Schools: Parent Governors

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as having been for the past 40 years first a parent governor and subsequently a governor of state schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, we are not abolishing parent governors. I pay tribute to the many thousands of parents who play this vital role, and I expect that many parents will continue to do so. Boards must be free to appoint parents for their skills and expertise to govern in the interests of all pupils. For the first time, all academies will in future be required to engage meaningfully with and listen to all parents.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I recognise that the Government are anxious to establish skills-based governing boards, but does he not recognise how incongruous it is that as the Government are to some extent discouraging parents from sitting on the governing boards of ordinary schools, they are at the same time extolling the role of parents in setting up free schools? Does he not also recognise that many parents like myself started as parent governors and learned through that experience and training the skills of critical analysis and leadership, which allowed them to provide leadership within their communities, often going on later to stand as councillors and perhaps even Members of Parliament?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support on parental engagement in free schools. I agree with the point she has made about people being able to develop their skills. We very much want parents to be involved, and school governing bodies provide an opportunity for them to acquire new skills. That is one of the reasons why many employers encourage their staff, particularly their younger staff, to sit on the governing bodies of schools and academies, and indeed we have an active programme with employers to develop this.

Regional Schools Commissioners

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the importance of parents, who provide absolutely vital feedback. Governing bodies will be free to have many, if not a majority, of governors who are parents, and many will continue to do so. But, as I have said, they must be chosen for their skills.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister explain how these arrangements fit in with the new devolution agenda? In particular, will London and Manchester take over responsibility for the regional schools commissioners?

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Will the Minister clarify one point? I do not have a copy of the Academies Act with me and I have therefore been unable to check it, but my memory of it is that, in effect, where a school fails, it is initially up to the local authority to effect, so to speak, the process of academisation. The Bill changes it so that:

“The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England that is eligible for intervention by virtue of section 61 or 62”.

That means that the Secretary of State is now the person to take action. In effect, the Minister said that local authorities do not have to worry at all about this because the regional schools commissioners will take responsibility for it. They will have to worry about whether there is a good academy chain. I said that it is important to take local issues into account. There are a lot of academy chains that are not performing very well at the moment as well as those that are. It is not preferable to bring in a poor-performing academy chain rather than use a strong local school. The preferable solution is to link up at a local level so that the school has locally available mentors that it can easily talk to. I rather object, in some senses, to the way that the Minister said, “Don’t worry any more because the regional schools commissioners are going to take this problem and they’ll sort it out because all our academy chains are so super”. They are not. The Government recognise that. This is an important amendment. We want a more sympathetic approach to it. As we are in Grand Committee, we cannot vote here, so I shall withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness is right that the key to school improvement is local school-to-school support. I could not agree more. The academy model is now focused on that, so sponsors will either be a local sponsor in the local MAT formed out of a local outstanding school, and we have created several hundred in the past couple of years, or a part of a national MAT with a local hub. That is essential. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Thursday 5th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Nash]

We should discuss this and I am very happy to do that. It is taken into account by Ofsted and will be taken into account by the regional schools commissioners. All good schools have a broad approach because they know how it pays back in academic results. However, in terms of having a metric which is clear and assessable, we believe that our approach is the correct one.

As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was based on practical common sense. As a former chairman of Ofsted, chairman of the Future Leaders Trust and adviser to Ark, she is of course hugely experienced. Her practical experience—instead of theoretical analysis—was extremely helpful. I am grateful for her thoughts and her point that the definitions proposed in the amendments are just too complicated. She also made the point that good schools tend to provide a broad and balanced curriculum anyway. She is right that our new progress data are so much more robust, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said. I am also grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments about RSCs. We will be resourcing them up substantially over the next year, and I will be able to say more about this once the spending review has finished. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. As she said, Ofsted of course takes a lot of these issues into account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, commented on the importance of leadership. Ofsted focuses on this heavily, which is the reason why we reduced the Ofsted categories down to four, one of which is leadership. We focus on that substantially. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also talked about the importance of leadership. I could not agree more. This is the most important issue facing us in schools, and we have an active programme of leadership in our schools. We are currently looking at all our leadership programmes to see whether they are fit for purpose, and have recently introduced a new leadership programme, the Future Leaders Trust MAT CEO course, for chief executives of MATs. We are very focused on making sure that our leadership training is adequate. We have had a lot of sessions with different regional schools commissioners, bringing in the top-performing MATs to explain to the newer MATs how they operate their organisations. There has been a huge amount of sharing of good practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a number of comments. When he mentioned his involvement with TES, I was reminded that I had my first interview with TES last week. I am rather naive on the political front, as you know, and I made the mistake of saying that if we are to have enough schools in future, we would have to get away from the concept that they all had to be on one or two floors. That resulted in a headline—not in the noble Lord’s paper, but in another one—that I was advocating skyscraper schools. That shows how naive I am on these matters; I should stay away from journalists as much as possible.

We will be setting up a competition, called the Knight competition, for renaming RSCs, so that the noble Lord does not get confused with the Royal Shakespeare Company in future. It will apply to grammars, I assure him of that. This definition is very focused on schools that appear to be doing well but are in fact coasting. In fact, some of the original thinking behind this was aimed very much at those apparently high-performing schools. From 2016 onwards, the secondary coasting definition will be based on the new headline accountability measure. Over three years, it will be the only measure that we look at. It is very robust, and will measure the progress of all pupils in the school. That will include a grammar school with a high attaining cohort making less good progress than such pupils should be making.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

The Minister said that the programme is going to be very focused on high-performing schools. Can he tell us how that will be?

[Lord Nash]

If you are a high-performing school with an APS of entry of 30 average pupils, and you are bound to get high GSCEs but they are not really good, then you are not doing your job. That will clearly come out.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

If I may say so, high-performing schools achieve the five A* to C grades perfectly easily and will do the EBacc perfectly easily. It is the progress measure that is going to be absolutely crucial here. What is really required is for more weight to be given to the progress measure than to the performance measure.

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness is completely right. I have not made myself clear. The progress measure comes in for the first time in 2016. The coasting definition is based over three years. Therefore, for the first year that the coasting definition applies, it can only have the progress measure in for one year, which is why we have these interim measures for 2014 and 2015. In 2018, however, it will all be entirely based on three years’ progress—so we will be entirely focused on progress in secondary schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

Will the Minister send the letter round to everybody who has participated in the debate?

[Lord Nash]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, this amendment picks up an issue which we Liberal Democrats have been worried about for some time: accountability for academy trusts and academy chains, and what happens when an academy is put into special measures or, as in this case, fails to make the progress that one would expect over the three-year period.

I know that the Minister will reel off statistics and examples of how good academies are and how much they achieve, but he must admit that, looking at the picture overall, now that we have academies of 10 years’ standing and many of four to five years’ standing, the record is that the probability of an academy not performing as well as we might expect is just as high as for local authority schools, and that the record of local authority intervention in turning around failing schools is just as good as academisation. In its statistics report, his own department shows the same range of performance across academy chains as with local authorities.

I know that the Minister will protest that local authorities do not intervene when they should and that this legislation is a necessary wake-up call to them. But if he is maintaining, as he does, that no child should have to put up with less than a good education for a year or so, it is only right that the principle should apply to academies as much as to local authority schools.

This clause is the mirror image of the one applying to maintained schools at the beginning of this Bill, explaining how the local authority, now the Secretary of State, can give a warning notice to an academy and requires, under new subsection (4B), those in charge of academies to take remedial action, and the local authority or the Secretary of State to do so if the academy fails to take that action. It also requires that the funding agreement should be amended appropriately.

I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on this issue. Now that we have got such a large number of academies, it seems extraordinary that we have to negotiate separate funding agreements with every single one. One of the reasons why we have education Bills and Acts is in order that all schools should obey the same set of regulations. It seems extraordinary that when you have thousands of schools having to obey the same set of regulations, you have to negotiate separate funding agreements. It is about time that the Government made up their mind on what they want to do. We have quite a lot of sympathy with the general principle of this amendment, which is that academies should be treated on a par with maintained schools.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 10 regarding the extension of local authority warning notices to academies. The amendment proposes that academies as well as maintained schools should be subject to performance standards and safety warning notices given by a local authority. They would be able to be given on the same grounds as they can already be given to maintained schools; that is, where pupil standards are unacceptably low and likely to remain so, where there has been a serious breakdown in management or governance that is prejudicing or likely to prejudice standards or performance, or where the safety of staff or pupils is threatened. The amendment provides for academy arrangements to include a duty on academy sponsors to comply with such a warning notice given by the local authority. This would apply retrospectively to academies that are already open.

While I completely understand the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that academies and maintained schools are all subject to a rigorous accountability framework, I can reassure the House that academy trusts are already answerable to regional schools commissioners via a different system based on funding agreements with the Secretary of State which apply the same grounds for action as are set out in this amendment; namely, underperformance, concerns about management or governance, or threats to safety. Academies are run by charitable companies, known as academy trusts, which enter into a contractual relationship with the Secretary of State through the signing of a funding agreement. It is this agreement that governs how an academy will operate and how the Secretary of State will hold it to account for its performance.

I assure the Committee that regional schools commissioners do hold academies to account against the grounds set out in their funding agreements. We have the power, via these funding agreements, to issue formal notices and can and do ultimately terminate funding agreements or bring about a change in sponsorship where the notices are not complied with, as we have done in 100 cases. The vast majority of the over 5,300 open academies and free schools perform well. In the small number where we have concerns, RSCs have already shown they can act quickly to bring about improvements.

Since September 2014 when RSCs first took up post they have issued 58 formal notices to academy and free school trusts, many of which will be based on exactly the same grounds that the noble Lords are proposing additionally to impose via this amendment; that is, 58 formal notices in just over a year, which can be contrasted with 51 local authorities, one-third of all local authorities, which since 2010 have not issued a single warning notice. I am afraid that I do not share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in local authorities in general, although I accept that there are many excellent ones out there.

Our experience of issuing warning notices to academies is that they are highly effective in driving up standards. One good example is Benjamin Adlard Primary School.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

If they are going to apply the same standards to academies, why is that not in the Bill?

[Lord Nash]

As I have said, academies are judged by a contract called a funding agreement, which sets out what the standards are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

If the noble Lord would let me finish, he would understand that these discussions are at a very early stage. We have just issued a draft of the memoranda of understanding and I believe that the churches are considering the detail. I will refer to this in more detail in a minute.

Under paragraphs 3(3), 10(2) and 13(2) of Schedule 6 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, IEBs are already required to comply with the same duties that applied to the previous governing body, which includes any duty to comply with a trust deed. Members of a church or faith school’s IEB are therefore already bound to preserve and develop the school’s religious character. This is the case even where the new powers under Clause 5 of the Bill have been used to direct the local authority to appoint specific IEB members. The first part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary because it is simply restating a requirement that already exists in law.

Additionally, we are currently consulting on the revised Schools Causing Concern guidance, which describes how we propose that the new and strengthened powers in the Bill will work in practice. This includes how we propose IEBs will operate in practice, and it sets out the role and duties of an IEB. To avoid any further doubt on the matter raised in this amendment, we have specified in the guidance:

“Any obligations on the governing body in relation to maintaining the religious ethos of a school will also apply to the IEB”.

The second part of the amendment proposes that RSCs, where they are exercising the Clause 5 power to direct the local authority to alter the make-up of an IEB in a church or faith school, would be required to protect the continued involvement of the relevant diocese or faith body. That would mean that they would have to comply with an existing agreement between the local authority and the diocese about the membership and operation of the IEB. Such agreements between local authorities and dioceses about the membership and operation of IEBs are not required by legislation, nor are they legally binding. It would therefore be inappropriate to require RSCs to comply with such agreements through this amendment.

However, we are currently working with the churches to agree a memorandum of understanding. We are fully committed to agreeing these MoUs; it will enable dioceses and RSCs to work together for the benefit of pupils in church schools. In particular, we want to make sure that, as the draft MoU states:

“Where RSCs wish to exercise their power to establish an IEB to a church school, they must consult the diocese”.

We would expect the consultation to provide an opportunity for the diocese to nominate one or more IEB members and for RSCs to accept the diocese’s nomination, providing they agree that the proposed member has the capacity and skills required to fulfil their role on the IEB.

Where any IEB established by either the local authority or the RSC is established in a church school and the RSC has concerns about the capability of an IEB member to fulfil the role, the diocese will be asked if it wishes to nominate a replacement IEB member. Our expectation is that RSCs will accept such a nomination, provided they agree with the diocese’s assessment that the individual has the capacity and skills required to fulfil their role on the IEB.

Furthermore, the purpose of the power in Clause 5 is to enable the RSCs to intervene swiftly where they are not convinced that the IEB constituted by the local authority will secure necessary improvements in the school. Accepting the amendment proposed here would require RSCs to endorse an IEB whether they had confidence in it or not. That would undermine the purpose of the clause and may prevent RSCs from acting decisively to address underperformance.

In view of what I have said about making sure that we preserve the faith status of any church schools—which we are absolutely determined to ensure, and I am sure that we will be able to satisfy the churches on this—I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving these assurances. I was fairly confident that in fact they would be in discussion with the churches about these issues and that some system would be found to relieve their fears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Higher Education: Part-time and Mature Students

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reverse the decline in the number of part-time and mature students at higher education institutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, the decline in part-time and mature students partly reflects dramatic improvements in the job market and the strength of our Government’s long-term economic plan. However, we are committed to helping those who wish to enter higher education. That is why for the first time we have made available non means-tested loans to cover part-time tuition fees. We are also investing in higher level apprenticeships, with 13,200 new starts in the nine months to April this year, compared with just 2,200 in 2010-11.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, part-time education has traditionally been the route by which those in work have been able to upgrade their skills. We have seen this enormous drop of 55% in the number of part-time students—143,000 people dropping out of part-time education over the last four years since 2010-11. Given that we have an ageing population whom we expect to work ever longer hours, and that, as the CBI reports, there are already skill shortages, does the Minister agree that it is vital for us to retain this route whereby people can upgrade their skills—it is a far more flexible means than apprenticeships—and play a useful part in the economy?

[Lord Nash]

I agree that we are very keen to stimulate this sector and that is why we have introduced the loan scheme to which I referred. We had a very weak economy, which resulted in a number of employers not funding these schemes. We then had a dramatic turnaround and recovery in the economy, with the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in the private sector, which obviously has had an impact on people deciding what they want to do and what employers will fund. Of course, over 80% of students in part-time education are in work. We are very keen to stimulate demand in the sector. We have written to key players in the sector asking for their thoughts, and we are extremely open to ideas.

Schools: Local Oversight

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments. The overwhelming success of the programme is unarguable. Some 24% of free schools are rated outstanding, which makes them by far our highest performing group of schools; converter academies are far more likely to retain or increase their Ofsted rating at the next inspection; and sponsored academies are increasing their performance at a rate approximately twice that of other schools.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

Can the Minister please tell the House what are the responsibilities of the members of the local governing board when the academy chain has trustees who appoint the head?

Education: Vocational Education

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for that question. We are looking closely at the attainment targets for FE colleges and we will be focusing, with Ofsted, much more closely on this.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that high-quality careers education and properly trained careers advisers are necessary so that young people in schools know the full range of opportunities available to them from vocational education?

[Lord Nash]

I agree that they are extremely helpful, but my noble friend will have heard me say before that the technology has moved on from the careers adviser being the gold standard. The gold standard must be the active involvement of all schools with business so that all their pupils have a clear, direct line of sight to the workplace.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. Earlier today we rejected the notion of minimum standards being laid down for local authorities but we made it very clear in that debate that this was a matter for local authorities and that we wanted to see them use their discretion and compete with each other to provide high-quality services for those with special educational needs. Equally, in discussing the local offer, we were concerned not just with those classed as having special educational needs but with the wider community of children who have special educational needs. That is a very large number of children, as has been mentioned already. Some 1.4 million children fall into that category and are served by their schools but depend very much at the moment on local authority services to supplement what the school SENCOs and the school staff can provide.

There is enormous variation between what local authorities do in this regard. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I believe I am right in saying that Ofsted currently inspects children’s services within local authorities. In so far as it is inspecting children’s services, including protection services, it would not be so difficult for it to take account also of the special educational needs services provided by local authorities. It seems to me that this is not an impossible situation and that the point that the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Howe, made on accountability, and the need for it, is very important.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for tabling the amendment. Earlier today we discussed the government amendment to Clause 30(6) to strengthen transparency and accountability for the local offer. Local authorities must publish comments from disabled children and young people, those with SEN and the parents of such children, about the local offer, including the quality of the provision available and about any provision that is not available in their area. We make clear in the draft SEN code that when local authorities publish their response to comments this includes the action local authorities propose to take. Amendment 33C makes this explicit in the Bill. Local authorities cannot simply publish their response to comments but then ignore them. They must say what action they intend to take. As with every other part of the development of the local offer, children, young people and parents will be involved in discussions with local authorities about the action they propose to take.

When we debated the local offer, I emphasised that we are not yet clear about whether inspection is necessarily the best way to encourage a good local offer. I hope that the confirmation that we have asked Ofsted to deliver a study to identify best practice in preparing for the SEN reforms, and consider particularly whether there is a need for an inspection framework to drive improvements, is reassuring. It has been asked to deliver the study this summer, not next spring. I hope, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, is reassured that the study will include local authority specialist services supporting children and young people with special educational needs and those who are disabled, and say how Ofsted intends to monitor those services. The study will focus on the extent to which local areas ensure that children and young people with SEN and those who are disabled are identified and their needs met. It will look for improved outcomes and the satisfaction of parents and young people. It will establish a baseline from which to evaluate progress in implementing the reforms; provide guidance to local authorities about the development of effective practice and advice about aspects requiring further development; and consider how, if required, effective accountability could take place.

The study will consider how local authorities identify and assess social care needs and ensure that those needs are met, look at how local authorities will work with clinical commissioning groups to identify and commission the range and sufficiency of specialist services required to support the needs of children with and without EHC plans, and evaluate the effectiveness of these services. The study will also consider arrangements for personal budgets, transition to EHC plans and how school and college inspection and other inspection activity could provide ongoing information about the effectiveness of the local area’s arrangements.

This is a comprehensive study. Should Ofsted recommend that an inspection framework is needed we would, of course, take that very seriously. If it does not make such a recommendation, we will consider what further action is necessary. I should make it clear that we have not ruled out inspection by Ofsted of local authority support services.

In terms of accountability, schools are ultimately responsible for the progress of all pupils where additional support is needed. Schools should use their best endeavours to ensure that those needs are met. The Ofsted inspection framework introduced in September 2012 places a clear emphasis on meeting the needs of disabled pupils and those with SEN. Inspectors must consider the quality of teaching and the progress made by these pupils. Where a school has a specialist resource base or integrated unit, these are covered as part of the inspection. Ofsted also inspects special schools, which provide support for sensory impaired children and others who may currently have a statement of SEN. This means that any deaf child in a mainstream or specialist school would have their education inspected as part of the Ofsted Section 5 framework. I want to stress that the SEN reforms will provide legal protections for families wanting to challenge councils through their involvement in determining local provisions. Not only do the SEN reforms in the Bill provide legal protections, they will also establish a better system for identifying need and commissioning services across education, health and social care to ensure that services provided match local needs as accurately as possible and so that families do not have to battle to get those services.

Of course, the success of the reforms will depend on changing culture and practice locally. We cannot just pass this Bill, walk away and hope that things happen. I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about ensuring that local authorities perform. That is why my department is monitoring closely the readiness of local areas to implement these reforms in preparation for September 2014. There is already a package of support for implementation delivered and co-ordinated by our strategic delivery partners—the Council for Disabled Children and pathfinder champion lead via the pathfinder support team at Mott MacDonald. The Minister for Children and Families has written to all chief executives of local authorities and clinical commissioning groups about the reforms. We will be monitoring local authorities’ progress in implementing the reforms from September 2014. We will consider what further steps may be needed in the light of this information and the findings of the study being conducted by Ofsted into local authority practice in preparing for and taking forward these reforms. I will certainly ensure that we look at the prior art to which the noble Lord referred and that we take seriously the whole issue of ensuring that delivery happens on the ground.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords about the measures that we have taken to improve transparency and accountability for the local offer. I also hope that what I have said about the Ofsted study and the approach we will take to monitoring the implementation of the reforms in some way reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, that we will consider the issue of inspection carefully once we have the findings from that study, and I urge her to withdraw her amendment.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 206, 207 and 208 and I will just say a few words about both sets of amendments. In relation to Amendment 206, the current draft code of practice is actually written in fairly good, plain English, as far as I am concerned, and is relatively understandable. I commend those who put it together because it is a very good document and meets many of the comments that I know were made at an earlier stage. It is still subject to consultation and obviously there is still room for improvement.

In relation to Amendments 207 and 208, I will just endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. Rather than there just being consultation with those whom the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, the code should be publicly available for consultation. That is something on which we would all put a lot of emphasis.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the SEN code of practice for 0 to 25 year-olds. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Sharp for tabling these amendments and raising this important matter. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened carefully, and it is important that we ensure that there is a good understanding of and confidence in the code of practice. It is vital to the success of the new system. I hope I can reassure noble Lords in my response.

Turning first to Amendment 206 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are in complete agreement with the intention behind it. I think all noble Lords would agree that if the new code of practice is going to be a useful document and one which parents, young people and professionals can work with it needs to communicate its meaning clearly and be readily available. While any document which has to describe the law accurately may contain some text which has to be read twice, the department has striven to make the draft code as easy to read as possible.

We trust that we have abided by the principles of plain English as much as possible, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for her comments, which I will pass on to all officials who have been involved in its drafting. However the draft code is currently out to consultation, and we are keen to receive suggestions for making any parts of the text easier to understand and will look carefully at any text which readers say they find difficult. Noble Lords may be aware that the current code of practice is accompanied by a Plain English Campaign Crystal Mark publication Special Educational Needs (SEN)- A Guide for Parents and Carers. We intend to publish a similar document for parents and young people along with the new SEN code of practice.

Turning to the second element of this amendment regarding the availability of the code on the internet, publication on the internet is now the department’s main method of publication, and I can reassure noble Lords that the new code will be available on the internet. We will also make sure that the code, like the consultation draft, is published in a web-accessible format, so that, for example, readers with visual impairments will have access to it.

I now turn to Amendments 207, 208 and 209 which relate to Clause 68, which is headed,

“Making and Approval of Code”.

The SEN code of practice is fundamental to the SEN framework and the noble Lord, Lord Low, is right to raise the issue of its approval, an issue which I know is of great importance to SEN organisations and many noble Lords. As noble Lords will be aware, ahead of the introduction of this Bill into the other place, the Education Select Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on Part 3. One of the recommendations of the committee was that the code should be approved by Parliament through the negative procedure. We were in agreement, fully recognising the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the code of practice, and we accepted the Select Committee’s recommendation. Indeed, we are now going further in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have tabled Amendments 210 and 211 to ensure that on the first occasion the new code is approved, it will be through the affirmative procedure, and for subsequent revisions, it will be through the negative procedure, recognising the significance of the new code in reflecting the new legal framework we have been debating.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Monday 4th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 164 and I endorse what has been said on this issue by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Hughes and Lady Howarth. The aim of the Bill is to create not just a special educational needs statement but something that embraces health and social care as well. It is absolutely right that we should put social care on a par with health. Clause 42(3) states:

“If a plan specifies health care provision, the responsible commissioning body must arrange the specified health care provision for the child or young person”.

The other place insisted that this subsection should be included, so it seems right that social care should be put on a par with healthcare and education in the Bill.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I would like to respond to this group of amendments regarding the placing of a legal requirement on local authorities to secure the social care provision specified in EHC plans. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue and I understand the desire to ensure that our most vulnerable children and young people receive the support that they need and are able to seek redress where necessary. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Sharp and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Hughes and Lady Howarth, for speaking on this matter. However, as my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families noted in the other place, there are already important protections for children and young people aged under 18 in the existing legislative framework for social care support. That is provided in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and for disabled children under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Both these Acts will still apply alongside the measures being introduced in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their interruptions. As I said in my letter—and will now elaborate on a little—the reason is that we do not wish to imbalance the system so that giving children EHC plans results in deprioritising other children, given a climate of limited resources, which we all know —I hope—that we live in.

It is expected that any social care service specified in the EHC plan will be provided. We do not want to create a situation where local authorities specify only a bare minimum of services, because they cannot know the precise resource constraints that may apply in the future.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill places a duty on health commissioners—taking the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—to deliver the health elements of an EHC plan. As part of the SEN reforms, the Government have agreed to take specific action to protect children and young people with EHC plans within the newly reformed NHS. The education and health services are universal and it makes sense that there should be equivalent duties to provide the services in EHC plans. On the other hand, social care support for children in need is targeted only at those with greater needs, of whom disabled children form a significant proportion. As I said in my letter, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, referred:

“There is a greater risk that an individually owned social care duty for children with EHC plans will adversely affect other vulnerable children whose needs could be deprioritised, such as those needing child protection services or young carers”.

Social workers must be free to consider family, educational, social and environmental circumstances and local eligibility criteria when determining which services to provide. Local authorities with finite resources must be able to prioritise appropriately those children and young people with the greatest needs, whether or not they are disabled or have SEN.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. The amendments concerned say that it is where the plan specifies social care; it is not an open sesame to any sort of social care. If what is specified can be overruled anyhow, what is the point of having a plan that specifies it?

[Lord Nash]

As I have said, there are very significant duties around disabled children. The plan is not intended to affect that. Amendments 162, 163 and 164 would prevent such local decision-making, to which I have just referred, creating an individually owed duty prioritising the social care needs of children with SEN over the social care needs of other children in need.

Similarly, Amendments 143 and 144A should not stand. Social care provision is defined deliberately broadly in the Bill. Clause 21(4) includes any provision required under the Children Act 1989 or the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and therefore will be included in the design of the local offer. It is only where that provision is reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability of a child or young person that it will have to be included in the EHC plan.

Amendments 143 and 144A would require any services provided under the 1970 Act to be included in the EHC plan. However, the vast majority of services for disabled children that are provided under the 1970 Act will be reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability of the child and therefore must be included in the EHC plan anyway.

On Amendment 143, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are not convinced that there should be a requirement that all services provided under Section 2 of the 1970 Act must be included in EHC plans regardless of individual circumstances. EHC plans are for children and young people with learning difficulties or a disability that gives rise to special educational needs. Where this also gives rise to health and care needs, that must be included in plans so that a co-ordinated approach can be taken across services. Where there are unrelated health or social care needs, it may or may not be appropriate to also include them in an EHC plan, for example, depending on whether the child or young person would benefit from a co-ordinated service response. I believe that those decisions should be left to local professionals, in full consultation with children, their parents and young people.

At the same time, Amendment 144A would remove the important discretion the Bill gives to the local authority to decide whether provision made under Section 17 of the Children Act should be included in the plan, where it is unrelated to the child or young person’s learning difficulty or disability. This discretion is essential as there may be circumstances where the children’s interests that we are trying to meet require that we do not bind the hands of local services in this respect—for example, where there is provision related to child protection, which is highly sensitive and is not always appropriate to include in an EHC plan. Whether or not social care provision is linked to the learning difficulty or disability of the child or young person, it will continue to be provided in accordance with existing legislation.

Concerning my noble friend Lady Gardner’s point about there being a possible gap between adult and children’s social care, I reassure her that young people aged 18 and over who are eligible for adult social care will, under provisions set out in the Care Bill, have a statutory care plan. For young people with SEN, our intention is that this should form the care element of the EHC plan. Both Bills contain provisions that will significantly improve the transition between children’s and adult social care. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I think I will have to respond to the noble Baroness in more detail. I think the top and bottom of her point is that we will try to do it in the timescale, but I understand that that may not be possible. I will come back to her on this.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reassurances, about the role that school or college principals might play when direct payments are proposed and it is not necessarily in the interests of either the child or economy and efficiency to proceed along that route, and that the process of decision-making will be an explicit one.

I am also glad to have the assurance that, when decisions are made, they will take account of the pathfinders and that the process will not be put into effect until the full evaluation has been made. I welcome government Amendment 269 implementing the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee relating to the positive agreement of the House that we should go forward with this. In the light of this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I am sorry about that, too. While I am on my feet, I should say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the other amendments in this group. In particular, I sympathise with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Low. In some ways, my preference would be for Amendment 124 because it seems to me that there are occasions when perhaps a special school is appropriate. The wording of Amendment 124 makes it absolutely clear that, when it is in the interests of,

“the specific needs of the child or young person”,

this might be the case. That is why I think that that amendment has some merit. I also very much support the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, concerning the Equality Act. I think that it is very important that we make it quite clear that this Bill in no sense overrides the responsibilities of local authorities under the Equality Act.

[Lord Nash]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments on inclusive provision. This is the second debate that we have had on the principle of inclusion. Today’s debate has focused on how decisions are made about where individual children and young people with EHC plans are taught. As I said in responding to our earlier debate, our aim with this Bill is to build on what has gone before and to create a new framework that improves both support for children and young people so that they achieve better outcomes and choice for parents and young people.

I will take Amendments 123A and 124, from the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, together, as they both relate to the factors that local authorities should take into account when naming an education setting in a child or young person’s EHC plan, where no request has been made for a particular institution or the parent or young person’s request for one has not been met. The statutory provisions in the Bill are designed to ensure that a mainstream place is considered thoroughly and properly, recognising that, with the right support, children and young people with special educational needs are successfully supported in mainstream settings. They also recognise that there will be occasions where a child’s inclusion in a mainstream setting would significantly impact on the education of others, whose interests should also be safeguarded. This could occur, for example, when the extremely challenging and disruptive behaviour of a child or young person could not be managed. The provision for local authorities to consider the efficient education of others is important in this respect.

I understand concerns about this condition being used indiscriminately. Clause 33(3) and (4) guard against this. A local authority can only rely on it if there are no reasonable steps that could be taken to prevent the placement of the child or young person being incompatible with the efficient education of others. In section 7.11 of the draft SEN code of practice, we set out a number of examples of reasonable steps that can be taken to support inclusion. I believe that provision on meeting the specific needs of the child should not be the preserve of a single clause. It is at the heart of Part 3 and is reflected in Clause 19 on general principles, Clause 36 on assessments and EHC plans, Clause 42 on duties to secure provision in EHC plans and Clause 62 on the duty on schools to use their best endeavours to meet children’s needs.

Regarding the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Low, that the Bill gives FE colleges a get-out clause by allowing them to refuse entry to disabled students that they previously would have accepted in line with their duties under the Equality Act, I can assure noble Lords that the Equality Act 2010 will continue to apply in full to colleges, and that they must continue to make reasonable adjustments to support the participation of disabled young people. Nothing in this Bill overrides these very important duties imposed by the Equality Act.

We believe that the principle behind Clause 33 is the right one. Young people with EHC plans should have the right to be educated in a mainstream setting if that is what they want. This Bill, for the first time, gives young people the right to say where they want to study, by requesting that a particular school or college is named in their EHC plan.

I understand the motivation for Amendments 124A and 126A from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. During our helpful debate on disabled children and young people last Wednesday, I made it clear that we had drawn attention to the Equality Act duties in the SEN code of practice, in Chapters 1 and 6, and referred to other relevant guidance on those duties. We recognise the importance of making appropriate links between SEN and the Equality Act duties in the code of practice, and in last Wednesday’s debate I undertook to look again at the scope for improving the draft code of practice on this. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

Schools: Careers Guidance

Debate between Baroness Sharp of Guildford and Lord Nash

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

It will take me a second just to make that transition. We are focused on making sure that more of our pupils leave school with a good education. It is fair to say that the figures on NEETs have gone down in the past quarter for the first time in 10 years. But the advice I would give such a person is to seek some good careers advice from a qualified person.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

Is the Minister aware that in a survey conducted by Edge a year or so ago, it was revealed that teachers knew less about apprenticeships than either parents or pupils? Many schools are not providing decent advice about the range of options open to young people. How can careers advice, which is supposed to be independent, be given by schools when the teachers know nothing at all about these options?

[Lord Nash]

We do not expect teachers to be widely experienced on individual careers. That is why the duty is for them to seek independent advice. All good schools should involve their local business and professional communities from an early stage in their children’s education to give them the broad experience of the careers options open to them.