| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: I shall start by posing a question for the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I do so out of general interest. I believe that he quoted from circular 8/94--
Lord Henley: I see; hence my confusion. I had only 8/94 in front of me. I shall read most carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord said. His paragraph 51 was different from my paragraph 51.
I start by saying to the noble Lord that I am sympathetic to the reasons behind Amendment No. 107. It is clearly important to ensure that exclusion from school does not mean exclusion from education. Schools do not lose responsibility for pupils who remain on their roll but who are not currently attending.
The amendment, however, goes too far in the practical burden it would place on schools. For a school itself to meet fully the educational needs of each
individual excluded pupil, which in most cases would presumably mean individual tuition at home, would be extremely difficult to arrange, not to mention expensive--all the more so, of course, if that pupil had special educational needs to be met. Moreover, as phrased, the amendment would apply not just to pupils on a fixed period exclusion but also to permanently excluded pupils who were no longer on the school roll. I appreciate that is probably not the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment, but I hope he would agree that it would be unfair to expect schools to continue to educate pupils in those circumstances.I believe it is much more appropriate in the case of pupils excluded for any significant period for local education authorities, rather than individual schools, to take responsibility for ensuring that suitable education is provided. That is why in the 1993 Act, for the first time ever, we placed a statutory duty on LEAs to arrange for suitable education to be provided for pupils who would not otherwise receive it, by reason of exclusion or otherwise. That duty, now contained in Section 19 of the 1996 Act, applies in the cases both of pupils who have been permanently excluded and of those excluded for a fixed period. So I think the noble Lord's amendment would conflict with the existing statutory duty on LEAs.
I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that after this Bill is enacted the department will as always be issuing comprehensive new guidance to schools and LEAs about all aspects of school exclusions. That guidance will certainly cover their respective responsibilities towards excluded pupils in ensuring their continuing education.
Turning to Amendment No. 108, I acknowledge that there may be occasions when a teacher, having excluded a pupil for a fixed period, may then find that the pupil is ready to return to school before that period is completed. In the majority of cases, however, the punishment of a fixed-term exclusion should be exactly that. Commuting the sentence--if I can put it in Home Office terms--would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, I agree that there may be circumstances where an earlier return is justified and we shall certainly include advice on this point in the new guidance which the department will need to issue to schools on exclusions. No pupil should be kept out of school longer than is necessary.
The actions to be taken by head teachers during a fixed period exclusion are also, it seems to me, best left to guidance--as I think my noble friend Lord Elton put it--rather than being prescribed in regulations. Head teachers will be best placed to judge what should be done on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the circumstances of the exclusion, any problems underlying the individual pupil's behaviour and the length of the exclusion. We intend to put into guidance relevant factors for head teachers to consider which will cover among other things the specific points raised by this amendment as regards pupils with special educational needs and the involvement of a pupil's parents.
I hope therefore with those explanations of the sort of guidance that will be available, both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, is he prepared to offer a response, now or later, to the following query? With regard to Amendment No. 107, would he consider it reasonable that where immediate remedial action is deemed to be appropriate, where a pupil is referred to a specialist team, place or system to try to get the child back in the system as quickly as possible, there ought to be some provision whereby the school at the very least uses the money that was provided for that child's education to pay for such immediate action?
Lord Henley: I take the point that the noble Baroness makes. I should like to consider it. I shall write to her.
Lord Tope: I apologise to the Minister if I said circular 8/94. I do not think that I did so. I am reassured that I did not; it was a mishearing. A little earlier I inadvertently left out a couple of words when referring to the period of a fixed exclusion. I meant to say during the first three days of a fixed exclusion. That is probably clear from the amendment. However, the record should indicate clearly what I meant.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is temporarily not in his place. I took his point about it not being of great benefit to send school work to be done at home to a pupil who has had to be excluded. I merely point out that those were not my words but those of the DfEE circular. I think that the Minister was talking about permanent exclusions. The amendment amends Clause 23, which deals specifically with fixed term exclusions. That is what we refer to.
I have made my points. I am sorry that again I have failed to convince the Minister. It leaves me with little choice at this stage but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108:
The noble Lord said: With the same regrets, and for the same reasons as those eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert--
("(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the head teacher to take steps to ensure that a pupil who has been excluded for a fixed period returns to school as quickly as possible.
(4) The regulations made under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision--
(a) for any special educational needs of the excluded pupil to be identified; and
(b) for meetings to be held with the pupil, the pupil's parents and the pupil's teachers with a view to identifying--
(i) the cause or causes of the behaviour giving rise to the exclusion, and
(ii) steps which can be taken by the school, parents or pupil to prevent reoccurrence of that behaviour.".").
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause--
(" . In section 156 of the Education Act 1996, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted--
"(1A) The articles of government for every maintained school, grant-maintained school, maintained special school and non-maintained special school shall provide that no pupil shall be permanently excluded unless--
(a) all reasonable steps have been taken by the school to avoid excluding the pupil; and
(b) allowing the pupil to continue to attend the school would be seriously detrimental to the education or welfare of the pupil, other pupils or staff at the school.".").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 109 brings into law what is already in government practice. Circular 10/94 provides that,
When these grounds were formulated in 1992, and debated both in this House and in another place for the Education Act 1993, they had the support of most of those working with children in schools, including the main teaching and head teacher unions. It does not seem right or sufficient that the measure should have been put into guidance only. I do not wish to quote at great length at this time of night from the recent Ofsted report but, among other things, it said:
Perhaps I may paraphrase what would otherwise require lengthy quotation to justify. The message is that significant numbers of pupils should not have been excluded, and, to a lesser extent, that a few schools had failed to exclude under those grounds and thus have put other pupils in the school at risk.
The amendment seeks to correct that by stating a clear principle of last resort, as well as seeking to improve relationships between schools and families, and schools and LEAs. The arguments for having the grounds in law are many. I limit myself to two. First, if the new clause's criteria were established, parents and governors would have a much better and fairer opportunity to question unnecessary exclusions, and schools would have to be more careful about why they excluded. On the other hand, maintained schools would be in a stronger position to challenge what they regard as unfair reinstatement orders by the LEA.
The second point I wish to make as an argument for having the grounds in law--and I feel very strongly
"The Secretary of State believes that it should be clear in each case of permanent exclusion that: it is a last resort: the school has taken all reasonable steps to avoid excluding the child; and allowing the child to remain in school would be seriously detrimental to the education or welfare of the pupil, or to that of others at the school".
"A few [schools] were irresponsibly profligate in the use made of exclusion, devaluing it as a sanction".
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is extremely late and I will be brief. I very much support the amendment. First, everyone knows and agrees that permanent exclusion is a serious matter for the child and its family. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said in speaking to an earlier amendment, many of the people who are permanently excluded are children with particular difficulties. Thirdly, although the Minister has suggested to us on a number of occasions that he dislikes having matters put in the Bill, particularly those which appear to limit the absolute freedom of schools to manage their own affairs, I believe this is an area where absolute clarity would be of great help to everyone involved in this serious matter: teachers, head teachers, parents and in some cases pupils. I therefore very much support the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page