| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for his response. It is always rather disappointing when the Minister tells us that he agrees with almost everything we have said but that he will not do anything about it. It seems to me that there may be provisions that ought to be on the face of the Bill but are not. However, given the circumstances, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause--
(" . In section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996 the words "or part-time" shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the LEAs' new duty to secure the provision of education for children who are out of school--which was introduced in the 1993 Education Act--is for full-time, not part-time education. I cannot understand how it could be considered right that pupils out of school should be entitled only to part-time education. After all, parents are under a duty to ensure that their children have full-time education, so how can this provision be different?
I am aware that in his letter of 14th February after the Second Reading debate, the Minister made the point to my noble friend Lady David that for some--he gave the example of school phobics or those who are in hospital--full-time education may not be appropriate. However, the definition of "full-time" does not have to correspond with school hours. It is a principle of long standing that full-time home tuition, for example,
Nonetheless it is quite unacceptable that excluded pupils receive--as many do at present--only a few hours' home tuition a week. The Minister indicated that he also considered that unsatisfactory. Both the Home Office and the Audit Commission have documented the strong correlation between out-of-school pupils and offending. Surely this is an additional reason for trying to ensure that these pupils should receive full-time education. If pupils who have already demonstrated behaviour problems serious enough to be excluded are left unoccupied and without stimulation, can anyone be surprised that many of them come to the notice of the police? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this new clause which would ensure that an excluded pupil is entitled to full-time education appropriate to his age, ability and aptitude. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wish most strongly to support this amendment. I raised this matter at Second Reading. Excluded pupils need a great deal of education, more perhaps than those who have not been excluded. It is most important that they are educated properly. My noble friend Lady Ramsay has raised the point that it is very much excluded children who are the offenders and are constantly in trouble with the police. If they are not occupied, it is not surprising that that is so. It is the duty of parents, after all, to ensure that their children receive education. Therefore, I think the Government should do something to be much surer than they are now that proper education is provided for these children. That seems to me vitally important.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In terms of benefit to society and to the individual, full-time education for those who have been excluded is paramount. I believe that to allow anything otherwise is a short-sighted policy. I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. I hope that it will not be rejected simply on the ambiguity of the expression of "full-time education". I understand entirely the difficulty. To calculate how many hours of education in the week are full-time equivalent would be difficult. On the other hand, we know that a number of children who have been excluded receive literally two hours teaching a week. That cannot be sufficient. I hope that some formula will exist--it may not be in the words of this amendment--to impose an obligation to provide supervision as well as education for children who have been excluded. If the amendment is not accepted, there must be some provision in the Bill to make it positively illegal to provide only two hours' education in the week for a child, with no further supervision or supervised activity.
Lord Tope: I add the strong support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. Many of the points have been made. It cannot be right that an excluded child is entitled to less education than a child in school. If anything perhaps
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, I hope that the Minister is able to support the amendment, or at the very least will assure us that he will come back with some provision which meets the concerns expressed on all sides of the Chamber. We have not yet heard the Minister's views.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the amendment. For the majority of children for whom the measure is appropriate and in their interests, the primary aim is to reintegrate the child into mainstream education as soon as possible. Often alongside the behavioural problems is the problem of under-achievement. The more the child falls behind, the more difficult it becomes for him or her to be reintegrated into the peer group at the end of the process of additional help. Therefore we support the amendment.
Lord Henley: Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on the importance and primary need for reintegration. I cannot say that I am not sympathetic to such an amendment, but there are two main arguments against it that I must address before I advise the Committee as to what I consider the best way forward.
First, I believe that an amendment of this kind could be over-prescriptive. Insisting on the provision of full-time education--we shall come back to that definition; it is important--for all pupils regardless of their circumstances could prohibit LEAs from making the most suitable provision in some cases.
Perhaps I may give one example. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, referred to the letter I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady David, about school phobics and those in hospitals. That is a concern for them. I can think of another. We know that the alienated 14 and 15 year-olds--those coming to the end of their compulsory school life--are at the peak ages for exclusions. The reason that many of those pupils are being excluded, that they are being difficult, is that they are disaffected from normal schooling. A number of LEAs seek to re-motivate such pupils by putting together a package of provisions according to their individual needs. That might involve a couple of days a week at an FE college and a couple of days' work experience. I do not know whether the words "full-time education" would count under that definition. But we know that that kind of provision often works in turning around young people who would otherwise be at risk of dropping out of mainstream society. It gives them a new interest in education, training and the world of work.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further. Pupils from many schools undertake work experience schemes. We are not dealing in that situation with excluded pupils but with those who are required to have a full-time education until they reach statutory school leaving age. To the best of my knowledge, no one has challenged the position that those pupils are not in receipt of full-time education. It is an integrated part of a good programme of full-time education for secondary school pupils in virtually all schools. It would be wrong to dismiss the amendment on that ground.
Lord Henley: I accept that many secondary school children undertake a degree of work experience. As I remember the figures--I stand to be corrected--something like 98 per cent. of secondary school children are doing a small amount--possibly a week or two weeks over the whole year--of work experience in their final year at school. I agree that that is important and a part of education.
However, we are talking about definitions. If we are considering some plan put forward by the local education authority to involve considerably more work experience than that which currently exists, that provision might be affected by the definition of full-time education. If we are to go down that route, we have to be wary and get our definitions right. That is why I come back to the clear difficulty which has to be addressed of the definition of full-time education.
There are a great many other important implications behind such an amendment. The point was not addressed by Members of the Committee but there would be significant cost implications if LEAs simply expanded their current pattern of out-of-school provision. We know that in its report on pupil referral units published in December 1995, Ofsted found that some provision was of both poor quality and extremely expensive. We do not wish to go down that route. It found that the best provision was often also the most cost-effective because those individuals could then be reintegrated into school. There is clearly some scope for more efficiency in this area of education expenditure.
While giving no commitments because, first, of the implication of high costs, and, secondly, the fundamental point on the definition of full-time education, I am advised that work experience in statutory terms is "authorised absence from schools" and is therefore permissible for a short period. But we are talking of much longer periods; and for that reason the definition of full-time education would not necessarily be appropriate.
Having mentioned the three points of cost, over-prescription and definition, perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. Without giving any commitment, I should be more than happy to consider whether officials can do something on an amendment like this, or whether the noble Baroness might wish to bring it back at Report stage. I shall not
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page