Jim
Knight: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman is not
listening.
Mr.
Laws: I will give way to the Minister if he wants to
correct me, but he did refer to bullying and concerns about the way
that bullying is dealt with in schools, in relation particularly to the
local
commissioner.
Jim
Knight: What I said, more than once, was that the job of
the ombudsman will be to look at the process of complaints, to
establish if that process has been followed.
Mr.
Laws: And the Minister mentioned bullying in relation to
that. If the measure is really needed only to check if due process has
been followed, why on earth do we need a local commissioner? Why do we
need that individual to have the power to recompense individuals who
have to be involved in the investigations in relation to this part of
the Bill? Surely, if it is only about examining
“process”, not only could the governing body do that but,
at worst, the local authority could take five minutes to figure out
whether due process has been followed. Instead, I fear that this part
of the Bill could be used precisely for some of the challenges to the
policy of the school that are anticipated in amendments 72
to 74. That is why I would support the amendments strongly, if the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton decided to push them to a
Division.
Mr.
Gibb: I was reassured by the Minister’s response to
amendment 72, when he said that he would consult on which functions of
the head teacher or governor could be complained about. I think that
will reassure some of the trade unions and the Association of School
and College Leaders.
Like the hon.
Member for Yeovil, I was less convinced by the Minister’s
response to amendments 73 and 74. The Minister’s answer to the
question about whether the measure would make schools more defensive
was that he doubted that it would, because he will be issuing guidance.
It is to be very special guidance that teachers will be forced to read
and abide by, and they would introduce wonderful new complaints
procedures in the school. The Minister said that will satisfy all
parents who may have problems with the complaints about the behaviour
of their children and the punishments applied to them.
I do not
really buy that argument. Based on my constituency experience, I think
that unless we take out issues such as behaviour and obeying school
rules, there will be a surge of complaints. I am sure that if the
Minister thought carefully, he might concede that point, based on his
own experience as a constituency MP.
Such a surge
of complaints would be a pity, because it would overwhelm the system
and undermine the genuine attempt in the clause to provide a route for
parents’ genuine complaints. For example, I have a constituent
who has a problem with her daughter’s school, which is not
providing enough homework. She seems to have failed to get redress, and
I too have failed to get redress despite writing on her behalf to
Ofsted and the Secretary of State.
I am minded
to press the amendment to a Division, just to test the views of the
Committee, because it is important to take out of the right of appeal
any decision relating to the disciplining of a pupil, or any matter
relating to pupil behaviour or the enforcement of the published rules
of the school. It is very important that head teachers have the power
to impose school rules, and they should be supported by the local
authority, Ministers and the public when they try to enforce their
school rules, because unless we get behaviour right in our schools,
standards in education will not rise.
To support
head teachers in their determination to instil discipline in schools, I
want to test the views of the Committee about amendment 73, when we
come to it. I would like to press amendment 73 to a vote, but in the
meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment
72.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: 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;’.—(Mr.
Gibb.) Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
8.
Division
No.
39]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 425, in clause 194,
page 112, line 7, at end
insert— ‘(5A) A person
making a complaint under subsection (1) or, where the complainant is a
parent, a pupil who the complaint relates to, has the right not to be
subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to
act, by the respondent on the grounds of the
complaint.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 149, in clause 194, page 112, line 13,
after ‘school,’, insert ‘an
Academy’. The
previous debate extended more widely than anticipated so I give notice
that although we will discuss the specific amendment, we will not have
a separate stand part
debate.
Mr.
Laws: I am very happy with that, Mr. Chope. As
you rightly said, the previous debate extended quite widely and I
anticipate that we may have to touch on similar issues when we discuss
amendments 2 and 71 to clause
195. The
Minister will have realised by now that I am not a fan of this part of
the Bill. I would prefer it to be deleted altogether and that the
powers of oversight on complaints were given to local authorities
rather than the Secretary of State. However, if we are to end up with
this part of the Bill, there at least needs to be consistency in the
way that complaints are dealt with across different schools. One
weakness that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
asked me to mention relates to the existing complaints mechanism. There
can be difficulty pursuing complaints in relation to foundation
schools, where I believe that the appeals mechanism does not even go
beyond the governing body.
In a similar
spirit, I am concerned that academies seem to be left out of the list
of schools covered by clause 194. I cannot understand what mechanism
there will be for pursuing complaints in academies beyond the governing
body of academies. I would like clarification from the Government on
whether there will be a consistent mechanism for complaints relating to
academies. Amendment 425 deals with protection for those who complain,
to make sure that any complaints that they make are not held against
them.
Jim
Knight: On Amendment 425, I would not expect any school to
subject a parent or pupil to negative treatment simply because they had
approached the new service. However, I realise that some parents might
be concerned that their child would receive negative treatment as a
consequence of their taking a complaint to the commissioner. I want to
allay those
fears. In
the statutory guidance on handling complaints—in which some
people do not have confidence—we will make it clear that parents
or pupils who complain must
not suffer any kind of negative discrimination. I stress that it is the
route for complaints that will change, not the right to complain.
Parents and young people already have that right and there is no
evidence that anybody complaining at present suffers adverse treatment.
Finally, where a complaint qualifies for consideration, a commissioner
will oversee the process, making sure that it is dealt with
impartially, objectively and professionally, to ensure that parents and
pupils have no fear of adverse treatment simply because they have made
a
complaint. Amendment
425 would bring complaints from parents or pupils in academies into the
remit of the local government ombudsman. Clause 207 allows the
Secretary of State to make an order amending the definition of a
qualifying school, which will enable us to bring academies into the
service in future, if we choose to do so. However, we have good reasons
not to include them in the early stages of the pilot; there will be a
gradual roll-out of the new service across England.
There are
schools facing particular issues. Many schools face challenging
circumstances, but academies are often the solution for those with the
most entrenched problems and the most disadvantaged areas. Such
projects dismantle existing structures and processes, and start from
scratch to rebuild the school from the bottom; to deliver, from the
moment of opening, a transformed educational experience for pupils. I
cannot overestimate the challenge that represents for the academy
leadership. It will not be helpful to add to that challenge by asking
academies to help us iron out the processes and structures in the
service during initial stages of the roll-out, when we intend to
evaluate the processes in a small number of local
authorities. It
should also be borne in mind that the very nature of a phased approach,
where we test the mechanics of the service before the full roll-out,
means that the current complaints process for schools under sections
496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 will still apply in many local
authority areas, and therefore for many complaints. Academies will need
to have their own complaints process for parents, and the pupil
entitlements covered by funding agreements will allow the Secretary of
State to ensure that pupils in academies are not disadvantaged by the
different arrangements that will apply to them during the
pilot. 12.30
am
Mr.
Laws: I have two questions for the Minister. First, in the
interim period, what is the appeal mechanism for complaints that are
not satisfied by the governing body? Secondly, is it his clear
intention, if the trial period is continued, to have academies treated
in the same way as all other state-funded schools regarding the
roll-out of such a flawed complaints
procedure?
Jim
Knight: Academies have a robust complaints procedure in
place, regulated by legislation on independent schools standards. That
means that if parents or a young person were not satisfied with the
response to their complaint—made in writing—provision
would be made for the complaint to be heard by a panel, which would
include one person who would be independent of the management and
running of the school. So we have that in place at the moment, and I
have not yet made the judgment on whether I definitely want academies
to
enter the complaints service. We want to get the pilot up and running
and see how well it is working before we make a decision for academies.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for that run-through
on the two amendments. The more I listened to his response on amendment
425, the more convinced I was that the Government have carefully taken
the matter into account, and that there is no need for the amendment;
the reassurances that have been given would satisfy any reasonable
person. However, on amendment 149, the same is not the case.
Some schools across the country will be slightly irritated to hear, for
example, that academies will be exempted from the trial period because
they are serving particularly deprived and disadvantaged
neighbourhoods.
Jim
Knight: I am reluctant to intervene, because it only
prolongs the pain. It is not because the academies are in disadvantaged
areas, but because they are dealing with a very difficult and
challenging set of circumstances in turning around the school. It is
the beginnings of a service, and while we are getting it up and
running, I do not want to distract them from the difficult job that
they are doing.
Mr.
Laws: That is a useful clarification, but perhaps the
Minister can tell me how many of the schools still in national
challenge are academies and how many are not, and whether he intends to
exempt the schools in national challenge that are not academies. He is
sitting back—I am not sure whether he is thinking or sighing,
but what he is certainly not doing is offering to intervene to explain
the glaring inconsistency between the treatment of the majority of
schools in national challenge that are precisely in those difficult
circumstances and academies that are in exactly the same challenging
circumstances, but will be exempted from
it.
Jim
Knight: There are different sorts of schools in national
challenge, some of which are making good progress, and they will cross
the threshold without any problem. But there are some that need a
significant structural intervention, and it is likely that they will be
academies, which means that they are likely to be
exempted—certainly for now—from the
process.
Mr.
Laws: I simply do not believe that that is true. There are
a huge number of schools in national challenge; some of them are
improving rapidly—some of them are academies, and others are
not. Many of those that are not academies may need serious intervention
from their local authority. Indeed, I thought that that was what the
previous clauses we have been discussing were all about. I am not
convinced at all by the reasons for leaving academies out of this. If
the Minister was saying that he was going to leave out all schools in
similar circumstances, the Government would have a more coherent
position. I understand why he might not want schools with those
challenging problems to be going through this pilot, but my complaint
is about the lack of consistency between different schools in the same
challenges.
I was also
somewhat surprised that the Minister maintained that, even if the
pilots were successful and the process was rolled-out across all
maintained schools, he might still be open to the possibility of not
including academies. That simply underlines what we have had to come
back to time and again throughout consideration of the Bill: the
totally inconsistent way in which the Government treat academies
compared with other schools. More importantly, there is a lack of any
serious intellectual case for treating academies in such a way. I have
a feeling that I will not on this occasion manage to persuade the
Minister to amend this part of the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
194 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
