Children and Families Bill

Debate between Lord Lingfield and Baroness Sharp of Guildford

Monday 4th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Lingfield]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which is to Clause 37(5). It is to provide a standard form of education, health and care plan rather than use the more discretionary wording of the Bill. At the moment—and this touches on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, concerning passports for special educational needs—statements are in a standard form. If there is no similar standard form for education, health and care plans they will surely be subject to each local authority’s drafting preferences. As a result, EHC plans may not be in a consistent format and may vary widely in their level of detail. This could cause confusion and difficulty for parents and young people, especially if they move from one local authority to another. Relocation of this kind, under current economic circumstances, is becoming extremely common.

Your Lordships will have noticed, in relation to Clause 30, and the local offer, that there are strong arguments for a consistent national framework for the key tenets of the new system of assessment and provision brought in by the Bill. In addition—as the Minister reminded us when we debated Amendment 71—in his appearance before the Education Select Committee on 6 November last year my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families stated:

“The first thing I want to be absolutely clear about is that the current protections that parents and young people have in the current statementing system are intended to be carried forward into the new system”.

In the spirit of this, and as I sought to express in this amendment, I believe that these key duties relating to statements should remain the same for EHC plans, and that, in particular, the requirement for a standard form, and the duty to be specific about provision, should remain. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, my name is added to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for Amendment 147 and I endorse what she has said on this issue. Statements for special educational needs require an educational psychologist to endorse them and it is obviously sensible and important that this should be extended to the post-18 age group. I probably also should have put my name to Amendment 168 because the argument there is just as cogent and important.

While I am on my feet, I should say that I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. As he said, as we have a set format for statements of special educational needs, it would seem sensible for it to be carried forward in relation to the EHC plans.

Education Bill

Debate between Lord Lingfield and Baroness Sharp of Guildford

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

Amendments 56A and 56B are in my name and both are amendments to Amendment 56. I tabled them because we, and I suspect other noble Lords, have received a fair amount of correspondence about this provision. Two issues arise from it. One, which is the subject of my amendments, relates to a very narrow issue—the 10 per cent of turnover to which the fine should be related and the question of whether that is the total turnover of the organisation or just that part of the organisation’s turnover that relates to its United Kingdom activities. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have effectively accepted these amendments, and I gather that the turnover will relate only to United Kingdom activities.

The other issue goes somewhat wider and relates to the whole process of consultation that took place. I understand that, as the Minister explained, the Government were anxious to get these powers on to the statute book because Ofqual had the choice of only either a fairly gentle reprimand or the nuclear option of withdrawing recognition of the examining board, and it wanted a further range of sanctions to apply, as is the case with other regulators. However, it is very unfortunate that the period of consultation was reduced to as little as 10 days and that the examination boards did not have a chance to respond to these proposals as fully as they would have liked. It is also unfortunate that a wider consultation with other people affected by the knock-on effects of this provision did not take place. Some of them may also have received a letter from the ASCL pointing out that a fine imposed on the examining boards is quite likely to be passed on to the schools, which pay considerable fees for their pupils to sit these examinations.

I recognise that we do not want our examining boards to make the serious errors in examinations that occurred this summer and that sanctions of some sort are not a bad idea. Nevertheless, the fact remains that an inquiry was set up to examine those errors and it is not going to report until the end of the year. Normally, one would expect to see some action taken after the inquiry reports, and I therefore ask the Minister whether it was really necessary to act as quickly as he did. Furthermore, I hope that full consultation will now take place with the examination boards. As the Government put flesh on the bones of the sanctions in this amendment, I hope that they will have proper discussions and consultations with all those concerned about how the sanctions should be imposed and implemented. This is not good practice and I hope that the coalition Government will not continue with the rapid pursuit of issues in the same way.

[Lord Lingfield]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that, following my remarks, these clauses are to be inserted.

It is worth reminding noble Lords of the unedifying accounts in the newspapers a short time ago, when we saw complaints from parents, teachers and schools. A printing mistake by the AQA board led to some schools receiving GCSE maths papers, taken by 32,000 pupils, which included questions from a previous version of the examination. The OCR maths AS-level paper, with nearly 7,000 candidates, featured an impossible question worth a whole 11 per cent of the marks. OCR’s Latin paper mixed up a passage by Cicero and attributed it to Tacitus, and two characters were mixed up. Edexcel’s AS-level biology paper offered a selection of wrong answers to a multiple choice question, but the correct answer was not included. The OCR guide issued to staff marking the AS-level information communication and technology paper contained four errors—staff were required to mark down students who gave the correct answer. AQA’s AS-level business studies examination, taken by 41,000 students, asked about a fictitious company’s factory profits, but the adjoining profile information failed to show the profits, making the question completely unanswerable. Of course, there were other examples in earlier years. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who is in his place, carried out, as I am sure he will mention, a review that suggested that QCA was responsible for massive failures resulting in tens of thousands of children getting their SATs results late.

That is why I support these extra powers for Ofqual boards. I believe the penalties that are outlined seem a fair and useful way ahead, with the appropriate safeguards of notice and appeal that the Bill sets out. I hope that noble Lords will support them and they will lead to a diminution in the angst and difficulty caused earlier this year to pupils, parents and teachers after the examinations.