The
Chairman: I suspend the sitting until 1.10 am. I
understand that, during that period, there will be some discussion
about possible progress. However, I particularly ask the usual channels
to have regard to the fact that there are people in this building who
were led to believe that matters would have been concluded for today by
now. It is important to bring some certainty to bear on matters and,
from the Chair, I implore that something definite is made apparent by
the time we reassemble at 1.10
am. 12.37
am Sitting
suspended. 1.10
am On
resuming—
The
Chairman: I made a plea before the sitting was suspended
for half an hour for some certainty regarding the proceedings. Around
three hours ago, I received a communication from the Government Whip
stating that she would regard getting to clause 215 as reasonable
progress. On that basis I informed, through the Clerk, the Refreshment
Department and other workers in the House. It now seems that, despite
the relatively steady progress made since then, the Government wish, or
may wish, to go beyond clause
215. I
offered to chair this afternoon’s sitting because my co-Chairman
chaired a long sitting on Tuesday and was likely to have a reasonably
long one today. Nobody notified my co-Chairman that proceedings were
likely to carry on as late as this, but if she was still here, as was
the original intention, she would have been in the Chair throughout,
which would have been equivalent to around two and a half times more
than a normal sitting for one day. I appeal to the usual channels to
bring some clarity and reasonableness to bear on the situation. The
Bill can be considered on Tuesday and I was earlier informed that the
Programming Sub-Committee might meet—I do not know the full
details—to enable that sitting to go on until
midnight. I
appeal to all members of the Committee to think about what is happening
to other people in this building. The Refreshment Department was given
no notice of what was happening, and there are also police officers,
Badge Messengers, Clerks and shorthand writers to consider. We should
do what is reasonable. I cannot dictate things from the Chair; all I
can do is appeal to the better nature of members of the Committee, and
I
am doing that publicly because it would be unreasonable for us to sit
beyond the time necessary to complete clause 214. If we get to that
stage and the Government or anybody else insist on proceeding further,
I will consider what action I can
take. I
make a plea for reasonableness on the issue. There have been a number
of incidents today, most of them when I have not been in the
Chair—there was a period, for instance, when there was not even
a quorum. We need to get down to business, but I hope that when we
start debating the extra amendments on the amendment paper, we also
have discussions behind the scenes and through the usual channels to
bring some much-needed clarity to bear before it is too late. It is now
quarter past 1 and people are entitled to know whether the
Government plan for the sitting to continue until breakfast time or
whenever. As
Chairman, I do not have the privilege of being able to go for a kip or
whatever, so I am certainly not going to sit in the Chair without a
significant break if the plan is to continue until breakfast. If the
Government want to go on until then, we will consider that, but we need
to be able to plan accordingly. I have said enough, so we will now move
on to consider further
amendments. 1.15
am
Jim
Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I hear
your plea and am certainly mindful of the strains that sitting so late
puts on you and the staff to whom you have referred, and to whom we are
extremely grateful for the service they are providing to us. We have
sat for six hours extra this evening, but have made progress only from
clause 184 to clause 195. Six hours is longer than we would have been
sitting next Tuesday, so that is not reasonable progress, and we feel
that it is important now to make reasonable
progress.
Mr.
Laws: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Chope. I would like to clarify whether your comments, with which I very
much agree, are directed at the usual channels. I think that
you have made it clear that you are in no way suggesting that the
scrutiny of the Bill should be compromised, and you will understand
that we are keen to ensure that we scrutinise it rigorously, because it
is extremely important and could place onerous responsibilities on all
the institutions involved. I support what you have said, but note that
it is directed at the usual channels, not at the scrutiny being
undertaken by those on the Liberal Democrat
Benches.
The
Chairman: I will make one further comment on the points of
order. If it was thought reasonable at 10.30 pm that the Committee
should adjourn when we reach clause 215, it does not now seem
reasonable that we should adjourn after getting beyond clause 215,
bearing in mind the time that has elapsed since then. I will say no
more on that, other than that I hope that constructive discussions will
take place while we consider further
amendments.
Clause
195Power
of Local Commissioner to investigate
complaint
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 195,
page 112, line 46, at end insert
‘or if the local Commissioner considers the
complaints to be vexatious or
malicious’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 71, in
clause 195, page 112, line 46, at
end insert— ‘(5A) A Local
Commissioner may in particular decide not to investigate a complaint
under this Chapter, or to discontinue an investigation if, in his
opinion, the complaint is
vexatious.’.
Mr.
Laws: By extraordinary coincidence, Mr. Chope,
following the comments you have just made, we come to an amendment
dealing with vexatious and malicious
activity. Often
when someone gets a bee in their bonnet over some perceived injustice,
perhaps having had some setback they find difficult to accept or
tolerate, they pursue a complaints procedure, or some other procedure
open to them, maliciously or vexatiously. That can have enormously
damaging consequences: it can use vast amounts of other people’s
time and be an expensive and unproductive process. That is why we have
proposed amendment
2. We
have already indicated, as was clear in the debate on clause 194, that
we do not believe that clauses 194 and 195, or the associated clauses,
are necessary or that those powers should sit with a local
commissioner. We believe that local authorities should be the relevant
higher appeal beyond the school governing body. However, if we are to
have those measures in the Bill, we ought at least to try to filter out
some of the complaints that would not be productive, could be damaging,
and could be vexatious and
malicious. The
amendment has been suggested by the Association of School and College
Leaders, which is extremely concerned about these provisions and
believes that there is scope for endless second-guessing of head
teachers and endless complaints that could be extremely time consuming
and unproductive. We believe that ensuring that the local commissioner
can disallow, set aside or not pursue complaints that are considered
vexatious or malicious would help to ease some concerns about the
Bill. The
amendment is in some ways moderate. It would not necessarily change the
Government’s intentions, but it would clarify the how malicious
complaints would be dealt with. Indeed, the wording is taken from the
explanatory notes to the Bill. We hope that Ministers are willing to
accept that malicious and vexatious activity can be extremely
damaging, especially under the circumstances described in the Bill. We
therefore hope that they will accept amendment 2—or, indeed,
amendment 71, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, which deals with the same concern in a similar
way.
Mr.
Gibb: Amendment 71 would give the local commissioner a
specific power to decide not to investigate a complaint if he believed
it to be vexatious. The amendment would provide clarity and reassurance
for teachers, who are clearly concerned that vexatious complaints may
arise, causing them distress and other problems. That has not been
adequately addressed in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman said when
moving amendment
2. I
cite what John Bangs, assistant secretary of the National Union of
Teachers, said in evidence to the Committee. It is always good to quote
the NUT when
making my argument; I have done so several times today and may do so
several times more this morning. Mr. Bangs
said: “What
I am anxious about is the increased potential for irrelevant vexatious
and malicious complaints with this
system.” Similarly,
Chris Keats, general secretary of the National Association of
Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, told the
Committee: “We
have reservations about the practicality and manageability of vexatious
complaints”.——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
5 March 2009; c. 92, Q228 and
229.] An
Association of School and College Leaders briefing says that the
association is concerned about the same point. It notes that vexatious
complaints by parents or pupils are referred to in the explanatory
notes and that the local commissioner can investigate or discontinue
such complaints as he feels appropriate. It wants provision in the Bill
to discontinue complaints that are considered vexatious by the local
commissioner. Although vexatious parents represent only a small
proportion, they occur at every school and their impact can be
disproportionate. The experience of ASCL members suggests that such
parents would not be satisfied to be told by the local commissioner,
however independent, that the school had acted
reasonably. That
is the concern of all the unions that gave evidence to the Committee.
They said that there is the potential to undermine the effectiveness of
the new complaints procedure and that if the Bill fails to deal with
this matter, it is also likely to undermine any good will that schools
may feel towards the new arrangements. It is surely sensible to put the
matter beyond doubt and to accept amendment 71, or the amendment moved
by the hon. Member for Yeovil. That would give the local government
ombudsman a specific power to discontinue vexatious
complaints.
Jim
Knight: The amendments would make it explicit that the
local commissioner could decide not to investigate or to terminate an
investigation on the ground that a complaint was vexatious or
malicious. We would agree with the need for the local commissioner to
do so, which is why, under clause 195(4), in direct replication of the
power he has in respect of other complaints, the local commissioner has
wide discretion to determine whether to initiate, continue or
discontinue an investigation. Included within that provision is the
ability to determine whether the complaint is vexatious or malicious,
or does not warrant investigation by the service.
It is
important to bear in mind the fact that the commissioner has a wealth
of experience in dealing with such matters, and that when appropriate
he exercises his discretion to terminate an investigation dealing with
unreasonably persistent complaints. It is important to note that the
percentage of complaints that would fall into this category is small. I
expect the commissioner to adopt similar policies to those that he uses
in his work with local authorities and to produce guidance on how to
determine whether a complaint is vexatious in relation to complaints
about school matters.
I also
anticipate that the service will work closely with the widest possible
range of stakeholders, including schools and governing bodies, to
assist in handling such complaints. That should help to nip those
difficult cases
in the bud and ensure that we do not encourage such complaints by
establishing the service. I therefore ask that the amendment be
withdrawn on the basis that the issue has been given full and careful
consideration. Mr.
Gibb: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said
and I am not convinced that the fact that the ombudsman, with his
general powers, can stop a vexatious complaint being investigated will
be enough to satisfy teachers. They will take advice from unions and
look to the Education Acts, or similar legislation emanating from the
Government, for information on how complaints are dealt
with. To
reassure teachers, this power needs to be explicit in the clauses that
create the new complaints procedure. It is not good enough to have
those procedures spread around the legislation on measures that give
the local government ombudsman his powers. We want to clarify the
system; it needs to be explicitly drafted, as the hon. Member for
Yeovil and I have
said.
Bill
Wiggin: I am very unhappy with the clause as well. This
power should be clear and explicit in the Bill in the way described in
the amendment, because our experience as Members of Parliament is that,
often, people who become vexatious litigants and are persistent and
unpleasant in the way that they complain are quick to check their legal
position before they begin. Therefore, it would be helpful to teachers
to know that we have taken every step with the Bill to ensure that
anybody who wished to be vexatious was aware that the course that they
were about to embark upon could be stopped dead in its tracks through
clear legislation. Is that not the case with the
amendment?
Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention. He is absolutely right, which is why I will support
either the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil or that which
stands in my name and the names of my hon.
Friends.
Mr.
Laws: I fear that we have heard wise words from
Conservative Members on the Back and Front Benches. From our experience
in Parliament and our constituencies, we know that vexatious or
malicious individuals can use all sorts of devices to take forward
their complaints and can be particularly malicious and difficult
regardless of the consequences. The provisions that the Minister
referred to are extremely ambiguous. He referred to clause 195(4),
which merely says:
“Whether
to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation is a matter for
the discretion of the Local Commissioner dealing with the
complaint.” Frankly,
it is obvious that the local commissioner would have that type of
discretion if, for example, the complaint collapsed completely.
However, the Bill does not make it clear that there should be specific
provision—encouragement, in some ways—for the local
commissioner not to allow malicious or vexatious complaints, which
could be time consuming and
damaging.
Ms
Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I move
that the question now be
put.
The
Chairman: I am not prepared to accept
that.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful, Mr. Chope. As I was
saying, I am not satisfied with the explanation given. It is essential
that the safeguards be in the Bill, so I would like to press amendment
2 to the vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
8.
| 
