Mr.
Gibb: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate the post of Her
Majesty’s chief inspector being a life appointment? If he does
not, could it not also be argued that the chief inspector is a here
today, gone tomorrow
official?
Mr.
Laws: It might be, were it not for the fact that, as we
have seen in the debates on Ofqual and the Qualifications and
Curriculum Development Agency, we would wish to ensure that there was a
much more independent oversight and appointment process for individuals
who are given such important roles. Sadly, the Government have rejected
many of those proposals that would ensure that those important
officials have a reporting, accountability and appointment line that is
not simply down to the Secretary of State of the day. The hon.
Gentleman raises an important issue, but there is a way round
that.
I am
disappointed in the Minister’s response, but I shall mull this
issue over to consider whether we should bring back another amendment
at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 192
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
193 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
14Powers
in relation to schools causing concern:
wales 11.45
pm
Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 426, in
schedule 14, page 218, line 18, leave
out paragraph 4. This
amendment reverses a restriction the Bill would have imposed in
relation to some Welsh voluntary aided schools that were causing
concern. The restriction would have prevented the diocesan or other
appropriate authority from appointing additional governors if the local
education authority and Welsh Ministers had both already done
so. The
amendment simply reverses a restriction that the Bill would have
imposed in relation to some Welsh voluntary aided schools that were
causing concern. The restriction would have prevented the diocesan or
other appropriate authority from appointing additional governors if the
LEA and Welsh Ministers had both already done so. I hope that it is
straightforward enough for the Committee to
support. Amendment
426 agreed to.
Schedule
14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause
194Complaints
to which this chapter
applies
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 194,
page 111, line 35, at end
insert— ‘(2A) The Secretary
of State shall issue guidance as to which of the powers and duties of a
head teacher shall be regarded as “prescribed functions”
for the purposes of subsection
(2).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 73, in clause 194, page 111,
line 37, at end
insert— ‘(aa) a decision
relating to the disciplining of a pupil or any other matter relating to
pupil behaviour or the enforcement of the published rules of the
school;’. Amendment
74, in
clause 194, page 111, line 37, at
end insert— ‘(aa) a decision
about whether to suspend or exclude permanently a
pupil;’.
Mr.
Gibb: The clause is important. It gives parents and pupils
the right to complain against a school when they believe they have
suffered an injustice because of the actions or omissions, as it says
in the explanatory notes, of the governing body or the head teacher
exercising, or failing to exercise, certain specified functions.
Amendment 72 would require the Secretary of Sate to issue
guidance setting out precisely which powers, duties or functions of the
head teacher would be regarded as
prescribed functions—those that the parent or pupil could
complain about to the local government
ombudsman. The
decision to create a new system for school complaints has not been
greeted universally with acclaim. The Association of School and College
Leaders said in its briefing to members of the
Committee: “The
complaints service proposed has the potential to be expensive,
bureaucratic and, as it will have an interest in justifying its own
existence, may be liable to increase rather than diminish whatever
problems there may
be.” It
went on to
say: “We
are also extremely concerned that the effect of formalising the
complaints system, in the way set out, has the potential to make
schools more defensive thus fundamentally altering the home/school
relationship. Even for concerns that initially appear minor, in order
to protect themselves, schools will start recording all conversations
and parental concerns and logging them with senior staff...Any
increase in administrative time spent by teachers...will result in
a reduction in available teaching
time.” In
a similar vein, the NUT has also expressed its concern to the
Committee,
saying: “There
is concern among teachers and head teachers that this provision is at
best unnecessary and at worst may further complicate existing
complaints structures.”
NASUWT expressed
scepticism and pointed out a number of potential problems with the
system. It is not convinced that a complaints procedure of this nature
is necessary. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to the
concerns of all those trade unions that have expressed their view. Will
the new procedure result in schools becoming more defensive and
cautious, perhaps by setting up a rather bureaucratic system to log
complaints and
concerns?
Mr.
Laws: The hon. Gentleman is putting very forcefully the
comments made by the NUT and the ASCL. Does he believe that this local
complaints commissioner is unnecessary, and would he have a preference
for another
solution?
Mr.
Gibb: I am not unconvinced that it might work. It might be
a good system to enable parents to have more say over a school. I have
cases in my own constituency where parents have complained to the head
teacher at a school and have taken their complaint to a school governor
and have received no satisfaction. Then they have come to me and I have
written to the director of education or of children’s services
and nothing has happened. I have then referred the complaint to Ofsted
and, again, nothing has
happened.
Mr.
Laws: On what areas has the hon. Gentleman received
complaints? On what type of issues did he not get
satisfaction?
Mr.
Gibb: I have a particular incident in mind. I will
not name the school, but a parent had been concerned over a number of
years about the amount of homework being given to her daughter. She was
complaining that it was not enough and that the daughter did not
receive any homework in some subjects, which did not comply with the
homework documents that she had received from the school. She
experienced that problem over a period of years and received no
redress. I do not know
whether this provision will ensure that such complaints are dealt with
effectively, which is why I am asking such questions. I want to ensure
that the system does not become defensive and bureaucratic. It must be
able to deal with the genuine concerns of parents, if those concerns
are not being met. Our education system must be much more responsive to
parents’ desires about the quality of education that their
children receive.
Does the
Minister expect the change to result in an increase in the number of
complaints, or does he believe that the overall total will remain the
same? Amendment 72 requires the Secretary of State to
specify which powers and functions of a head teacher would fall within
the scope of a new complaint system.
The ASCL has
asked for clarification on whether prescribed functions mean functions
prescribed directly in legislation, or powers given to head teachers by
virtue of other legislation. It says that if it were to be interpreted
as the latter, it could have most unfortunate results. In its briefing,
it cites an
example: “schools
have a power (but not a duty) to act on poor behaviour away from the
school site. However, if school staff take up this power, for example
by patrolling an area away from the school and disciplining pupils who
misbehave a school could be seen as assuming a duty of care to prevent
all misbehaviour and bullying in the patrolled area. The school could
then potentially become liable in tort if something happened, that
could be shown to be foreseeable, to one of its pupils in the area even
though the school has no power to give orders to pupils unless they are
either on the school site or under the lawful control of the
school.” It
would be very helpful if the Minister could address that very specific
example. Amendment
73 relates to complaints about the disciplining of pupils, pupil
behaviour and the enforcement of published school rules, and proposes
that such matters should be specifically excluded from the remit of the
complaints procedure. As it stands, the Bill only takes out of the
procedure issues about admissions decisions and matters about which the
complainant already has a prescribed right of appeal, but there is a
strong case for taking out behaviour issues.
Amendment 74
would exclude decisions about temporary and permanent exclusions from
the remit of the complaints procedure. Both amendments are important.
There is a growing sense that poor behaviour among pupils is a very
serious problem in our schools that has significant implications for
the wider success of the education system. Poor behaviour undermines
the education of pupils and impacts on the quality of their school
life. It is a major cause of stress for teachers and school staff. If
pupils are poorly behaved, teachers are forced to spend more of their
time on crowd control rather than teaching, and that causes some to
leave the
profession. A
survey in March 2008 by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers found
that nearly a third of all teachers— 29 per
cent.—had been punched, kicked or bitten by pupils. Nearly one
in 10 teachers said that they had been injured by an aggressive or
violent pupil, and two thirds of teachers had considered leaving the
profession.
Mr.
Laws: I have a lot of sympathy with all of these
amendments. None the less, amendment 74 would exclude from the process
permanently excluded pupils. Is not that already one of the exempt
areas in relation to complaints?
Mr.
Gibb: Page 106 of the explanatory notes says that
permanent exclusions will be outside the remit of the local government
ombudsman. It is important to include temporary exclusions, which is
why the amendment is worded in such a way. Such matters of discipline
and management should be left to the school. If teachers expect that
they will have to justify themselves on such matters before an
ombudsman, they are likely to resort to recording the process in ever
greater detail, which may even serve as a deterrent to schools taking
action that they would otherwise take. Therefore, in our opinion, the
Bill should be amended to ensure that the ombudsman’s powers are
not extended to this area.
Actually,
that is also the view of the ASCL, which is concerned about the system
of independent appeals panels. It is the Conservative party’s
policy to abolish them—they have provided a huge disincentive to
head teachers to expel or exclude pupils permanently because of fear of
the stress and expense of having to go through the independent appeals
process. The
ASCL says that it is
imperative “that
the local commissioner will not be able to substitute
his...judgment for that of the
school”. It
also says that without that, and without a means of enforcing it, we
may see a rising tide of complaints as parents seek another roll of the
dice when trying to obtain what they want. That has been the experience
of independent appeals panels for exclusions and omissions. In
particular, there is a real danger that this well-meaning provision
will significantly undermine schools’ capacity to maintain good
order and discipline. We agree with the ASCL that anything to do with
behaviour and discipline, whether or not there is already a prescribed
right of appeal on it, should be taken out of the Bill, which is the
purpose of amendments 73 and 74.
Mr.
Laws: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I seek
your guidance on when you want me to make my main speech on this aspect
of the Bill, in the hope of a courteous
response.
The
Chairman: We will have a stand part debate on the clause,
so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak to this group of amendments,
he can do so, or he can wait for that
debate.
Mr.
Laws: I know that you will stop me if I get this wrong,
Mr. Chope. Our concerns underlying clauses 194 and 195 are
similar and they would complement the discussion on amendments 72 to
74. With your permission, I will speak to the amendments now and not
repeat myself when we discuss clause 195 or during any stand part
debate on clause 194.
Our attitude
to this part of the Bill is one of deep scepticism. The hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made the point very effectively that
parents in our constituencies want to ensure that when they have
complaints about a school, they have some mechanism for getting them
heard. Of course, at the moment, there is a mechanism in any school to
discuss issues with a head teacher. A discussion that probably began
with the classroom teacher can be escalated to include the head teacher
and the governing body. Frequently, in my experience, it will be
escalated to the local authority. At that point, it can be
escalated finally to the Secretary of State.
I understand
why the Minister and his colleagues want to remove the right of appeal
to the Secretary of State, because it seems somewhat excessive. I am
not sure whether we obtained from the Minister in the evidence session
an idea of how many of the complaints that the Secretary of State
receives are investigated rather than simply dismissed as things for
which he does not have responsibility. It would also be interesting and
useful to know how many of those complaints have been upheld. Will the
Minister—now or in the future—tell the Committee how many
complaints have been received in the past three years, how many of
those were investigated, and how many were
upheld? My
impression is that the types of complaint that are likely to work their
way up to the Secretary of State will often be vexatious, although I
will not address that issue now as we have amendments that specifically
deal with that. My impression is that many of the complaints tend to be
issues that will not be pursued and that probably reflect a frustration
with the decisions that were originally made. I am horrified, as are
the ASCL and the NUT, by the thought that in many of the areas
described so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, there could be the process of appeal not only to a head
teacher, but to a governing body, potentially to a local authority and
then to this ombudsman function.
12
midnight The
Committee will know—in some senses this is a commendable
thing—just how rigorous and detailed the ombudsmen process is,
and how expensive it is. There is even a section
in—
| 
