| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
We need to continue to probe in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out, he has observed that primary schools do not necessarily have the breadth of skills and experience to give children with special educational needs the best opportunities. The point should be taken together with that made rather courageously by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to the effect that it is probable in many cases that the mothers and fathers of children with special educational needs are themselves going to be biased towards the mainstream because they want their child, particularly at the primary stage, to be in what they might perceive as a normal environment, even though it might not be the best one for their child.
Again, I am pleased that we have had this debate tonight. I shall certainly think more about what we have said and about the amendments with which we have probed, along with what the Minister has said in his response and the results of the report from the Select Committee. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham moved Amendment No. 19:
“(bb) each relevant schools provider for the area of the authority;”.“(5A) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a relevant schools provider for the area of a children's services authority in England-
(5B) In subsection (5A) “appropriate diocesan authority”, “Church of England school” and “Roman Catholic Church
5 July 2006 : Column 339
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving the amendment standing in the name of my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and myself, I would say that although the Churches pioneered the provision of schools in England and Wales, the so-called “dual system” has operated since governments began providing schools in 1870 and the creation of local education authorities in 1902. Church schools coexist happily with schools provided by the local authority, and I believe that that is part of the genius of the British system of education. It has on the whole worked pretty well, though at times dioceses have regretted that local authorities have seemed not to support church schools as actively as they would like, and no doubt there have been similar tensions on the other side.
Until the changes in local government following the 2000 Act, the dioceses were represented on education committees by a member or members with voting rights as well as speaking rights. These committees disappeared with the creation of cabinet government. Diocesan representation on overview and scrutiny committees dealing with education has not effectively filled the gap. This has put at risk the political and strategic level of engagement between the dioceses and local authorities. The good news is that the operational level contacts usually remain very effective.
We are not opposing the abolition of theschool organisation committee—proposed in Clause 28—created in 1998 to decide locally on school opening and closing and enlargements, even though that is where the strategic partnership between the Church of England, the Roman Catholic dioceses and local authorities has been most apparent in recent years. But we are concerned to maintain a political and strategic relationship between the diocese and the local authority as well as the operational relationship.
We would like to see a duty in law on the local authority to co-operate with the diocese. The amendment would impose as a duty co-operation with the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and with other such bodies as the Secretary of State decides, which we would expect to include the Methodists where they have local schools—that will gladden the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno—but also other faith school providing bodies. I beg to move.
10 pm
Lord Adonis: The amendment addresses the concerns that diocesan authorities are fully involved in the strategic decision-making of local partnerships, a concern that, as the right reverend Prelate said, has arisen with the removal of the requirement to produce a school organisation plan that accompanied the introduction of the children and young people's plan in the Children Act 2004 and the abolition of school organisation committees in Clause 28 of this Bill.
The Government share the objective that the right reverend Prelate has set out, and indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that
5 July 2006 : Column 340
Diocesan authorities and other school providers are already included in Section 10(1)(c) of the Children Act 2004 under which there is a requirement on local authorities to promote co-operation including among,
- “such other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to children in the authority’s area”.
Furthermore, Regulation 7 of the Children and Young People’s Plan (England) Regulations 2005 requires:
that is, each children and young people's plan, which now has an important role in the development of local services—
- “the authority shall consult...the appropriate diocesan authority for any foundation or voluntary school situated in the authority's area which is a Church of England or Roman Catholic Church school”.
The need for the active involvement of partners in the development of the children and young people’s plan is emphasised in supporting guidance which my department has issued which states:
which includes diocesan authorities,
We emphasise both elements of that—that diocesan authorities should be consulted at a formative stage and with enough time for full discussion.
The department is planning to issue further guidance in the autumn. It will cover the annual review of the CYPP and restate the need for the genuine early involvement of all partners. I can undertake that it will refer once again to the important role that diocesan authorities have as major providers of schools in their areas.
In addition to those requirements, statutory guidance on who should be consulted about changes to schools will continue to include the diocesan authorities, and in Clause 22(4) of the Bill they will continue to be able to refer proposals from local decision makers to the adjudicator for decision. We want diocesan authorities to engage with local authorities and children's trusts. We believe that the Bill will do nothing to weaken their positive ongoing role and influence. We therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will be happy with the assurances that I am able to give.
5 July 2006 : Column 341
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: Without being unduly pedantic, perhaps I may press the Minister. He referred to the dioceses and to the Roman Catholic Church. Does that also include other faith school providing bodies?
Lord Adonis: My understanding is that that is the case when they are local providers of schools—they would then come within those requirements. I am happy to write on that specific point, but that is my understanding.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham:I am most grateful to the Minister for his understanding and the fact that he listens and collaborates so freely. We are grateful for that. I suppose that everybody who puts an amendment down has this dream that their amendment will be in the Bill—but that is a dream that is shattered regularly in this Chamber. I look forward to reading the Minister’s tight response in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Duty to consider parental representations]:
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 20:
“( ) Where the representations concern the education of the qualifying child, the local education authority shall whenever possible ensure that the views of the child himself are taken into account.”
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 217 in my name in this group and support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, Amendment No. 127.
This group is all about the voice of the child. Like the right reverend Prelate and Martin Luther King,I, too, had a dream. During the passage of the Childcare Bill that dream was fulfilled, because the Minister kindly tabled a government amendment—but I do not hold it against him that it was a government amendment—to put in a reference to the voice of the child. I think that it was in Clause 3, towards the end of the Bill’s passage through this House. If we can put consultation with very young children on issues such as planning childcare services into the Childcare Bill, surely we can put the voice of older children in appropriate places in this Bill.
“Where the representations concern the education of the qualifying child, the local education authority shall whenever possible ensure that the views of the child himself are taken into account”.
That is perfectly reasonable, and I hardly feel that it is necessary to say any more—because it seems so obvious that it should be done. I know that the Minister has the right attitude with regard to consulting children, especially because of his enthusiasm for school councils. I shall not say anything about Amendment No. 127 on school councils. I shall leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, but he has my enthusiastic support on that amendment.
5 July 2006 : Column 342
Amendment No. 52 to Clause 6 ensures that the views of children are fully explored and considered in providing recreational facilities—and not just a few token children, but a proper representative sample. It is essential that children and young people are able to access high quality and sufficient facilities for such recreational activities for the improvement of their well-being, which is what we all want to happen, irrespective of their parents’ or carers’ financial circumstances or background. That is particularly important for children who are socially excludedfor any reason. To support the Youth Matters consultation, the NSPCC organised 10 focus groups of young people on behalf of the DfES to ensure that their views were heard. I give some quotes from those young people to illustrate why it is necessary to obtain a representative sample of all young people—because their responses vary so much.
A 12 year-old from Shrewsbury said:
“They’re not seeing the whole picture, they’re not showing what everyone is doing, just what a select group are doing”.
So young people themselves are aware of the potential for just taking a little token group and listening to what they have to say. A 17 year-old from Gloucester said:
“The only way the Government can try and stop young people or any person who’s drinking or taking drugs is to occupy their time with things they find fun”.
Ask the young people what they find fun, and do not ask their parents or teachers or anybody else to decide for them. Another young person from Gloucester said:
“You’ve got to help the low achievers, otherwise that’s just letting the brilliant ones get all, while the ones who have problems don’t get a look in”.
That is the comment of a very socially inclusive young person.
The current wording in the Bill states that the views of qualifying young people should be ascertained, which means any young person between 13 and 20. It is essential, however, to find a way of ensuringthat the views of young people are genuinely representative and reflect a full cross-section ofyoung people in the community. I hope the Minister will look kindly on the insertion of the words“a representative sample of”.
Amendment No. 217 concerns the school discipline policy. This is where the governors are given the duty to consult various people, including a sample of pupils. It is an area where every child should be given an opportunity to input their views—not just a few children, or even a representative sample, but every child in the school. If children are to sign up to the school’s disciplinary policy and help the staff enforce it through peer pressure, they really need to be able to own that policy, to feel that they had a hand in developing and publishing it on behalf of their school. Unless every single child in the school is asked their opinion and feels they have had that opportunity to input, if they break that discipline policy they can turn around and say, “No one asked me. I don’t think it’s right. My school shouldn't have made those rules”.
5 July 2006 : Column 343
I know many children who belong to families where the parents take the same approach in setting their own discipline policies, house rules and even pocket money levels. When the children are consulted about what they think is reasonable and negotiate with their parents, they are much more likely to adhere to the rules they feel they have jointly reached. With regard to the discipline policy which the governors and the head teacher between them have to come to, it is important to talk not just to a sample, however representative it might be, but to every single child. That is what Amendment No. 217 attempts to introduce into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: I shall speak to AmendmentNo. 127. I was prompted to table this amendment because it seemed to me that if parents were going to be consulted about a proposal for a trust school, it made sense to consult in some way the pupils of that school, especially in secondary schools.
I think there is a general principle here. The pupils are the people most directly affected by decisions taken about their school, and in some important respects they will know more. They will have a more intimate knowledge of the school than their parents. It seems right that they should have a right to have their views taken into account by a governing body, or whatever.
In this amendment I have made a proposal that, where possible, the consultation—where there is one—should be through the school council. I sought to find out to what extent school councils were already in existence, and I read that whereas in 1998 some 65 per cent of secondary schools and 15 per cent of primary schools had a school council, it is estimated that the proportions have now risen to 80 to 85 per cent for secondary schools and 75 per cent for primary schools. Such councils seem to be a suitable vehicle for consultation.
I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is proposing that all the pupils should be consulted on disciplinary matters. I have not gone quite as far as that; sometimes there is a rather large number of them. I was thinking of an alternative. Perhaps alongside school councils—and I am pushing the boat out now—there should be a class council. I believe that young people have good sense, especially as regards disciplinary matters and a disciplinary policy. If a council comprising members of a class sat down with a teacher to talk the matter through, they would be persuasive and effective advocates of an effective disciplinary policy. I believe that a disciplinary policy has to be owned by everybody in the school, otherwise it will not work.
Amendment No. 127 would ensure that, where the legislation provides for consultation with parents, there should be suitable provision for consultation with pupils—for example, in school councils.
10.15 pm
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I feel moved to speak to the amendment in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has just said. Of course, I
5 July 2006 : Column 344
As regards Amendment No. 127 on school councils, the school where I am a governor has class councils, which also involve parent class councils. It has a school council that is consulted about discipline and school organisation. That school council is taken very seriously by the school. I wonder why the amendment does not propose that every school should have a school council. Therefore, you could consult the school council on this matter—end of story.
The Earl of Listowel: I wish to speak briefly on the principle of listening to children as far as we can. I welcome the many things that the Government are doing to support families, especially the recent increase in maternity leave and benefit and support for fathers. However, year on year an increasing number of parents are separating and an increasing number of children are being taken into care. I believe that the BMA has recently produced a troubling report on the mental health of children. There is a lot of disruption in children’s families. One consequence of that is that it can be difficult for parents to listen to their children. Children get ignored because of the upheavals in their family. So it is important for the self-esteem of children from those backgrounds that every opportunity is taken to listen to them and take their contribution on board as far as possible.
Recently, I was with my nine month-old great nephew. We were engaged in a game where he was pulling faces and I was responding to the faces that he made. I have heard that, like my great nephew, infants become delighted with the fact that they can influence the adults close to them and they get carried away with that. The same principle applies to the matter that we are discussing—the feeling that one can influence the world and one’s environment even when one feels small and insignificant. That is especially true of children from families where there is disruption. Therefore, I strongly support the principle of what is proposed and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Buscombe: We support the concept of listening to children. Their opinion is an important ingredient of any consultation. However, we do not believe in a child having a say to the extent that it amounts to a burden on him or her to make decisions. We have to be careful about that. They are children, after all, and we should let them be free to enjoy their youth. We should not be too prescriptive in determining the roles that they should play in their school environment.
Having said that, I am pleased that there is consultation with a sample of pupils on discipline policy in schools. However, I rather agree with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to Amendment No. 217. For every pupil to have a say about discipline in a school of, say, 1,400 pupils is somewhat unreal. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to these probing amendments.
5 July 2006 : Column 345
Lord Adonis: At this late hour, I am in the happy position of being able to fulfil some of the dreams of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We have given a lot of consideration to the matter, and we think that we can move part of the way that she described.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |