---

The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In response to the comments of the Minister, at this stage I should like to take advice on what he has said. I accept the thrust of his comments, but I should like time to reflect upon them and, if they prove to be right, to return to the House.

Baroness David: This amendment seeks to improve the position of excluded pupils and the LEA. It gives the LEA greater power to control what happens to excluded pupils so that they can return to school and are not all massed into one school. I hope and believe that this amendment would make for better planning. I should like to discuss this further in the light of what the Minister has said, particularly about the technicalities of the drafting, and also in the light of what the right reverend Prelate has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1532

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 24, line 33, leave out ("disqualified person") and insert ("child to whom subsection (2) applies.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 118 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 133 and 134. These amendments are intended to fulfil the commitments that I gave at Second Reading. I undertook to look again, in the light of the concerns then expressed, at the use of the term "disqualified person" in Clause 28 and related clauses to see whether we could come up with a better way of describing pupils who had been permanently excluded from two or more schools, while still retaining the principles of this provision.

The original form of words was a drafting device. I made clear that there was never any intention that any pupil should walk around with a label on his or her chest--or worse--saying "disqualified person". But I recognise the validity of the concerns expressed on that occasion. Therefore, to remove any doubt we propose this series of amendments to Clauses 28 and 29 and Schedule 5. I hope that the Committee will accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are tabled. I also hope that the Committee accept that they honour my undertaking to preserve the principle of the provisions. I beg to move.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris: "Accept a miracle instead of wit, See two dull lines with Stanhope's pencil writ".

I can see from the look on the face of the Minister that that is one quotation he does not recognise immediately, although a few moments with the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations will probably assist him. Those were the words of Edward Young in 1820 in Spence's Anecdotes. And so say all of us in 1997, since only last week both my noble friend Lady Farrington and I were forced, sadly, to complain that in over 100 amendments so far the Minister had not felt able to accept even the vestige of one. Lo! here today we are able to thank him for his acceptance so far, not of two lines, but of two words anyway--"disqualified person".

This is a serious issue. I should like to quote one terrible historical occasion. In the late 19th century in Welsh schools it was the practice for any child caught speaking Welsh in the playground or classroom to have a piece of wood placed around his neck and the words "Welsh not" emblazoned upon it. That was a cause of both shame and delight to some of the people concerned, but it was a matter of enormous political passion in Wales at that time. We felt that the use of "disqualified person" might well have come into that category, even in this enlightened England, since I understood that it would not have to be done in Welsh.

The age of miracles is not passed. Now that the noble Lord has broken his duck, I hope that he will go on to rattle up a respectable score of matters that he is capable of taking away and reconsidering. The two words cause deep offence to all kinds of people. In the meetings that we held before this Bill came on to the Floor of the

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1533

House, or since for that matter, it was regularly referred to as one of the matters that many people and organisations hoped would be removed from the Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to our request. I can only say to him:

"For this relief, much thanks".

Hamlet, Act I, scene I.

Lord Tope: I believe that in the Second Reading debate I was the first speaker to express concern about the use of the words "disqualified person", solely because I was one of the early speakers. That concern was shared by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. I cannot match the literary eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or his expression. I believe that all I can say to the Minister is, thank you.

Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, should accept that my education may be limited, but even I would have got the second quotation. The first was beyond me. However, he will also have seen my entering the Chamber with a fairly large pile of documents. I think that to have brought with me the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations in anticipation of the wit of the noble Lord would not have been appropriate or necessary. No doubt those who advise me, if they have a moment, will look up these matters at some point. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:

Page 24, line 35, leave out from ("schools,") to ("during") in line 36 and insert ("this subsection applies to him").
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("in relation").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 122:

After Clause 28, insert the following new clause--

Costs of permanent exclusions
(" . The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the resources available to local education authorities, including resources from recoupment, in respect of the functions exercisable by them under sections 411A(1)(b), 431 and 432 of the Education Act 1996 are sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to carry out those responsibilities.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to draw attention to the need for adequate funds to be available to LEAs to enable them to meet their responsibilities to excluded pupils. In this connection one should remember the introduction of the special education needs code of practice. It was argued at the time of the 1993 legislation that to introduce better procedures would lead to more efficient use of public funds and therefore no additional resources would be required. One knows that earlier and more comprehensive diagnoses of children's special

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1534

educational needs have led inexorably to a demand for more and more costly provision to meet newly developed needs. In short, costs have gone up enormously. The costs of exclusions may very well be similar. To require LEAs to devise and publicise explicit policies to deal with excluded pupils is bound to encourage schools to make increased demands on these services. No bad thing, one might well say, but it will create increased pressure on public expenditure, and that should be recognised by the Government.

The objectives in the Bill of trying to make the public education system more effective by improving schools' approaches to discipline issues, regulating the use of exclusions and trying to secure the best possible continuing education of excluded pupils are all strongly supported by LEAs. They also recognise that an LEA has an important role in that. They have to put in place appropriate frameworks of support for schools, and when a child is permanently excluded they have quickly and effectively to make alternative arrangements for his education or secure admission to an alternative school.

Those functions are recognised by LEAs and by us all as important and necessary, but they do not come cheaply. There is a serious possibility, if not a likelihood, that the resource implications of those functions will, to say the least, sit uncomfortably with the pressure to reduce central functions and delegate more resources to schools.

It may be argued that the problem could be solved by LEAs offering those services for purchase by the schools from their delegated resources, but the structure of the legislation (Clause 26) seems to make it clear that each LEA has explicitly to offer services to meet requests of schools for "support and assistance" in connection with the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils. That seems to amount to a requirement that the LEA offer a free service. In addition, it is part of the LEA's duty to deal with permanently excluded pupils, and the responsibility for providing alternative arrangements for the most difficult and disruptive pupils will devolve on the LEAs. They are of course the most expensive of all.

It is therefore most important that we can be sure that the resource implications of this legislation are fully taken on board by the Government and that the Secretary of State will give proper consideration to ensuring that LEAs have sufficient resources to implement it. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may say just a few words in support of the amendment. I had the opportunity during the past few weeks of discussing this problem with a recently retired head teacher of a secondary school in my area. He said that sometimes this matter can be easily settled but at other times it is extremely difficult and costly. Occasionally head teachers can, in the kind of freemasonry that exists among head teachers of secondary schools, get together and discuss excluded pupils and by moving a difficult and disruptive child from one secondary school to another can, as it were, give that child a fresh start and a clean sheet.

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1535

It is possible in certain such cases--they are more than a few--to solve the problem cheaply, quickly and effectively. But in other cases that is not the case. I should like to ask the Minister how any cost estimates for this activity have been arrived at. Secondly, is it obligatory that the LEA offers a free service, or would it be permitted to charge for its advice? Thirdly, is there a known average cost for fulfilling responsibilities to a permanently excluded pupil? That would be a helpful figure if it is available.

Fourthly and finally, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of, as I am sure he is, the activities of organisations such as Cities in Schools. I have had extremely useful discussions with the officials of Cities in Schools, who seem to be offering a remarkable service to excluded pupils by arrangement with LEAs in certain areas. If they have an 80 per cent. plus success rate with excluded pupils by virtue of the fact that they can pay close attention to individual cases. I should like to know whether the Government approve of that organisation and others like it as fulfilling a useful role in dealing with this difficult and recurrent problem.

---