider of education. We are building on that approach.

The Bill makes few changes to the role of local authorities. It is also the case that our approach to the spread of schools converting to academies in last year’s Academies Act was permissive, because we wanted the extent of change and reform to be driven by governing bodies and head teachers of individual schools. The speed of conversion to academy status tells us something about the attitude of schools towards the previous arrangements and their appetite for taking greater responsibility. What has also been particularly striking, as the programme has moved on, is not only the desire for schools to have more autonomy but increasingly the desire to combine that autonomy with greater collaboration.

We are seeing groups of schools forming clusters and chains, building on the collaboration that they have already established and which the previous Government took forward. That is one of the most encouraging developments of the academies programme. We are also seeing early converters themselves becoming sponsors of underperforming schools, with the development of the kind of collaborative work that I think all of us would want to see. While I recognise that the landscape is changing—more rapidly in some parts of the country than in others, it is fair to say—I do not accept the basic premise of the argument that, left to themselves, schools cannot be trusted to act collaboratively and therefore need to be brought under a new set of statutory arrangements.

At the heart of this debate about a local schools commissioner is a difference of view between us and the party opposite about the new schools system. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, moved a probing amendment to get the debate going. However, she seems to want to reconstruct a system that many schools have been choosing to leave. She seems to prefer a more structured approach, applied equally across all areas of the country and prescribed in legislation. The Government, by contrast, believe in a system with autonomous schools led by professionals who want to collaborate and drive improvement locally.

I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of collaboration. So far, over 160 schools have created 58 new or expanding chain partnerships across the country. We are increasing the numbers of national and local leaders of education to 3,000 by 2014, building on the previous Government’s initiative to provide support to other schools. The national college has now designated 100 teaching schools to start in September, so that the very best leaders and teachers can drive improvements in the quality of teaching in their area and for the next generation of teachers.

Academies also have to be part of their community. Funding agreements require an academy to,

“be at the heart of its community, promoting community cohesion and sharing facilities with other schools and the wider community”.

A recent study from the London School of Economics found that not only had standards in academies improved faster than in other schools but that other schools in their locality had seen results improve—further evidence of the way in which schools, working together and helping to raise standards, spread those benefits more widely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, rightly asked about accountability. Our approach to that is to increase the amount of data available about schools and to make sure that in future inspections concentrate on the most important issues: what pupils achieve; the quality of teaching and leadership; and that pupils behave well and are safe. These changes apply to academies as they do to all maintained schools.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, mentioned fair admissions. We have already discussed that at some length. Academies must comply with the admissions code and are part of the co-ordinated admissions process run by the local authority. As we have discussed, this Bill extends the adjudicator’s remit to academies, and local authorities can refer any school to the adjudicator if they feel that admission arrangements breach the code.

I accept the noble Baroness’s reproach about my failure to have circulated before now the list of measures in the Bill and how they affect academies rather than maintained schools. I signed it off this morning. I am sorry that I did not get it across before this debate, but we will circulate it later on. From it, noble Lords will see the way in which the measures of the Bill are applied equally to academies and maintained schools in many regards.

I recognise that it is a time of considerable change, but that change is being driven locally by parents, professionals, schools and others with an interest in education. The noble Baroness talked about localism. I recognise that there is an important debate to have on where localism resides, but I would argue that there is nothing more local than a group of local parents and teachers wanting to set up a school for local children and making that provision fit what those children require, whether it is for children with special needs, an alternative provision or for more of a mainstream school. We are driving change from the department to address entrenched school underperformance, which disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged pupils, and I believe that is the right thing to do.

The noble Baroness specifically mentioned children missing education. Local authorities, maintained schools and FE and sixth-form colleges have safeguarding duties under the Education Act 2002. Academies are required to make provisions for safeguarding under the independent school standards and their funding agreements. Under education regulations from 2006, all schools are required to inform the local authority when a pupil fails to attend school regularly. Noble Lords may also know that the Government have committed in the other place to review the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 and to tighten up and extend the circumstances in which all schools must inform the local authority when a child is missing school or removed from the register. We are also planning to revise the statutory guidance to clarify how local authorities can best carry out their duties to identify children missing education. So there are clear, statutory duties to support that important and vulnerable group of children.

Overall, many local authorities have welcomed the changes that the Government are taking forward. They deliver the stated aim of the previous Government, which I share, for local authorities to be commissioners. There is growing evidence that the best school leaders and professionals welcome the opportunity to collaborate and drive improvement across schools in their area. We hope that these changes will free local authorities, led by directors of children’s services, to focus on championing the interests of parents and children who most need support. We are working with representatives from all sectors through a ministerial advisory group on the role of the local authority, of which my noble friend Lady Ritchie is a member, to help shape our thinking in this area.

Our aim overall is a freer system in which the best schools and professionals are in the lead and collaborating to improve the education for all children in their area. I do not think that the specific proposal for local school commissioners made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, is the right approach. It would add, as my noble friends Lady Perry and Lady Ritchie said, another layer into the system, which would blur accountability.

The noble Baroness made specific points about admissions, children missing education and accountability. There are mechanisms in place. I recognise that it is a time of change, and I acknowledge her questions, but as the process of change is taken forward and driven by schools, professionals, parents and teachers, we will get to a system that will raise quality and provide more choice for parents, which we all want. Therefore, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I thank the Minister for his reply and other noble Lords for their contributions. I make one or two points in response. I was trying to get Members to think about what the future will look like. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Perry, that in future if the Government achieve their objectives and when most schools are academies—if that occurs—directors of education will have no powers or responsibilities vis-à-vis most of the schools, because they will be outwith the maintained system. There will therefore be no extra layer of anything—indeed, there will be no layers at all—between the schools and the Secretary of State. That was the picture in the future that I was trying to get Members of the Committee to engage with, and the picture from which my concerns arise about what happens particularly but not exclusively to some of the most vulnerable children in communities, who will fall through the cracks of a system in which schools operate completely freely and make decisions on their own. We have had no satisfactory clear view of how that will work in the future.

The Minister said that this Government are building on what the previous Government were planning. We were certainly planning to move into another phase, having established academies in some of the most disadvantaged areas and some of the most problematic schools. However, there is a clear distinction between our vision and this Government’s vision. Ours was a clear role for local representatives and local parents in that system. We can see from this Bill that at the same time as giving schools greater freedoms the Government are dismantling structures and relationships at the local level.

The Minister said that schools are choosing to leave a system with local accountability. Schools may choose that, but that does not mean that it is right. There are key questions to be answered. If schools are choosing to leave that system, is that in the interests of children and parents? Will that achieve the objective of every child accessing the best possible teaching? Will it close the educational gaps between the most disadvantaged children and the rest? It is clear, despite the Minister trying to be helpful, that the Government cannot answer those questions with any clarity. Rather, they are dismantling the current system on the basis of blind faith, not on the basis of evidence through which they can show that the system they are moving to will be likely to achieve those three objectives and be in the interests of children and parents. They are aligning the interests of schools and assuming that that will automatically be to the benefit of children and parents. That assumption is not testable or proven; there is no evidence to support it.

That is not to say that some schools will not choose to leave the system or that all schools will behave badly; many schools will behave with integrity and try to do the best for children. However, not all will. It is likely that the most disadvantaged children will lose out as a result of decisions that schools will take that are not in the interests of children, and parents’ only recourse in that situation will be to the Secretary of State for Education. There will be no one locally to hold the ring and say, “Come on, let’s do better here”. That was the point of the amendment.

The Minister said that he was strengthening accountability, but I cannot for the life of me see how it increases accountability to centralise powers to the Secretary of State and leave nowhere for parents to go at the local level. He also said that he wants local authorities to develop a role as champions of parents and is talking to them about that, but they will be completely toothless champions. They might well champion the interests of parents but they will have no responsibilities or powers when those schools are academies, so I am afraid that after this interesting debate we are still no clearer as to how the system will work locally, particularly when there are problems, when children fall through the gaps, and when schools do not behave well. Okay, most will behave well, but some will not, and families will have nowhere to go when they have problems.

I am happy to withdraw my amendment in Committee, and will return to this matter on Report.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 18th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, my noble friend and other noble Lords for taking this matter up with the Minister on behalf of almost everyone in the Committee after the earlier debate on this subject. It is clear that they were speaking for all of us. On the withdrawn amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I think that the proposal is a good idea and may well sit better in the health Bill when it finally comes. However, the duty on schools to co-operate would require them not only to co-ordinate with the local health authority at the strategic level, but also in relation to individual children and the packages that they need, whereas the well-being boards will look at services more broadly. The duty to co-operate is still necessary in order for schools to work with other agencies in relation to individual children.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to discuss this issue. All noble Lords in the Committee believe that were it in his gift, I am sure that the matter would not be proceeded with at this time, but obviously and rightly the Secretary of State has to make the decision. I therefore ask the Minister to give us an assurance that we will be clear about the Government’s intentions before we get to Report. Clearly, if the Government decide to proceed with this, Members of the Committee will want to think about their approach at the next stage.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will be brief. I can say yes to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. We will be clear before we reach Report; we need to be. I have given that undertaking to the noble Lords I met with and I am happy to repeat it. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Laming, for what they said. I was glad to have the chance to meet them and we will meet again—I will not finish that line.

I will have to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton and write to him. Ditto, I am not sure about the position in Finland, but we will look into it.

Again, I am grateful to noble Lords for meeting me. I have undertaken to discuss this further, which will probably be in September but before the Report stage. On that basis, I hope we can move forward.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

First, my Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for giving me an annotated photocopy last week of his proposals because it enabled me to work my way through them and really think about them. Having done so, if we are to have legislation of this form then the amendments that he has put forward and the powerful arguments he has made from his own experience are compelling. However, I want to draw the Minister's attention to Amendment 73HB, which would delete that phrase in subsection (5) where the court, in thinking about “dispensing with the restrictions”, can have,

“regard to the welfare of the person who is the subject of the allegation”.

That was picked up by a number of Members here. In our debate on the previous group, we were concerned that the Government were considering teachers, and only teachers, and not other professional groups. For this phrase to be included in the legislation is so illuminating. It speaks volumes to me of the mindset with which the Government have approached this issue. Again, we see the Government thinking of only the teacher vis-à-vis, in this situation, the child. That is so disturbing and demonstrates their tunnel vision approach to this whole issue. I hope that they will take this whole matter away and think again.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Phillips is always helpful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, because I benefited from his advice when I stumbled into this House last year on the Academies Bill. I was grateful for his help and advice on that, as I am sure I will be on this Bill. I know that my noble friend is always helpful.

The final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, implied that the Government care less about children than they do about teachers. She did not put it in those words but there was that sense in the way in which she described the mindset of wanting to think about teachers before thinking about children. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that in a whole range of other ways the Government are demonstrating their commitment to thinking about children. But we certainly want to make sure that the interests of teachers are taken fully into account and that, in making sure that absolutely the right balance is struck between the interests of the children and the interests of the teachers, the interests of the teachers weigh properly in the balance. That lies behind a whole range of measures we are taking where the Government feel that there are ways that one can demonstrate that support to teachers.

This group of amendments and our very good debate have echoes of the previous debate. My noble friend Lady Walmsley rightly makes the point about trying to strike a balance. We have tried to draft Clause 13 so that there is clarity about when reporting restrictions commence and when they are lifted. We are keen to try to keep that. The provisions are about protecting teachers, but I understand that there may be cases where there should be balance with other matters in the public interest and the courts will be required to strike that balance when considering dispensing with these restrictions.

We have had a fair discussion about Amendment 73HB and the suggestion that under the clause as drafted it looks as though the teacher’s welfare is represented as the overriding consideration. It is true that the provision requires the court explicitly to have regard to the likely effect of publication on the teacher. The interests of other parties will also be taken into consideration by the court when considering what is in the interests of justice. But I take the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Hughes, my noble friend Lord Phillips and others. I will try to rattle through some responses to some of his amendments because I hope that we can allay some of his concerns. But, clearly, with a couple of them, I should like to sit down with him and make sure that we have got the balance right in the drafting to make sure that we do not inadvertently open up some of the concerns that he raises.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 4th July 2011 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Storey spoke for us all when he said that we all agree that exclusion should be the end of the process. We have debated this point many times. I state again that that is absolutely the Government’s position. That is why we are holding exclusion trials. We are trying to reach a point where exclusion is a far less frequent outcome for pupils and that the number who end up in this category shrinks. That is what we all want. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. I strongly agree. My noble friend Lady Walmsley set out the case for exclusion appeals to go to tribunal with her customary clarity. Other noble Lords argued in favour of retaining a right for a panel to order reinstatement.

I shall start by restating what we are proposing in this clause, which provides for independent review panels that will be responsible for hearing appeals brought by parents against the permanent exclusion of their child. The panels will have to consider permanent exclusions very carefully. They will be free to reach their own conclusions and to conduct an independent fact-finding exercise. They may then uphold the decision, recommend that the governing body reconsider its decision to take account of the panel’s findings, or quash the decision and direct the governing body to reconsider the exclusion. If the decision is quashed, the panel will have to provide the school with the reasons for its decision. At that point the governing body will have to reconsider its decision. As several noble Lords have argued, in those circumstances most governing bodies would be likely to offer to reinstate pupils.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, asked whether we assumed that the school would always be right. The answer to that question is no. If we thought that, we would not have gone for an independent review panel, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. However, there may be local circumstances in which the detrimental effect on the wider school community of a pupil being reinstated means that the school decides not to do so. This, in essence, is what the whole debate boils down to, and is the root of the difference of opinion between us. As we have already discussed and will return to in more detail, in those circumstances the panel would be able to impose a financial penalty. In addition to the general safeguards associated with the independent review panel process, we are putting in place measures to protect the interests of vulnerable children, especially those with special educational needs. As we discussed earlier, parents will be able to request an SEN expert.

My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about scale. I heard my noble friend Lady Walmsley whispering but he may not have heard her. We are talking about a small number of cases. In 2008-09, there were 6,550 cases of permanent exclusion. Appeals were lodged in fewer than 10 per cent of cases. Of those appeals, around one-10th resulted in the pupil being reinstated, which is the “60 pupils” figure that we are talking about.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend, have asked why we are making changes when the numbers are so small. We do so for one simple reason: while the numbers are fortunately small, each case can create significant problems for the school, creating anxiety for pupils and undermining the position of staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, spoke of schools being “left to their own devices”. Because of the review panel process, they would not be left to their own devices, but I am sure that she did not mean this. Her comments seemed to suggest that schools might have an agenda to exclude pupils, and I do not believe that that is true either.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I did not mean that, and I do not generally think that schools have an agenda. However, the crux of the Minister’s argument seems to be that in most of those cases where a review panel comes back to the governing body and says, “We think that this decision is wrong or flawed”—or whatever—“so reconsider”, he expected the schools to reinstate the child. What evidence does he have for that assumption?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The evidence was a point made by a noble friend. It is reasonable to think that where the process is conducted properly and the independent review panel comes back to the governing body saying, “We think that you are wrong for this, that and the other reason”—so that the governing body is confronted with that evidence and realises that others have reached a different view, or that they have made mistakes in how they have gone about it—most people will listen to what is being said to them. Obviously I do not have hard evidence because we do not have the system in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, talked powerfully about the example of Lewis Hamilton. I understand that example. Because the numbers are so small, one ends up having anecdotal exchanges of that nature. When this was debated in another place, a letter from a chair of governors was quoted which reads:

“In February a violent incident occurred at our school and after an exhaustive investigation the Principal took the decision to permanently exclude both the pupils involved in the attack. In short, they had come into school after issuing threats on ‘Facebook’ and sought out an individual to beat up. Failing to find him, they subsequently violently assaulted another boy, leaving him with concussion and in a state of shock. The police wanted to pursue the matter further but the family of the victim were fearful of reprisals and refused to press charges. In March, an exclusion hearing took place and the Governor’s Disciplinary Committee upheld the Principal’s decision to permanently exclude both the pupils involved in carrying out the assault. The mother of one of the excluded pupils appealed and the IAP overturned our decision and directed that we should reinstate the excluded pupil … The whole school environment was deeply shocked”.

That is an anecdote, but is illustrative of the effect these decisions can have on other pupils and the school. I wanted to start the point about the exclusion trials because there may be an assumption that the Government want in some way to be gung ho or vindictive about this, or that we start from the point of view that heads are Victorian figures of authority who must never be questioned and their writ must always run. That is not our position. Our position is that there could be a small number of cases where the effect on the attitude of other pupils and staff is worth giving the school space to take that into account. The principal of Burlington Danes Academy gave evidence to the Education Select Committee in the other place, where she said:

“I am very pleased that the appeal panels have gone, having had a permanent exclusion overturned. A teacher was attacked with a knife and the child was able to come back to the school”.

Although incidents are fortunately rare, these events are not unique. Schools have to be safe environments where pupils can learn. To achieve this, as we have already discussed, schools need to be able to manage behaviour, and heads and governing bodies need to know that they can go about that with confidence.

I turn to the specific amendments on the First-tier Tribunal and the amendment about giving panels the power to reinstate. Clearly, requiring all cases to be taken to the First-tier Tribunal with a power to order reinstatement would defeat the purpose of Clause 4. Our proposals reform the current arrangements for exclusion appeal panels, remedying what we consider to be a weakness in relation to the power to force reinstatement. We believe that the new review panels will ensure quick resolution, which is in the interests of all parties.

I think that there was a question about the timing. We believe that the panel will have to meet and consider a case no later than 15 school days after the parent requests the review.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for speaking to his amendment, which addresses an important issue about the amount of adjustment to a school’s budget that an independent review panel can set. Again, there are balances to be struck in wanting any financial penalty to be sufficiently high that the governing body would want to reflect seriously upon it. However, I understand my noble friend’s concern that the adjustment should take account of the size of the school and its total budget, as well as his point about a flat-rate penalty. Therefore, although there are arguments in favour of such a scheme because of its simplicity, I am happy to accept the principle behind his amendment and say that, when consulting schools and local authorities later this year on the new arrangements, we will include the issue of whether the penalty should take account of the size of schools—for example, having different penalties for primary and secondary schools.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Thursday 30th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

My Lords, I support my noble friend. I was not going to speak, but this important point strays into another agenda that is relevant here because we could be doing something that is not great. When I have visited schools, I have seen that mobile phones present a real issue—a huge potential advantage and a current problem. Schools are struggling to know what to do.

Coincidentally, on Tuesday I was in a good secondary school in Cambridge that, to be honest, was not faced with huge behavioural problems. I accept that it was not your average challenged secondary school. Its approach to mobile phones gave a clue as to how important they will be on the information technology agenda. Given that the Government do not have much of an IT agenda, with the abolition of Becta we must look at what schools are doing on that. I hope that in the coming months we might get to the point technologically at which we can as a society support schools in using devices such as mobile phones as an essential part of learning in school and with links to home.

That is not for now and that agenda is not quite here at the moment. I would hate to do anything now that would give a message that would make it difficult for some unconfident schools to move along that road in future years.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I shall try to reply briefly to some of those points. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that one must be careful not to legislate in a blanket fashion that stores up problems for later. I listen in particular to my noble friend Lord Storey because he knows what he is talking about. He has day-to-day direct involvement and we should listen carefully to his reminder of the problems faced by schools. However, I also accept that a lot of technology can be used for good or for ill. That is to do with what people make of it rather than with the nature of the technology.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, our purpose in a number of these approaches is to give individual schools discretion in what to do, taking their circumstances into account. On the regulations that list the items mentioned by the noble Baroness, we have not laid them before the House because I thought that it was important first to take these issues through the House and Committee and to have this debate. We are not seeking to have a blanket ban on mobile phones, but we want to reach the point at which schools can exercise discretion. More generally, the Government will need to take into account the points that have been raised.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Although the Government do not want to move towards a blanket ban on mobile phones, is it their current intention, notwithstanding any shift brought about by this debate, that the regulations will allow an individual school to impose a blanket ban on all its pupils?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I believe that that could be done at the moment. That would not therefore be a change, and overall we want to give schools discretion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Will the Minister make it clear in the guidance that, if the assessments are done at an early stage as he envisages, they will be made available and the governing body considering a permanent exclusion—and then the review panel at the point of review—will be required to see the assessments that will have recently been done?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

In that case, we would expect the panel to ask for such an assessment if it has been made.

We then turn to the amendments that require an automatic trigger to initiate an assessment when a child has been given a certain number of fixed-period exclusions. Whereas I hope that I have set out our thinking on the importance of good early assessment, we are reluctant to set in legislation such an automatic link, tying assessment to a set number of fixed-period exclusions. The approach that we have set out in the Green Paper can achieve the same objective, and multiagency assessments should take account of all special educational needs, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who is no longer in his place. I will follow up with him his specific points.

We then considered amendments that require certain conditions regarding special educational needs to be met before a pupil could be permanently excluded. For example, the governing body would have to consider a report from the special educational needs co-ordinator, the SENCO, before excluding a child; or a school could not exclude a child with special educational needs without showing that it had made attempts to address those needs.

Governing bodies must take account of relevant information pertaining to the child when considering exclusion. They already have a duty to secure as far as they can that special educational provision is made for those pupils with special education needs, and I will be happy to ensure that future versions of guidance make it explicit that they should take account of information relating to the child’s special educational needs, if any, in this situation. That is currently implicit in the guidance, but in view of the proportion of excluded pupils who have special educational needs, I accept that we should make a more explicit reference in future guidance.

I would hesitate to be so prescriptive as to say that there must be a report from the school’s special educational needs co-ordinator. In many cases, I agree that the SENCO may well be the appropriate source of information, but I would rather limit guidance to the principle that the governing body should take account of information that relates to the child’s special educational needs but allow it some flexibility on the question of from whom that advice should come.

With regard to whether a school should be able to exclude a pupil without demonstrating the attempts that it had made to meet his or her needs, I hope that what I have said will have demonstrated to noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that children’s needs are assessed early. We would wish governing bodies to consider what their school had done to assist the child, and that should be a factor in their decision.

However, to say that a school could never exclude a child if it had done too little to meet his or her needs would be a step too far. To take an extreme case, if a child whose needs had not been suitably addressed was guilty of a serious assault on another child or a member of staff, exclusion may well be the most appropriate action for the sake of other pupils and staff. We would then want action taken to address that child’s needs so that they could better participate in education, but that would be after the exclusion rather than instead of it.

In terms of the part played by the special educational needs expert in the review panel process, noble Lords will know that we made a commitment in the other place to include provision in the regulations to give parents the right to ask for a special educational needs expert to attend the panel. It will be for the parents to determine whether they believe the SEN expert is required, irrespective of whether the school or local authority has identified any special needs. Given that, I am not convinced that there is a pressing need to include a reference to this in the Bill.

We will ensure that parents are made aware of their right to ask for the presence of such an expert. After the passage of the Bill, we will consult on regulations and guidance, and I have asked officials to consult local authorities, schools, parents’ representatives and others on how we can best ensure that parents are made aware of their rights.

I move on to Amendment 43, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The principle that the pupil’s views should be heard during the exclusions process is very much one that I support. More generally, the Government are committed to ensuring that children and young people’s views are listened to and respected. I can confirm that we will work with children’s organisations to revise the current statutory guidance to set out clearly the legal obligations that apply to schools in relation to consultation with pupils.

Through guidance, we have encouraged the involvement, where appropriate, of pupils at all stages of the exclusions process—subject to their age and understanding. This begins at the start of the process. The guidance says that before excluding a pupil, the head teacher should inform him of the reasons for the intended exclusion, the length of the exclusion, if for a fixed period, and give the pupil a chance to have his say.

The section of the guidance that covers appeal panels states that pupils under 18 should be encouraged to attend hearings and speak on their own behalf if they wish to do so, subject to them being able to understand the process. We will need to revise the guidance in the light of the changes to panels proposed in this Bill. I can reassure noble Lords that we will keep similar messages in the revised guidance. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this guidance does not merely pay lip service to young people’s participation but actively encourages it. This guidance was prepared under the previous Government, but that principle is one that we support.

It is important that a pupil should have the right to his or her say in this way, and we want schools and review panels to listen to them. However, that is rather different from making more formal representations, and we believe that parents should have that more formal role. However, we do not want to rule out further changes in future. We have taken note of the views of those who want to extend children’s rights in this area, and we are willing to consider how such arrangements could work. Noble Lords may have seen in the SEN and disability Green Paper that we are planning to run pilots where children will have a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal for all tribunal hearings. I ought to make clear the distinction between the trials of the new approach to exclusions and these pilots, which focus not on exclusions but on how young people could appeal directly to the first-tier tribunal on all the issues for which the tribunal is responsible.

The pilots will test in a couple of areas of the country whether this approach can work. They cannot begin until we have modified primary legislation, which would not be until 2012 to 2013 at the earliest. But we will use those trials, assuming that we get the legislative go-ahead, to inform our future policies in these areas.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned an important point about Ofsted. I support the principle behind this amendment that a review panel should be ready to highlight concerns and bring them to the attention of Ofsted or other relevant bodies, but I would not go as far as directing Ofsted to inspect the school. But a review panel would be able to write to Ofsted, or to the Secretary of State, expressing its concerns, and suggesting that an inspection might be useful. I believe that an independent appeal panel could do that now, although I do not know if it has ever happened. I think it would be useful for us to refer to that possibility in guidance so that review panels consider the option of making a reference to Ofsted. I am therefore grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for raising the issue.

Before I finish I would like briefly to speak to government Amendment 60, which is in my name. It replaces the wording of “exclusion appeal panel” with “exclusion review panel” in Section 31A of the Local Government Act 1974. This is a consequential amendment and should have been included in Schedule 1, but was overlooked when the Bill was drafted, for which I apologise.

We have had a broad set of amendments and debate. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance generally about our approach and some specific further reassurance, as well as some more information. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Does the Minister agree with my point that underneath that figure of 93 per cent for three year-olds there is considerable variance, and that the lowest take-up is in the areas of the greatest disadvantage?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I suspect that that is true. I do not know the precise figures, but that sounds as though it could be true, which is why it is extremely important that we do all we can to make every effort to reach out to those families and to encourage them to take advantage of that entitlement. I will come to that.

We know that children who achieve a good level of development at age five go on to do much better at school. I do not need to rehearse the argument why that is important. There is wide acceptance that extending that entitlement to disadvantaged two year-olds and engaging their parents earlier is a key part of our strategy for taking up entitlement at the age of three and four. If we can do better at the age of two, that will help, in part, to address the noble Baroness’s point about take-up at three.

With that same goal in mind, we are committed to retaining a network of Sure Start children's centres, but with a greater focus on identifying and supporting the most disadvantaged. I completely accept that children’s centre outreach workers play a critical part in reaching the most vulnerable families and are well placed to make them aware of all the support available. As was mentioned in our earlier debate, we have invested funds to create another 4,200 health visitors. I hope that that will also help to spread the message.

We are taking a range of measures to help disadvantaged young children, with the goal of increasing the take-up of free early education and their readiness when they start at school. On the additional duty that the amendment proposes, I believe that the existing legislative framework provides for what the noble Baroness seeks. Section 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 already requires local authorities to take steps to,

“identify parents or prospective parents in the authority's area who would otherwise be unlikely to take advantage of early childhood services that may be of benefit to them and their young children, and … to encourage those parents or prospective parents to take advantage of those services”.

Existing legislation places duties on local authorities to that end.

Amendment 4 is intended to ensure that the existing offer of free early education for three and four year-olds and the new offer for disadvantaged two year-olds continue at least at their current level. The amendment would make the current entitlement the baseline, which is an aim that I understand. We decided to implement the extension of the number of hours per week from 12.5 to 15 hours from September 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, was kind enough to recognise, we have made clear our commitment to continue to fund the enhanced three and four year-old offer and to build to the new two year-old offer during the rest of the spending review period until 2015. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government have given absolutely explicit assurances about those priorities.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve by her amendment, but it could restrict our aspirations, or those of a future Government, to improve the entitlement for parents by allowing it to be taken in more flexible ways. I know that that would not be her intention. As drafted, it is possible that it could prevent future regulations giving entitlement to fewer hours in one year and a greater number of hours in another year, if that suited the family circumstances.

I now come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that we should try to avoid that degree of prescription in the Bill. The Childcare Act 2006 provided for the entitlement for three and four year-olds—both the amounts and their ages—to be set out in regulations. That has worked very well. The original regulations, which I think were signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, came into force in 2008. I argue that now, as then, we should continue to set out the principles in primary legislation and details in regulations.

Amendment 5 would require that regulations made under new Section 7 set out that all children are eligible for free provision from the start of the term following their third birthday. That position is set out in the current regulations.

I will make it as clear as I can that the Government have no intention of removing free provision for every three and four year-old. That commitment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, was made during the passage of the Bill in another place, and I am happy to confirm it today. I am also glad on behalf of the Government to have the chance to build on the current free offer of entitlement by extending it to the most disadvantaged two year-olds. Current legislation would not allow us to target that provision; that is why we need Clause 1.

Amendment 7 deals with the important issue of the quality and flexibility of the early-education settings that offer the free entitlement. I hope that I will be able to assure noble Lords that we take seriously the issue of quality in the early years. Clause 1 provides that, in discharging their duties, local authorities must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. That mirrors existing legislation under which local authorities must have regard to the code of practice on delivery of free early-years provision. The current code was published in September 2010 and includes sections on flexibility and quality.

We plan to consult in the autumn on revisions to the code of practice on free entitlement, including on provision for disadvantaged two year-olds. The consultation will make proposals and invite views on the issues both of flexibility and quality. We want to hear the sector's views on what we can do to ensure that children can access the free entitlement in a high-quality setting and in increasingly flexible ways that will work for parents and providers. Therefore, it is right that matters such as this are included in the code of practice, where they can be set out more fully and can allow for departure from guidance where local or individual circumstances mean that there is good reason for this, rather than in legislation. That approach has served us well to date.

Local authorities are funded through the early intervention grant to provide, among other things, advice and support to early-years providers to help them to improve their quality. The Department for Education is also grant-funding a range of voluntary sector organisations, including the National Childminding Association, the National Day Nurseries Association, the Pre-school Learning Alliance and others, to provide support to local authorities and providers with the aim of improving quality.

In response to the question of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, I say that we are committed to a high-quality early-years workforce. The Children's Workforce Development Council will continue to deliver the early-years professional status and the new leaders in early-years programmes. We are also considering recommendations made in Dame Clare Tickell’s review and have set up the group chaired jointly by Bernadette Duffy, who is head of Thomas Coram Children's Centre, and Jane Haywood, chief executive of the CWDC. The group will take forward recommendations, including those about improving quality in the workforce.

Amendment 10 concerns children’s centres: their sufficiency to meet local needs and the qualifications of staff working in them. There is broad agreement on the importance of Sure Start children's centres as a way of providing parents of young children with access to services that include family support and healthcare, early-years education, childcare and advice on training and employment. These are the main way in which local authorities bring together these services to improve results for young children and their families. We know that overall there have been improvements in early-years foundation stage outcomes and that children's centres form an important part of that landscape.

Section 5A(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 requires local authorities to ensure sufficient children's centres to meet local need so far as is reasonably practicable. This relates to the points made by my noble friend Lord True. Local authorities must be able to determine local priorities in the context of their many responsibilities and available resources. As the previous Government recognised when they proposed this provision in 2009, “so far as is reasonably practicable” should be included in the wording because local authorities need to be given flexibility. In any financial climate there are always constraints on the resources of those responsible for commissioning services and there are always competing priorities. It was got right back in 2009 and that is where one should rest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

I omitted to ask the Minister whether he could remind the Committee of the present situation on the requirement for a graduate lead provision in early-years settings. I think the Government have introduced some exceptions; can he remind me of the situation or perhaps drop me a line?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I think the absolute requirement that there should be such a provision was removed at the end of last year. However, we expect that there would be at least one early-years professional or a qualified teacher to provide leadership in centres. There would be more local judgment on which people would be appropriate in the setting. However, we will speak further with the noble Earl.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in Committee but we shall return to these amendments on Report.

Children: Ofsted Report

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question about whether anybody has done that analysis and I do not know how simple it would be to do. I will ask my officials whether such an analysis has been done and, if it has, I will of course share it with the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows that, since the Government have required serious case reviews to be published in full, there has been a significant fall both in the number of serious incidents notified and in the number of serious case reviews undertaken, leading to the concern that local authorities are carrying out internal reviews that they are not publishing. What investigations is he undertaking in order to understand what is really happening and to ensure that every case for which it is appropriate is subject to a serious case review?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I accept the point that underlies the noble Baroness’s question. It is an important area. My honourable friend Mr Loughton is keeping the situation to which she refers under review to try to understand why this might be happening. The Government were trying to strike a balance within the serious case review system: there is a need for more openness to try to rebuild trust in the system, as we had reached a point where people were mistrustful, but clearly one wants to balance that with the interests of the child, to make sure that this is done in a sensitive way. We will keep that under review and it will clearly need to be taken into account in our response to Munro, to ensure that we have the best system and that lessons are learnt throughout child protection agencies.

Faith Schools: Imported Hate Material

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I very much agree with the core point made by the right reverend Prelate about faith schools. It highlights the reason why one has to be careful of generalisations. One-third of all our schools are faith schools. One has to be careful not to spread across an entire sector concerns that one might have about a subset. I also know that Church of England schools have a particularly good record in promoting strong community cohesion and addressing some of these issues in precisely the way that the right reverend Prelate outlined.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, why, then, in the Education Bill are the Government removing the requirement on inspectors to report on children's well-being and community cohesion? Are these not the very factors that are relevant to the issues of race and religious hatred that noble Lords have raised today?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

We believe that the Ofsted regime that we propose to put in place will enable inspectors to check for precisely these points. We are extremely hopeful that the additional training that I talked about will enable the sharper focus that we need to be applied.

Education: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Children

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The difficulty that we have—and one of the questions I asked about this whole area—is in trying to evaluate what in the past has been successful in making progress. As far as I have been able to see, the evidence for what has worked in the approaches that have been tried so far does not seem very clear or compelling. Unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, the gap has widened. So I do not believe that there is a simple answer. I know that many Members of this House know far more about this than I do. If the noble Lord has particular suggestions, I would be keen to discuss them with him.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I wonder whether the Minister is aware, as noble Lords are indicating, that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are much more likely to do better and to get into paid work if they are educated in schools and colleges than if they are not. What assessment has he made of the particular impact on these children of the withdrawal of education maintenance allowance? I ask that particularly in the light of the Government’s equality impact assessment, which I understand now admits that there is likely to be unintended discrimination as a result of the withdrawal of the EMA on certain groups of children, of which these are one.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I clearly accept the noble Baroness’s first point—that if children, wherever they come from, stay on at school and do well there, they are more likely to do better thereafter. As for the education maintenance allowance, one issue that we have with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children is that half of them are dropping out well before they would be entitled to claim EMA. As I have said before, there is a complex of difficult issues to which there does not appear to be a simple answer; if there were a simple answer, I know that the approaches that were in place under a previous Government would have worked in delivering improvements. Sadly, despite the best efforts of all sorts of people, including local authorities, central government and everyone else, with all the tools that they used, that did not appear to work.

Education: 16 to 18 Year-olds

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 4th April 2011 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough on securing today’s debate and setting out the issues, which he did quite clearly. I know he cares passionately about supporting young people to continue their education, a passion that everyone here today obviously shares. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Fink on his speech. He said, rather movingly, that he was taught to speak again after he had a brain tumour. We are all extremely glad that the noble Lord was taught to speak again and we hope that we hear him speak again on many occasions in your Lordships' House.

I shall try to respond to the main themes raised today. There were some specific questions which, if I may, I shall follow up if I do not respond to them all in the time that we have. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, I want to start briefly by setting some of this in a broader context.

I start with the question of why 16 to 18 education matters. It matters for the economy because to compete internationally we need a well trained and well educated workforce. It matters financially for the young people concerned because better-qualified people earn more in their working lives. But, above all, it matters educationally because, regardless of any financial benefits, education is a good in itself. It enriches lives and opens the doors of opportunity. For all these reasons, this Government, like the previous one, are committed to reaching full participation in education, training or employment for all young people up to the age of 17 by 2013 and 18 by 2015.

In difficult financial circumstances we have secured funding for 1.6 million places for 16 to 18 year-olds in education or training, which includes 230,000 apprenticeship places, for 2011-12. Total funding for 16 to 18 participation in 2011-12 is over £7.5 billion, which is a record. I recognise that there are concerns, which have been perfectly fairly spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, but overall it is important to emphasise that the commitment to full participation and the funding for 1.6 million places as well as the increase in the number of apprenticeship places—and I shall respond to the noble Baroness’s point on the guarantee—are all there. I do not pretend for one moment that this means that there will not be financial challenges for schools and sixth forms—there will be—but at a time when many other budgets are facing heavy cuts, it is a reflection of the priority we attach to 16 to 18 education.

We know we have challenges to overcome. Despite the best efforts of the previous Government, we have a wide gap in attainment between rich and poor. Half of our 16 year-olds fail to secure five decent GCSEs, including English and maths. As Professor Alison Wolf has shown in her recent report on vocational qualifications, too many of them, sadly, do not seem to be respected by employers and colleges.

I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Walmsley that it is important that we listen to employers. I also agree that some of the soft skills that she talked about—employees turning up on time, for example—are as important as some of the academic qualifications if they are going to get on in life. We also know that we have a group of 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, although I am glad to say that in the last quarter the number of NEETs in that age group fell by 15,000.

What are we doing to raise standards and increase participation? We know that the biggest determinant of whether students stay on is their attainment at 16, and specifically whether they secure good GCSEs in subjects that universities and employers value. Therefore, we have introduced the pupil premium to try to tackle disadvantage from the earliest years and narrow the attainment gap. The funding for that will grow to £2.5 billion by 2014-15. We have announced a new focus on reading at age six; we have increased our emphasis on tackling under-performing schools; we have rolled out our academies programme; and we have introduced the English baccalaureate.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley about the disengaged. That is why we are also seeking to increase the number of studio schools, which I think can play an important part in engaging children who have not been turned on by what goes on in the classroom. By learning some practical skills—for example, how to lay a wall—they also learn about angles and measurements, so there are many benefits there too. We have announced a review of vocational qualifications and more funding for technical academies and UTCs. We have expanded the apprenticeships programme for 16 to 18 year-olds from 116,000 last year to 131,000 in 2010-11 and 133,000 next year. Given that we are dependent on employers to provide those apprenticeship places, we are not able to give a guarantee on their behalf. If employers will not make the places available, we cannot offer such a guarantee. However, I share my noble friend’s commitment to apprenticeships. I also agree with everything that she said about the importance of securing high-quality places, and we will need to work at that.

We have also switched more funding to tackle disadvantage post-16, building on the pupil premium. Therefore, within the overall budget of £7.5 billion that I mentioned, £770 million is being spent on supporting the education of disadvantaged 16 to 18 year-olds. That is £150 million more than would previously have been available to schools and colleges, and it is specifically for the education of the most disadvantaged 16 to 19 year-olds.

Perhaps I may say a few words to try to pick up the questions raised about the end of the education maintenance allowance and its replacement by the 16 to 19 bursary fund. Clearly, we want young people to stay on in education and training and not to be discouraged for financial reasons. The education maintenance allowance was used by the previous Government to provide an incentive for young people to stay on and I recognise that it led to an increase in overall participation. I do not accept the picture painted by my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the research into the impact of the EMA. This was not research conveniently commissioned by the new Government; it was commissioned by the previous Government to be carried out by a number of different research bodies. It seems that it was found that some 10 per cent of those in receipt of the EMA said that they would not have participated without it, yet it was paid to almost 45 per cent of young people at a cost of around £560 million. It is also the case that since it was introduced—and I recognise the argument that it was an incentive payment when it was introduced—we have moved further and further towards compulsory participation post-16. Therefore, the case for an incentive payment is, I think, reduced.

Rather than paying nearly half of all students an incentive to stay in learning when it is becoming compulsory, we argue that we should concentrate our resources on removing the barriers to learning which are faced by the poorest. Therefore, last week we set out our proposals. We have consulted extensively to ensure that we support those most in need, and we are grateful for the work that Mr Simon Hughes has done in helping us to refine our proposals. In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, I can confirm that there is new money from reserves at the Treasury exactly as was described.

As a result of that additional funding and the funding that we have found from within the DfE budget, 12,000 students—those in care, care leavers and those receiving income support—should receive an annual bursary of £1,200 if they stay on in education. That is only slightly more, I accept, than they received under the EMA. Asylum seekers are not caught by the category of entitlement that my noble friend Lady Walmsley raised, but they would be eligible for support through the discretionary fund which schools and colleges would have at their disposal.

We want those most in need who are currently in receipt of the EMA to be protected. All those young people who began courses in 2009-10 and who were given a guarantee by the previous Government that they would receive the EMA will still receive their weekly payments. Young people who started courses in 2010-11 and received the maximum weekly payment of £30 should now receive weekly payments of at least £20 until the end of the next academic year. In addition, those students will be eligible for support from the new post-16 bursary scheme. That can help to cover the costs of travel, food and equipment, particularly for poorer students and those in rural areas where transport is an issue. One hundred and eighty million pounds will be available for that bursary fund.

Reference was made to the £800 figure in relation to those eligible for free school meals. That was intended as an illustrative figure, to demonstrate the amount of the money, rather than saying that those in receipt of free school meals would be eligible for £800.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Can I be absolutely clear? The Minister said that money has come from the Treasury reserves as well. Is the £130 for transitional protection coming from the Treasury? In other words, will the £180 million earmarked for the whole scheme be used exclusively for the two purposes of the bursary scheme and a discretionary pot?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Because the figures are complicated and time is short, I am very happy to set out the position as clearly as I can subsequently. The contribution from the Treasury is to help to cover the steady state of the scheme, and the other costs will be found from within the department, but I will clarify that for the noble Baroness.

Schools and colleges will have the freedom to decide on the allocation of the bursary because, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, they are best placed to know the specific needs of their students. We are consulting on the scheme. That will take eight weeks. I know how important it is that young people know what is happening, but it is also important that there should be a consultation.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis for his ambitious and imaginative proposal. It is probably career-limiting for me to respond in detail to his point, but I know that it is a discussion that he will continue to pursue in his terrier-like way.

In these difficult economic times, we are trying to prioritise the reform and investment that we need, particularly for those aged 16 to 18. We want all children to have the chance to benefit from education or training post-16. We believe that our package of measures and reforms, starting with the pupil premium, working through school, increasing the number of apprenticeships, funding post-16—which has increased—and providing a targeted package of support for 16 to 18 year-olds, will help to bring that greater participation about.

Further Education: 16 to 19 Year-olds

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am very much aware from conversations that I have had with a whole range of sixth-form heads and college principals how much value those institutions place on entitlement funding and what is able to be taught through the entitlement funding. I know therefore that the cuts in entitlement funding are a cause of concern to them. The Government decided that the key areas that we had to safeguard were those of the core academic and educational programme. If we can get to a point where funding in sixth-form colleges, FE colleges and school sixth forms is not tied to specific activity but goes to the college and the principal can spend it with discretion, in the same way as we are trying to do in schools, that will go some way towards addressing those concerns.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the very limited bursary scheme that he announced this week will deny financial support to hundreds of thousands of young people who currently receive the education maintenance allowance, who are all, by definition, living in very low-income households, and that all the Government are doing is taking money away from students in poor families to give it to only the very poorest, which is a political choice? Before he mentions deficit reduction, does he also agree that the cost will still fall on the Government through rising unemployment, leaving aside the cost that the young people and the families themselves will pay?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I know that the noble Baroness and Peers on the opposition Benches are very concerned about education and training and have worked extremely hard to promote it over a long period and that she and others are particularly concerned about unemployment among the 16 to 18 age group. Fortunately, in the last quarter that has fallen a little, but we need to keep going on it. I understand entirely why the EMA was set up and what the moral purpose behind it was. It was paid to 45 per cent of children, which is hard to define as a targeted form of assistance. Overall we have moved from a situation where it was an incentive payment to one where participation up to age 18 is to be compulsory. As the participation age is raised going forward, the argument for a broad scheme like that is weaker. Therefore, it is sensible to concentrate the money that we can afford on those who need help the most.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the Government want to look at a number of groups carefully in the replacement scheme. One group is children in care. There are issues to do with rurality and transport, as my noble friend has raised. I also accept that there are particular issues of the kind that the right reverend Prelate has raised. In all this, we want to make sure that the most effective help is delivered locally to those children who need it most.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, are we now seeing an unfortunate pattern from the Secretary of State for Education—a rush to cut without any apparent concern for the consequences and no attempt to consult beforehand? Does the Minister not regret that, on EMAs, Booktrust, school sport, music tuition and of course the Building Schools for the Future programme, the Secretary of State has failed to undertake the normal processes of consultation that really should be part and parcel of good government? Is that not why he is getting so many of these things wrong?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I think I said in my first answer that, as with other departments, my department has been driven by the underlying need to grapple with the inherited financial situation. In those circumstances, where one is ratcheting up the debts, I do not accept that it is wrong to press ahead in dealing with those issues.

Building Schools for the Future

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I should like to provide some context in terms of scale. As I am sure the noble Baroness will know, this year, the amount of money made available for free schools is £50 million. The department’s capital budget in total this year is in excess of £7 billion, so the scale of the sum of money made available to the free schools when viewed in the whole is small. One of the points of the free-school policy is to find new ways to set up schools that are quicker and cheaper, and to look at things such as leasing and the different uses of school buildings in order that we can try to get schools open more quickly and more cheaply than in the past.

Free schools will, I hope, be a great success if we manage to get them open and delivered more quickly and cheaply. I hope that they will provide a good education for children in the same way as all maintained schools; that is, they will follow the admissions code and all the other things that I know the noble Baroness would be keen to see.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State did not consult properly with every local authority in the first place? Given the fundamental criticism that the judge has made of the consultation process, will he confirm that there is an intention to consult properly, not just with the six which brought the case but with every local authority which was not consulted during the first stage of these decisions?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I have two answers to those two questions. As regards the broader application of the ruling to other local authorities, the judge is clear that the ruling applies to those six local authorities, which are those which the Government will consult. The basic answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, which the judge accepts in his ruling, is that Governments, particularly after a change of Government or a general election, have every right to make decisions. Given the scale of the deficit, the Government felt that the overriding imperative was to make decisions quickly and that the longer the process was drawn out, the more money would be wasted and the more uncertainty caused.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I have huge sympathy with the noble Lord’s point and agree with him entirely. I am sure that we can do more. We are trying to establish a system across the country but journeymen face difficulties in this regard. I know of a local farrier in my village who wants to take on a young lad but it is not straightforward, so I very much take that point on board and will certainly look into it.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the challenges of getting businesses and organisations to take on young people as apprentices. That is why the Labour Government required public sector bodies to commit to provide a number of apprenticeships. Therefore, why have this Government now absolved the Civil Service, local authorities and health bodies—all of them major employers—from those specific commitments? Does the Minister not agree that the public sector should show a lead here and help to meet the huge demand for apprenticeships among young people?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As I have already said, I accept fully that there is a role for both the public and private sectors to play. If we are able to encourage more people from the private sector to offer good apprenticeships with good opportunities for employment and progression, that is good, and young people are keen to get into those kinds of jobs. However, I also accept that we should do as much as we can to encourage the public sector to play its fair share as well.

Youth Sport Trust

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the decision to withdraw the grant from the Youth Sport Trust; and what consultations were undertaken before the decision was made.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, we looked carefully at the impact of the Youth Sport Trust and the school sport partnerships in recent years. While there has certainly been progress in some areas, the overall level of participation in competitive sport remains disappointingly low. The Government are bringing forward proposals to promote an Olympic and Paralympic-style programme where the Youth Sport Trust has been on the steering committee. We hope that this will lead to more involvement by more children at all levels.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but it is important to understand that the decision by the Secretary of State to cut completely the dedicated fund for school sports, condemned by head teachers, sports people and 600,000 young people yesterday, will mean the demolition of the 450 school sport partnerships across the country; partnerships that include every single school, including the smallest primaries and special schools. Despite the Secretary of State’s view that they are inefficient, repeated I understand by the Prime Minister today, independent evaluation has said that the partnerships have led a remarkable revival in school sports. I also understand that the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport want them to continue.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

In that regard, will the Minister not ensure that funding at least for the continuation of that infrastructure will be found within the department?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, as the debates in another place revealed a couple of weeks ago, there is broad agreement across the House on the importance of sport and on the fact that we want to have a very strong legacy from the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In terms of the performance of the school sport partnerships, again there was broad acceptance that the record is mixed. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that there was not good work done—there clearly was good work done—but equally there is acceptance that it was not universally good across the piece, and there are many people in sport who would also make that argument. In terms of going forward, what I hope we are united on is the need to find an effective way—we may differ on the means—of making sure that there is a strong and lasting Olympic and Paralympic legacy.

Children: Care

Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with both the main points made by the noble Baroness. In my Answer, I said that we think that the legal framework is broadly correct. The key issue is clearly the ability of social workers on the ground to make the right judgments. Those involved work extremely hard in almost impossible situations, but they are criticised from both ends because they are thought to intervene either too quickly or not quickly enough, so it is terribly difficult. Training is vital, and they need support. I also take the point about Sure Start centres.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I was very pleased to hear the Minister reaffirm that social workers must make these very difficult decisions on the basis of the paramountcy of the child’s interest, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989 and in the Every Child Matters agenda established by the Labour Government. However, is he aware that the every child matters website now displays a very prominent and somewhat intimidating warning that it may not reflect the policy of the new Government? Does this mean that the coalition is abandoning the principle that every child matters?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

It is clearly not the case that the coalition Government are abandoning the principle that every child matters. I will look into the specific point that the noble Baroness makes about the website. That clearly is not the purpose. I hope that the priority that the Government give to caring for children, looked-after children and children at an early age is as strong as ever.