 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Children, School and Familes |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Sarah
Davies, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 28 January 2010(Afternoon)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Children, Schools and Families Bill1
pm
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Mr. Vernon
Coaker): On a point of order, Mr. Amess, that,
I think, will help the Committee. This morning, responding to amendment
181, which provides that pupils and parents would not have a right to
monetary compensation where a governing body, head teacher or local
authority failed to comply with any element of the pupil and parent
guarantee, I said that the ombudsman has a long-standing power to
require local authorities to provide financial compensation and that he
would be able to do so in relation to a breach of any of the guarantees
where it was the local authority’s responsibility to deliver the
guarantee. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, and I apologise to
the
Committee. The
local government ombudsman has a long-standing power to make
recommendations to a local authority about how to remedy an injustice
sustained by a complainant, and the local authority can, on considering
the report, decide for itself whether it wishes to make a payment to
the complainant. However, contrary to what I said this morning, under
the Local Government Act 1974 the local government ombudsman cannot
make an award against a local authority; nor can he recommend directly
that it make financial compensation. That is also true of the
provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act
2009. On that basis, it is even less likely that a parent could seek to
gain compensation from pursuing a complaint through the ombudsman, even
in relation to matters such as one-to-one tuition, which are also the
responsibility of the local authority. I hope that helps every member
of the
Committee.
Clause 1Pupil
and parent
guarantees Amendment
proposed (this day): 40, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, at
end add— ‘(11) A pupil or
parent guarantee shall not be capable of creating any obligation in
respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or
tort.’.—(Mr.
Gibb.) Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 154, in clause 1, page 3, line 3,
at end add— ‘(11) A parent
who believes that a pupil or parent guarantee is not being delivered
may appeal to the head teacher in the first instance, and if not
satisfied to the governing body, and
thereafter to the local authority within whose area the school is
located. There will be no further appeal to the Secretary of State or
to the Local Government Ombudsman, and no obligation shall arise from
the guarantee whose breach would create the basis for a challenge
through the
courts.’. Amendment
128, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection
(1). Amendment
118, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave out from ‘after’
to the end of line 35 and insert ‘subsection (1)
there is inserted— “(1A) A
failure by the headteacher of a school to comply with any
requirement (including a requirement to have a regard to guidance)
imposed on the head teacher by virtue of subsection (2) of
section 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 (pupil and
parent guarantees) shall not be a complaint to which this Chapter
applies; (1B) A complaint to
which subsection (1A) applies shall be made to the governing body of
the school about which the complaint
arises.”’. Amendment
119, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out subsections (2) to
(5). Amendment
129, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out subsection
(2). Amendment
156, in clause 3, page 5, line 20, at end
add— ‘(6) The Local
Government Ombudsman will not investigate complaints relating to the
Pupil and Parent Guarantees which are regarded by the Ombudsman as
unreasonable or
vexatious.’. Amendment
181, in clause 3, page 5, line 20, at end
add— ‘( ) Any complaint made
about the performance of a pupil guarantee or a parent guarantee shall
be considered taking into account the resources made available to the
school or the local authority to be able to comply with the
guarantee. ( ) It is not
intended to grant the pupil or parent a right to monetary compensation
for any failings to comply with, or comply fully with, any pupil
guarantee or parent
guarantee.’. Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I thank
the Minister for the clarification. It does not, however, deal with the
point about whether complainants can take legal action themselves in
court. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say in response
to amendment 40 and was reassured to an extent that it is not the
intention of the Minister in charge of the Bill for members of the
public or parents to be able to take legal action either under the law
of contract or under tort in the courts. However, I think that it would
not detract from the Bill if we had an explicit clause along the lines
of provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to make it
clear beyond doubt that this is not a guarantee that can be challenged
or enforced in a court of law. I do not believe that that would in any
way detract from the thrust of what the Minister hopes to achieve by
clause 1. What I had feared when I tabled the amendments was that the
Government’s response to them would be that we have to leave
that as a possibility in order to make the guarantees bite. That was
not the Minister’s response and therefore I do not believe that
it is the thrust of the policy behind the
guarantee. Given
that there is no intention behind the policy or no expectation that in
a minority of cases parents will take schools to court, and given that
a clause along the lines of section 111(6) of the 1998 Act would not
therefore detract from the Government’s policy objective,
I cannot see why together we cannot work out such a clause, along the
lines of amendment 40, and return to the matter on
Report. Given
the reassurance from the Minister and given those thoughts, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
4.
Division
No.
3] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2Procedure
for issuing and revising pupil and parent
guarantees Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 180, in
clause 2, page 3, line 8, leave
out subsection (2) and
insert— ‘(2) The Secretary
of State must consult with whatever persons he or she thinks
appropriate about the draft, such persons normally to include the
following— (a)
associations of local education
authorities, (b) local
education authorities, (c)
bodies representing the interests of
schools, (d) bodies
representing the interests of parents and
pupils, (e) bodies representing
the interests of teachers, and must consider any representations made
by
them.’.
Amendment 85,
in
clause 2, page 3, line 8, after
‘consult’, insert
‘the House of Commons Select Committee on
Children, Schools and Families
and’. Amendment
126, in
clause 2, page 3, line 25, after
‘may’, insert
‘only’. Amendment
127, in
clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave
out ‘before’ and insert
‘after’.
Mr.
Laws: It is a pleasure to have reached the end of clause
1. We have given it a reasonable amount of scrutiny. I hope that we
will not need to take as much time on clause 2, as the amendments are
not as complex or significant.
Amendment 180
would require the Secretary of State to consult others on the issuing
and revising of pupil and parent guarantees. At the moment, the
undertakings in the Bill are rather loose in relation to the Secretary
of State’s responsibilities. Clause 2(2) states:
“The
Secretary of State must consult whatever persons he or she thinks
appropriate about the draft and must consider any representations made
by them.”
We would like
a little more clarity about who precisely is to be consulted. We do not
want it be only special advisers, people from the Department or a few
selected friends of the Secretary of State. We believe that, as a
minimum, it should include local education authorities, associations of
local education authorities, bodies representing the interests of
schools, and bodies representing the interests of parents, pupils and
teachers. In amendment 85, we go on to say that the
Secretary of State should have the explicit responsibility of
consulting the Select Committee on Children, Schools and
Families—or whatever it is called whenever the legislation is
passed. I hope that the Minister will say whether he is willing to
include in the Bill more meaningful measures to ensure
consultation.
Amendments
126 and 127, which go together, seek to ensure that consultation on the
precise drafting of pupil and parent guarantees is undertaken after the
Bill’s enactment—if, indeed, it passes into law. The
pupil and parent guarantees are, in many cases, not well defined. It
seems that the Government cobbled them together rather quickly. It
would be a matter for concern if the existing draft pupil and parent
guarantees were to be implemented. We would much rather that a proper
process of consultation and consideration of the guarantees took place
after enactment.
I hope that
the Minister will address those two concerns in his
response.
Mr.
Coaker: Amendment 180 lists bodies that should be
consulted, but it is not necessary. I know that the hon. Gentleman
would like a list, but clause 2(2) states:
“The
Secretary of State must consult whatever persons he or she thinks
appropriate about the draft and must consider any representations made
by them.”
The list proposed by
the hon. Gentleman includes exactly those people whom we would consult
in any case. As I said, I do not think that a list is necessary,
although I know that the obvious question will be, “Can you name
one?” One problem with making a list is finding that someone has
been missed. I do not see the need for the amendment. The other
amendments would require us to invalidate the current consultation on
pupil and parent guarantees.
Mr.
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): On a
cautionary note, I agree generally that we would expect the Secretary
of State to consult widely and not to be confined to the names given in
the amendment, but strange things happen. My hon. Friend may recall
that a certain Secretary of State for Education fell out badly with one
of the trade unions representing teachers’ interests, which one
would think would have been consulted along with all the others. We
must be wary so that on some future occasion, an equally stroppy
Secretary of State for Education does not take it in mind not to
consult on the basis of a falling out.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 29 January 2010 |