| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Amendment No. 244 would remove the five-day limit on a parent’s duty towards their children and enable the head teacher to have discretion to specify the days on which the duty is to apply. I have already partially explained the reason for the five-day limitin terms of the practicality of imposing such an extensive additional duty on schools and local authorities. On giving additional discretion to head teachers, it is important that any legislation which places a duty on an individual clearly defines the limits of that duty as well as the requirements. We therefore do not believe that we can support this
25 July 2006 : Column 1706
Where a pupil is excluded from the school in the morning, the duty will arise in the afternoon of that day and notice will have to be given to the parent prior to the afternoon session. Of course, the notice has to be given before there is a requirement on the parents. If such notice is given, the period of parental responsibility will start as soon as the notice is given to the parent and not on the following day. However, I should stress that it is good practice at the moment when children are excluded in the course of the day for the parent to be notified immediately. Indeed, a school would not be acting responsibly if it did not seek to contact a parent or guardian at the point of exclusion if it is necessary for a pupil to be removed from school, not least because the duty of care for the school extends to ensuring that there are proper arrangements if pupils have to leave the school at very short notice. But, as I have said, here again we are subject to the defence of reasonable justification.
I hope that I have been able to set out the Government’s case on these issues and explain why we regard the duties we are imposing as a significant improvement to the current regime, which I stress again imposes no duties on anyone in respect of excluded pupils for the whole of the first 15 days of exclusion, and why we believe that these provisions—including the new duties on local authorities beyond the fifth day and those on parents not to allow their children without reasonable justification to be in public places during the first five days—represent a major step forward from the status quo.
3.45 pm
Lord Dearing: Perhaps I may go back, first, to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Sutherland about a track to this, which is the important element. Secondly, I should have thought that in normal cases, especially when the new arrangements for joint pupil referral units come into being, this would have been a normal part of the track. It is an impossibly difficult problem, but the points he made were apt. In addition, I want to say to the Minister only that these pupils are more of a problem for their parents than they are for the school. It is impossible for parents to control them and that is why we have to get to the root of the problem through the pupil referral unit.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for what he had to say in response to this useful debate. I also pay particular credit to him for the fact that arrangements will now be in place from the fifth day. It is extremely important to ensure a continuing educational experience for young men and women who have got themselves into difficulties and have been excluded. It is a long step forward and one for which we on these Benches are very grateful.
An additional factor in any issue surrounding reasonable justification needs to be taken into account, and it is hoped well before the parent
25 July 2006 : Column 1707
While I fully accept what the Minister has said and I will go away and think about it, I hope that he will consider this set of circumstances, which is very common.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for his answers, and I begin by saying how much I approve of the direction being taken by the Government. It is immensely helpful that they have shortened the period from 15 to five days. It is a reasonable and practical target for an education authority and a school to make alternative provision and to do it properly, because it is so important in respect of non-returning exclusions. It is perfectly reasonable that the onus for the first five days is placed on the parents because that is where the responsibility for children should lie. Yes, if there are problems with the parents, mechanisms ought to swing in to support them and help them fulfil their obligations.
However, where I differ from the Minister is that the solutions that the Government have arrived at are just not practical. I was trying to deal with two areas. The first is the period of notice that parents require to deal practically with their obligations. The method of telling a parent that a child has been excluded is governed by Section 572 of the Education Act 1996. That allows notice to be given by sending it in a pre-paid letter addressed to him at his residence. That letter might not arrive until two days after the period of criminal liability has started. If you are dealing with a lunch-time exclusion and someone is working as a bus driver, for example, what are they supposed to do? Get out of their bus at Charing Cross and take the tube home because a message has been sent?
Lord Adonis: I accept the case given by the noble Lord would be a reasonable justification. However, in
25 July 2006 : Column 1708
Lord Lucas: Yes, but it can be extremely difficult to make alternative arrangements. It takes time to do so and that should be recognised. Also, there is no sense in which exclusion is a punishment for a seriously rebellious child. You cannot do anything with them that they would regard as a punishment. Being locked up in their room with their comics and television is not a serious punishment. Being made to trail around behind Mum may be. The idea that being out of a public place is more of a punishment than being in a public place properly supervised is not correct. It makes life extremely difficult for the conscientious parent and employee. They cannot even take their child to work and make them sit in the corner studying their books, which is a solution that might be allowed by reasonable employers to help out. They are not allowed to say, “Come on. You can come with me and help me wash the dishes or clean office”, or whatever else.
It is wrong to think that incarceration is the only form of punishment. The punishment is actually on the parents in this case. The people who will suffer are the parents, and the child will suffer because the parents are suffering. That is the mechanism being used. To inconvenience the parents sufficiently for them to want to discipline the child it is not necessary to tell the parent, “You go home and stay home for five days”, in order that the child should be properly disciplined.
For this provision to be workable we need a broad and reasonable interpretation of “reasonable justification”. That will only be based on whatever guidance the Government choose to provide, because the servants of the state in their great wisdom are fond of pettifogging interpretation of the rules. That may not be in every case, but we are all familiar with people who have been arrested for reading newspapers in Whitehall because that happens to contravene some aspect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the interpretation of the police officers involved. That sort of thing goes on throughout the country in all sorts of petty and unreasonable ways and we do not want that applied to parents. We want a good solid set of guidance.
The difficulty at the core of my amendment is this business of not being in a public place because that is obstructing the proper treatment of the child and obstructing arrangements that might be made to use that period for education and reintegration for the child. It is an unhelpful interpretation.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I want to say that it would be useful if the Minister were to share with the rest of
25 July 2006 : Column 1709
Lord Lucas: I shall certainly think on what the Minister has said. I shall read it in the course of the Recess—I have little else to do on these sunny days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils]:
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Clause 96 [Duty of parent in relation to excluded pupil]:
[Amendments Nos. 243 to 246 not moved.]
Clause 97 [Notice to parent relating to excluded pupil]:
[Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 248ZA:
Page 212, line 7, after “State” insert “one of whom must have knowledge and experience of post-16 learning”
The noble Baroness said: We now move to Part 8 of the Bill which deals with reforms to Ofsted and the new office which will be created. In moving Amendment No. 248ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248B. Both amendments concern the amalgamation of the Adult Learning Inspectorate, ALI, and Ofsted.
Broadly speaking, we welcome the proposed merger of Ofsted with the Adult Learning Inspectorate and the other inspectorates. This is intended to ensure that all issues concerning the welfare of children and young people are brought under the same umbrella, thereby creating a more joined-up approach. It is also part of the Government’s welcome ambition to reduce the number of bodies involved in the regulation of schools and colleges and the childcare sector, which is another important part of the reforms to the inspectorate.
There is support in the further education sector for the merger of ALI and Ofsted and it is seen as an important step in reducing the bureaucratic burden. However, the expertise and often helpful attitude demonstrated by the Adult Learning Inspectorate need to be preserved and the high degree of commitment it has shown to adult learning must be
25 July 2006 : Column 1710
“One of the persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 is to be appointed as director of post-16 learning”.
Clause 112 creates the children’s rights director. Just as there is to be a children’s rights director as part of the new, larger Ofsted, there should also be a director of post-16 learning. The role of the children’s rights director was established under the Care Standards Act 2000, and what the Bill proposes is a continuation of that role. But the Bill provides a good opportunity to enshrine in law a new post to recognise the importance of post-16 learning within the new Ofsted structure. The amendments make the dual suggestion—there is one in the schedule and one in Clause 112—that we should recognise this new post and the person appointed to it. I beg to move.
4 pm
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 248ZAC and 248G. Amendment No. 248ZAC would create the role of an adult learning director in Ofsted to redress the balance after the abolition of the Adult Learning Inspectorate. The amendment was put forward by my honourable friend in another place, John Hayes MP. He raised the issue as a result of correspondence with the Institute of Directors, whose expectations for the future of adult learning are far from optimistic. In its experienced opinion, the Institute of Directors states that,
- “it seems inevitable that, despite the Government’s protestations and soothing reassurances, the new inspectorate will concentrate on children and schools at the expense of adults”.
While the reasons for closing the Adult Learning Inspectorate were lacking, the Institute of Directors said that the operational benefits were unconvincing and the financial saving underwhelming.
The Minister in another place suggested that this amendment would not stand up to scrutiny as in his opinion, a head of schools and a head of adult learning would place a dividing line between the academic and the vocational. Aside from the obvious oversight that adult learning takes place in further education colleges and not schools, so the comparison is, to a certain extent, redundant, I suggest the very opposite. Surely the existence of a head of inspection for schools but no position for adult learning will create a division of attention in the inspectorate that all but ignores adult learning.
The Minister in another place stated that he wants pathways between the vocational and the academic. That is a laudable aim which would be fully supported by our amendment and would ensure that both the vocational and the academic would be equally represented within the inspectorate.
Lord Lucas: Can the noble Lord enlighten me about something that is related, but not directly, to the amendments? We have all got used to referring to
25 July 2006 : Column 1711
Lord Adonis: I can assure the noble Lord that we will continue to refer to it as Ofsted, and the reports will be called Ofsted reports. There will be minimal change in that regard.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to ensure that a member of the new Ofsted board has knowledge and experience of post-16 learning. The primary criteria for board members are good corporate governance, experience and credibility. Board members will not be appointed as sectoral representatives. However, the Government will be looking to appoint board members witha range of expertise, skills and professional backgrounds, including some with direct experience of education, children’s services and skills and some from business and other walks of life so as best to fulfil the role of the board to provide strategic direction and effective corporate governance.
I hope that I can give similar reassurance on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on post-16 learning. In expanding Ofsted’s remit, the knowledge and experience built up by the Adult Learning Inspectorate will not be lost and, furthermore, we do not expect there to be any drive towards uniformity. Different sectors have different needs, different approaches will remain, and we shall expect these to be reflected in the new Ofsted arrangements. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she is seeking.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his response, which we shall have to think about. I must say, with regard to his response to the change of name, that I cannot understand why the Government have bothered with all the preamble. Why not just leave it as Ofsted, if you are going to call it Ofsted? Education is a very broad word and covers many things. Why bother to say that we are going to make it the Office of Standards in Education, Children’s Services and so forth? Why not just leave it as the Office of Standards in Education? Then you do not have to bother having initials that say something else—you can just call it Ofsted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: A large body of those in the social care field feel very strongly that social care should be reflected, and are immensely grateful for what has happened.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I say, my reaction is why bother with the preamble and changing the name—but I take account of the sensibilities of those in the social care sector.
On the director of adult services or post-16 learning, perhaps it is the same issue and there are sensibilities involved. This whole question of where adult learning is going is very important. We need to
25 July 2006 : Column 1712
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 248ZAA:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 248ZAA, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 248ZAB and 248ZH. This cluster of amendments is intended to probe the precise strategy for the new Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, which I see will retain its former acronym, Ofsted—as we have already said.
Amendments Nos. 248ZAA and 248ZAB are probing amendments. It is not our intention to abolish the salary of the chairman and appointed members of Ofsted; neither is it our intention to abolish committees that may be set up. But in the absence of on-the-record information from the Minister in another place on the precise financial arrangements of Ofsted, I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on these issues.
My honourable friend Nick Gibb MP asked in another place whether the Minister felt that the present arrangements lacked strategic direction. In response, the Minister said that he was,
It seems to me that the answer to my honourable friend was, “Yes”—the department’s present arrangements for Ofsted do lack strategic direction.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |