Children and Families Bill
Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Storey(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that this is not just about 12 and 13 year-olds; I have seen primary schoolchildren making sexual advances to younger children and girls. I have seen primary children sending and looking at the most sexually explicit messages that you could imagine.
We spend a lot of time arguing about which kings and queens we should be studying in history, yet we seem to just push this issue aside. It is important that we equip our young children with the skills to deal with the social and emotional problems that they are going to face in their lives. It is important that they know about relationships, loneliness and isolation, and that they know how to deal with being bullied, or indeed with being bullies themselves. Other things, such as how to manage their finances when they get older, internet safety and child abuse, are also hugely important. As a society, though, we pick up the problems but almost ignore how we can deal with them.
Sadly, passing an amendment like this, as good as it is, is not completely the solution. You can pass such an amendment but we must also get quality training for our teachers in PSHE and sex and relationship education, and leadership in schools that does not look at this as a little tick-box exercise and say, “Well, we’ve done that, we’ve carried out our duties and if Ofsted come along we can show them a bit of paperwork here”. I have seen that happen far too often. It is also about inspectors, when they go into schools, properly ensuring that PSHE is being taught. We as a society have to understand and appreciate that this is probably the most important thing that we can do to support young people in schools.
On the website of the PSHE Association, which is a very good site and well worth going to, a question that I constantly ask is highlighted: “Do academies and free schools have to teach PSHE?”. The answer on the website is no. Why are we not giving as much importance to ensuring that all our schools, whether they be academies, maintained schools or free schools, are teaching PSHE? The amendment just talks about maintained schools; it does not mention academies. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, when he was—no, I am not going to say that.
Labour introduced academies and I understand why they did so; they wanted, if you like, to give a sort of uniqueness to them by saying, “Okay, you can have more control over your curriculum”. However, that has suddenly now led to a huge growth in academies—some 53% of our secondary schools are academies—so half our schools will not be bound by any amendment that is carried. We—again, as a society—should say that a narrow national curriculum should say, as it does on the label, that it is national and it is a curriculum for all. I hope that we will give some thought to ensuring that this involves all schools—even, dare I say, independent schools as well.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord has not noticed that subsection (7)(d) of the new clause proposed in the amendment says that the schools to which it would apply includes academies.
Lord Storey
I would need to know whether that overrode current legislation. I suspect that it does not, although someone is nodding and saying that it does.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I am sure that the Minister will confirm this, but legally free schools are academies.
Children and Families Bill
Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Storey(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
My Lords, if you are going to agree an education, health and care plan, it is clearly important that all elements have to be provided. That is agreed. I understand that there are complex difficulties here. I have spoken to the Local Government Association, which recognises those difficulties. I know that the Minister himself is—perhaps “wrestling” is too strong a word—looking in detail at how we can get what we all want. I hope that your Lordships will be patient on the issue, because I am sure that with good will on all sides we will eventually get there.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this is one of two outstanding, key issues on which the effective implementation of the Government’s welcome approach to integration of education, health and social care depends.
Clause 42 states that where a local authority maintains an ECH plan it must secure the special educational provision. Where the plan specifies healthcare provision, the responsible commissioning body must provide the healthcare. The amendment would simply place a parallel duty on local authorities to provide the social care that is outlined in the plan. This is a key issue for parents as well as, obviously, for many noble Lords in this House. As the legislation is currently drafted, the ECH plans would offer no more legal entitlements to support from social care services than current statements do at the moment. Let us remember that social care provision can be detailed in those statements in a separate section from educational provision. However, the aim of these reforms and the Bill is to provide a simpler system for disabled children and young people, and those with special educational needs and their families, that integrates the different forms of provision into one piece of legislation. One assessment and one plan is what the Government are trying to achieve for those families. There is an opportunity in the Bill to bring everything together. One of the main aims of the Bill is to provide clarity, transparency and integration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so eloquently identified.
In Committee and at the various meetings that we have had on this matter, while the Minister has been trying to listen, I do not think that so far the Government have provided any coherent reason for excluding the local authority from the duty to provide the social care specified in the plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, reminded us, the first argument put by the Government was that other legislation—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act together with the Children Act—already provide for that duty. A second argument deployed at later meetings was that placing such a duty in this Bill would give disabled children an unacceptable priority in law above other children in need.
The debate has been rather clouded by well meaning but exceedingly technical legal opinions on both sides. However, the clearest and most helpful opinion has come in the further opinion, dated 13 May 2013, from the lawyers commissioned by the sector. This asked the crucial question in relation to these different arguments as to whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care set out in the plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties under that existing legislation. The crucial question is whether it would represent a significant change. The answer in the opinion is emphatically no. If noble Lords will bear with me, it is worth putting this opinion on the record.
The crucial question asked is whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care provision set out in the EHC plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties in other legislation. Paragraph 13 of the opinion states:
“No. If there were to be a specific duty to provide the social care provision set out in an EHC Plan, this would simply mean that the Local Authority would be discharging its CSDPA 1970 duty (either wholly or in part) by providing the provision set out in the Plan. Indeed, for children who qualify for an EHC Plan the inclusion of social care provision within the Plan is a helpful way of determining that the Local Authority considers that this provision is necessary to meet their needs—in other words that the test for the 1970 Act duty to arise is met”.
The opinion goes on to say:
“This is very similar to the approach that the Government has adopted in relation to the duty to arrange health care provision … the Government accepts that in arranging the provision specified in the plan a CCG”—
a clinical commissioning group—
“will be discharging its existing duty pursuant to section 3 of the NHS Act 2006”.
This was a question that we asked in Committee: why the difference between social care and healthcare? Paragraph 14 states:
“Any concern that this would involve treating disabled children more favourably than other groups of children ‘in need’ is misplaced. Firstly, disabled children have already benefited”—
for more than 40 years—
“from the specific duty … in the CSDPA 1970 to provide them with support, a benefit which other children ‘in need’ do not enjoy … Secondly, it is a well established tenet of discrimination law that reasonable positive measures intended to correct significant disadvantage experienced by a particular group are unlikely to be discriminatory. Indeed Equality Act 2010 … provides that compliance with the public sector equality duty … ‘may involve treating some persons more favourably than others’”.
Therefore, in this view, the inclusion of social care under the duty to provide the services specified in an EHC plan would not make a significant difference to existing entitlements in social care and, indeed, is simply consistent with local authorities’ current duties.
However, there would be a number of significant advantages to putting this duty into this Bill as well. A main advantage is that it would clarify for parents the responsibilities of the three agencies together regarding what must provided—in other words, everything in the plan—and that would be a very big benefit for parents. Secondly, it would consolidate the integrated approach that runs right through this Bill until we get to social care. Thirdly, it would give children under 18 the same demonstrable, enforceable rights that adults already have under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and thus there would be a seamless and equal status for disabled children from birth to 25. Those are the simplest legal arguments in favour of the amendment.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I, too, moved an amendment in Committee on a single point of appeal. It beggars belief that you would have progressive legislation that creates for the first time a joined-up approach to education, health and social care but not a joined-up approach to an appeals mechanism. Everybody I have spoken to agrees with that.
Of course, the problem is the current systems that we have, so the notion is that we establish a Bill that creates single education, health and social care plans but then the appeals mechanism is threefold. We expect in this child and family-friendly approach for parents then to navigate their way through these different systems. Currently, the health appeals mechanism is not very transparent and on patient or family satisfaction ratings is very low indeed. Local authorities, as we know, vary.
What do we need to do? First, the code of conduct very much highlights the need for mediation—but it talks about mediation in terms only of education, not on the health and social care side. I hope the Minister might respond by telling us how we bring the mediation together for all three strands of the plan. In my view, mediation could considerably reduce the number of people wishing to appeal.
Then you come to the appeals mechanism itself. Whatever happens here today, I am utterly convinced that, in the years that follow, there will be one tribunal for these plans. The difficulty is the bureaucratic systems, as eloquently extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Currently, the bureaucracy is not fit for purpose. My great fear is that we push the bureaucracies to agree one tribunal, they go kicking and screaming, and the whole thing does not work. We have to negotiate and make sure that everybody is on board to make this happen. Having talked to Ministers in health and education—though having been slightly disillusioned by officials—I am sure that we can achieve that eventually. We need to give my noble friend Lord Nash more time to continue those negotiations. Again, as has been said, I am sure that on the education side we all agree.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I support Amendment 40A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and colleagues. We supported him on this in Committee and it would still be our first preference as it would add health and social care provisions to the list of matters in respect of which children, young people and families could appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
This was first moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, as he just reminded us. I recall that he subsequently said, as he has just done so, that he was unsure as to the feasibility of this approach in terms of the technicalities. For that reason, because we may not be able to evaluate those technicalities at this point, we have tabled Amendment 40B, which I will refer to in a moment. I do not know if the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mean that he would support that amendment but it has the intention of giving the Government time to resolve whatever the issues are.
As other noble Lords have said, the issue is simple: the Government want to establish an integrated system for meeting better the needs of disabled children and those with special educational needs. That integration would be at the point of assessment and planning education, health and social care. However, as the Bill stands, that integration is blown apart at the point of appeal. As we have heard, parents and young people would potentially have to go through three different routes of appeal simultaneously for the three different elements of their plan. Like the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, I sense that behind this is the considerable resistance from the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government to any change.
Having previously been a Minister for some time, I feel quite strongly that agencies should bend for the benefit of families. Families should not be imposed with the burden of mobilising three bureaucratic systems that just happen to exist. It is the job of all of us, particularly the Government, to make those agencies bend, albeit by negotiation and discussion, to make the system work for the people that we are here for.
In a letter to noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that the tribunal is only for special educational needs, and that, as we have heard:
“There are established routes of complaint about social care through the local authority complaints procedures”,
and, for health, to the health complaints procedure and the health ombudsman. That is not adequate, even if local authority and health appeals systems were simple—and they really are not, even for a Member of Parliament. I see the Minister for Children at the Bar and I am sure he will have tried to mobilise those complaints procedures on behalf of his constituents. It takes for ever, it is labyrinthine, it is completely not transparent and it is very bureaucratic. The idea of parents doing that on three fronts at once is simply unimaginable. There should be a single point of appeal and we support Amendment 40A.
However, should that not prevail tonight and the Government not accept it, we have tabled Amendment 40B which would require the Government actively to seek a way to secure a single point of appeal and to report back to Parliament within a year. That would keep the possibility alive. It would require the Government to do what they have not done and maybe have not had time to do so far: namely, to find a way to make this work for parents and families, to take on the resistance of those agencies and, if necessary, to change the law to establish a single point of appeal.
I am afraid that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that without anything done this evening there will at some point in future be a single point of appeal. I was constantly surprised and depressed by the inability sometimes to change some of our big public organisations. Without the drive and initiative from this and the other place, I do not think that will happen. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
Children and Families Bill
Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Storey(10 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
I will be quite brief; I do not have all my papers together. I feel that all of us in this Room realise the importance of this piece of legislation. We are looking to support the work that has been going on. The needs of children with special educational needs are not purely educational, or purely to do with health or social care; a combination of provision might be needed. For the first time, as it says on the label, parents will be supported by this legislation and will not have to go through a great difficult bureaucratic system. Their children will have a plan that will clearly spell out their needs. I say again how much I appreciate the revised code of practice, which is excellent and shows clearly the steps that need to be taken.
If a parent wants to appeal against the fact that they have not succeeded in gaining a plan, or if there are aspects of the plan that they are not happy about, we should make it as easy as possible. As it says, this legislation concerns children and families; it is family-friendly and children-friendly. The notion that parents and the child or young person then have to go through a labyrinthine method to resolve issues seems to go against the grain of what we are trying to achieve. As the document says, we are supporting parents all the way through. When there is an appeal, the code of conduct rightly refers to arbitration and how it can be resolved. However, if you then have to take your “complaint” somewhere, you do not want to have to go to three different bodies. You want to be able to take it to one person or one body who can sort it out for you one way or another. That seems to be in the whole spirit of this legislation.
Without pre-empting what the Minister will say, I guess that he will point out that we are talking about very different animals here. Health people are very different from education people and local authorities. I understand that, and that it might cause problems in trying to have that single point of appeal. My preference is to have a single point of appeal so that parents know where they are going and for it to be included in the code of conduct. If that is not possible, is there any way for parents to be supported and guided through the difficult processes? We are all interested in the well-being of the parent and the child or young person. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 181, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I shall also speak to Amendments 182 and 272. To some extent, we are rehearsing today, in these amendments, some of the arguments that we had earlier this week about social care. They concern the fundamental question of how serious the Government are about instigating a new system that is integrated right through from the point of early identification, assessment, provision and appeal.
As the Bill stands, we have integrated assessment, at least in the EHC plans, but we do not have equal accountability in terms of integration of provision because of the social care situation. Here we do not have integration from the very important perspective of parents’ and children’s experience in relation to appeals. Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 181, which would add social care and healthcare provision specified in EHC plans to the First-tier Tribunal as a mechanism of appeal. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister would go beyond what he has already said to us, which is that there are established routes of complaint about social care through local authority complaints procedures and the Local Government Ombudsman, and clear and specific routes of redress within the NHS, its complaints processes and the health ombudsman.
Anybody who has tried to help a family to negotiate those two avenues of appeal will know how complicated they are. In addition, it is very important that, in relation to the substance of the complaint—as opposed to maladministration—they do not end up with an independent adjudication between the views of the complainant and the views of the service provider. The parents in this case would have to, for example, fully exhaust the local authority’s own complaints procedures as a first step; that could take many months. Of course, that adjudication is not independent; it is the local authority adjudicating on the complaint. They can then go to the Local Government Ombudsman, but that person will adjudicate only on the principle of maladministration—that is, on whether the authority has not followed the proper procedure. He will obviously not adjudicate on the substance of the complaint. It is a similar situation in relation to health.
Therefore, if the parent has to negotiate those two systems, it can take a very long time. Many noble Lords will have had a number of pieces of correspondence from Jane Raca, who is a lawyer and author and has a 13 year-old, very disabled son. She outlines the detail of the Local Government Ombudsman procedure and shows that it takes months and sometimes years. I know from my previous constituency experience that that is the case and, furthermore, it does not actually judge independently on the substance of the complaint.
The other important point is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that—by their nature, and this is very welcome—EHC plans are meant to integrate an assessment around social care, health and special educational needs. A severely disabled child is likely to have needs in all three categories, so a parent might have concerns or complaints about all three categories of need. Under the current arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said very clearly, they would be faced with the almost impossible task of appealing through three different systems at once, at the same time as coping with a very disabled child and probably other children in the family. That is just not reasonable. If we came at this through the vision of the parent contemplating that system, it would look impossible. It would defeat many of us, let alone parents coping with very disabled children. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister will take this on board and see this very important and welcome principle of integration right the way through from assessment to appeal.
Our Amendment 182 would oblige the Secretary of State to publish information about special educational needs cases going to the tribunal. We feel it is important to bring much needed transparency into the system and put an end to practices by some, though not all, local authorities, such as systematically taking cases to court, keeping the cost down in the knowledge that many families will not challenge a decision or spend any money on legal fees, in order to avoid having to pay for the provision in the first place—taking the step early of going to appeal, rather than trying to get a local resolution. Whatever the Government decide, it is important that we regularly review which kind of cases are going to the tribunal and their outcomes, and that we have this information published regularly.
Amendment 272 simply ensures that the detail of, and any change to, the provisions in Clause 51(4)—that is, the regulations laid to provide for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal—will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure through statutory instrument. It is right that Parliament should be able to comment on the proposals for appeals that the Government put forward.
Children and Families Bill
Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Storey(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 14 to 17 in my name in relation to Clause 3, which, as we have heard, grants the Secretary of State a new power to direct local authorities to outsource their adopter recruitment services to another local authority or to a registered adoption agency by amending the relevant part of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. We understand that the driver for the Government seeking these powers is to tackle the shortage of people approved to adopt. Certainly, we share this starting point with the Government.
I listened with great interest to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and it is clear that there is deep concern about these provisions and where they might be taking adopter recruitment services in the future. For me, that is the key issue, as I will explain. I have no disagreement in principle with the power for the Secretary of State to intervene in individual underperforming local authorities as in subsection (3)(a) of new Section 3A under Clause 3. As a Minister, I issued many such directions. Indeed, my first point is that there already are substantial powers of intervention, including the ability of the Government to outsource services when local authorities are underperforming. Perhaps the Minister will explain why these powers in subsection (3)(a) are necessary.
However, it is difficult to see how intervening in an individual local authority can solve or address the wider problem of the national shortage of potential adopters, which brings me to the powers under subsection (3)(b) and (3)(c) and where our concerns lie. Those powers would give the Secretary of State the power to remove responsibility for adopter recruitment either from entire categories of local authorities or from all local authorities at a stroke completely.
There are both practical reasons and reasons of principle why those two powers are problematic. First, on the practical reasons, local authorities currently recruit and approve about 80% of adopters. Moving many or all local authorities from this task would seriously compromise the adoption system when there is already an acknowledged shortage of adopters.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, elegantly pointed out, the voluntary and not-for-profit sector has made it clear that it does not have the capacity to take on the recruitment of the numbers of adopters that would be needed. The third reason is very important. Given that local authorities would retain responsibility for the placement of children and for seeing them through to adoption, it seems to me to be wholly undesirable that they should have no stake in the adopter recruitment process. We actually want local authorities to be more willing to use adopters approved by other agencies. This is more likely to happen if local authorities retain some responsibility for recruitment and are still part of the adoption system so there are some strong, practical reasons that I would like the Minister to address.
In discussion with the Minister this week, he said that the problem of adopter shortage was not in any case primarily one of underperformance by individual local authorities. In his view this was system failure at the national level, particularly because of the disincentives for local authorities to recruit more adopters than they need for their own individual populations and the reluctance, as he perceived it, of agencies to work collaboratively. Again, there have been really positive moves in that direction, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, albeit perhaps recently. That might be so: it might be system failure, as the Minister said, and if the Government wish to review adopter recruitment and propose a radically different system, they are of course entirely free to do so. But if the Government wish to come forward with a new system that would take responsibility for adopter recruitment away from local authorities and give it to some new or different kind of agency, I put it to the Minister that they should come to Parliament with those proposals now for wider scrutiny and debate.
My objections to subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) are therefore fundamentally ones of principle. It seems quite wrong to go partway along that path to pave the way for wholesale outsourcing or privatisation of adopter recruitment through the negative resolution procedure set out here without spelling out for Members what the endgame here is. I asked the Minister whether he had a vision of where he would like these services to end up and he said no, he did not. However, I cannot see the point of the power in subsection (3)(c) unless the Government have at least some desire, if not the intention, to move towards providing the recruitment of adopter services in a very different way.
In our view, the powers in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) are a step too far unless the Government set out their further vision. Our Amendment 14 would delete them from the clause. Amendments 15, 16 and 17 would address the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised were the Government to retain the ability simply to intervene in an individual authority by instituting: that it should be by the affirmative resolution procedure; for the Secretary of State to give reasons for direction and to allow the authority to ask for a review; and for the Secretary of State to revoke any direction should he desire so. Amendment 17 would address the point that the direction should be based on the quality or performance of the local authority in providing these services.
With those amendments, this would be a reasonable and proportionate mechanism for the Government to use when they believe a local authority could do much better at adopter recruitment. They would take away the possibility that the Government could slide through an entirely new system on the back of a negative resolution procedure in relation to subsection (3)(c).
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it really is important that we do what is best for the potentially adopted child or young person. If we consider this carefully, we can see where some—I would use the word “some”—local authorities have been very poor in this respect. That is in the amount of time taken, the lack of care and attention to detail and the way things are organised. Quite frankly, that is not good enough but it is a very small proportion of local authorities. As we have heard, 80% of placements are carried out by local authorities, which themselves recognise the need for changes to be made in how some of them operate. Many have been hallmarks of good practice and have been highly praised by the Government and the voluntary sector. So the notion that the Secretary of State is given the power to say that all local authorities should cease placement is concerning to me, and I wonder why it is there.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that this is some plot by the Government to privatise adoption—surely they would not—or push everything to the voluntary sector, because we know that the voluntary sector has said, “No, we don’t want to do that, and even if we did we wouldn’t be able to cope with it”. I am surprised that the noble Baroness would even consider such a daft notion. No, I think that this is about the Government. I well remember David Cameron, our Prime Minister, saying in the early days, “Look, I am concerned at the time that some potential adopters have to wait before all the paperwork and the processes are carried out”, and he was right to say that. This part of this wonderful Bill addresses that issue by saying, “Yes, we need to ensure that the amount of time taken is proportionate”.
Still, the notion that you give the Secretary of State—maybe Michael Gove’s successor in two, three or five years’ time—the power to come along with these draconian powers is quite concerning, and actually not in the best interests of children. I hope that, if we want to ensure changes, the Government will look at how we learn from best practice in local authorities and in the voluntary sector—not all the voluntary sector is perfect in this, of course; we think that because the tag is “voluntary sector”, they must be fantastic, but not all the voluntary sector is. We must learn best practice from the voluntary sector and from local authorities, and constantly lift the bar and learn and disseminate those best practices so that we do what is best for our children and young people.
Education Bill
Debate between Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Lord Storey(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
I want to re-emphasise the importance of parents being aware of the school’s behaviour management policy and I welcome the fact that that duty exists. In that behaviour management policy, it will be an important responsibility of head teachers in schools to indicate the items that pupils should not be carrying on their person.
I also emphasise the dangers of mobile phones in schools—something that I have experienced on a regular basis. The amount of bullying that goes on, and the passing of offensive messages and images, is a real problem no doubt in secondary schools but certainly in primary schools. The fact that schools, parents and pupils—one hopes through the school council—are involved in putting together the behaviour policy and understanding that will be really important for our school system.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I want to explore a little more whether a school ought to be able to search and erase material, as mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord. Should a mobile phone be a proscribed item for every child in the school? If that is what the Government are proposing, I question that approach and hope that the Minister can clarify the issue.
I agree with all noble Lords that bullying is obnoxious and is a form of terrorism towards children and those exposed to it. It is absolutely invidious and needs to be dealt with very strongly indeed. I believe that if a child is using a phone for such a purpose, they will be using it not only in school but more likely outside too. I question an approach that, instead of instilling responsible behaviour towards mobile phones, seems to allow schools to issue a blanket ban on bringing them into school. A more effective approach would be to enable a school to ban the use of a mobile phone by an individual pupil who has shown to be misusing it rather than applying a blanket ban on bringing phones into school. If that is the approach the Government are proposing, I support them. However, I believe that the other approach is dangerous and contrary to the way in which we deal with other kinds of issues. We are allowed to take mobile phones into the Chamber but, I guess, if we started taking pictures of Members opposite we would be banned—and quite rightly so.
I would be grateful if the Minister could, first, say whether the Government’s approach is to allow a school to issue a blanket proscription and, secondly, if that is so, to comment on the points that I have made.