| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Tope: I support the amendment and the concern which was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I know that the costs of SEN have soared astronomically in recent years. I would not attribute that entirely or directly to the code of practice, but I am certain that that has been part of it. For the reasons that have been given, the same could well happen, for good reason, in the case of exclusions. I await with interest the answers to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who as, so often, posed the questions that I was going to pose. It is to be hoped that we will receive the same answers.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may intervene briefly in the light of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to make the point that the Churches have made provision in this area in the past. I think, in particular, of St. Francis, an institution of the National Society, which provided the kind of help to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. It is the lack of resources which has forced a number of these institutions to close. Therefore, the question of resources is of enormous importance.
Lord Henley: Pupils who have been excluded from school should receive the appropriate support. That is something with which we all agree and which local authorities are bound to offer in appropriate ways. The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a wholly inappropriate role in scrutinising the availability of such provision. Resources in relation to excluded pupils, or for that matter in relation to all educational matters which are the responsibility of LEAs, are provided from within the local authority's overall budget. It is up to local authorities to decide what provision is needed. The Government play a role in deciding what the overall level of resources should be. That, in essence, is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord,
Lord Morris, about the Secretary of State determining what the need should be. He will know that it is part of the annual public expenditure round, and then of negotiations with the local authorities, as to what the final support should be.It should not be for the Government to lay down what that should be. It would be wholly inappropriate. But within the resources available to them, it is properly for local authorities to decide what support they should devote to meeting the needs of pupils excluded from school.
I say in all sincerity to both noble Lords opposite that it is difficult to see how that local discretion can be reconciled with the amendment. I just cannot understand how the two parties opposite, who believe in the independence and autonomy of local authorities, can support an amendment like this.
The question is not whether schools and local authorities can afford to provide effective support for excluded pupils but whether they can afford not to do so, as the alternative to successful education and re-integration--something about which we talked earlier--of excluded pupils should be their long-term aim and could possibly be cheaper. It is an expensive and often ineffective alternative if the LEA is obliged to continue to provide for pupil referral units, or whatever, if reintegration fails. Again, perhaps I may mention the Ofsted report of late 1995 which I mentioned earlier. In that inspection it was made clear that the cheaper provision was sometimes the better provision and the mere level of expenditure on any provision was not necessarily a sign of how effective it is.
For those reasons, it is important for the LEAs to have in place effective policies which support the education of such pupils and their re-integration into mainstream schools. The introduction of LEA behaviour support plans under Clause 26 will help to ensure that they do so. For the first time, the full range of each LEA's provision in relation to pupils with behaviour problems must be the subject of local consultation and the LEAs must publish details of their policies and arrangements.
The noble Lord asked about Cities in Schools, a programme of which I must confess I was not aware. However, my officials are well aware of the work that is being developed. Some LEAs and the department have been encouraging that--
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am happy to hear that his officials are in possession of that information. However, I shall ensure that I send him all the information about this valuable service.
Lord Henley: If the scheme is as effective as the noble Lord says, it is one that I shall be more than happy to know about. I regret that it is not within my remit in the department and perhaps that is why I am not aware of it. I shall be more than happy to read the information that he sends.
I hope that for the reasons I have given the noble Baroness will feel it unnecessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I find the Minister's response very disappointing. The amendment is about ensuring that resources are available to the LEAs. It has nothing to do with interfering with an LEA's internal responsibilities. I did not understand the Minister's point about that.
It is cold comfort to be told that the LEAs must find the wherewithal to carry out these functions from within their own resources. Anyone who has first-hand experience of LEAs and their current problems knows the real difficulties which exist in providing the requirements for children with special educational needs. The issue of looking after excluded children shows all the signs of going the same way as that relating to children with special educational needs. It is a difficult burden on LEAs.
As I made clear, no one, least of all the LEAs, believes that anything but good is coming out of the actions which are laid down to look after the needs of excluded pupils. The amendment related only to the question of where the resources will come from. That is all it was about and we have not had an answer from the Minister--
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. This year the schools have had a pretty good settlement. We made available an extra £1.7 billion. That is money from taxpayers going to LEAs. It is up to LEAs then to decide how to spend it. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways and say, "Yes, but governments then find specific extra money for specific things". That is taking the discretion away from local authorities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Minister must be as aware as I am of the difficulties which the LEAs already have in relation to special educational needs. That is the best example because it is the best parallel for taking on the responsibilities for excluded pupils. However, I see that I shall get nowhere with the Minister and in a spirit far from contentment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Appeals in the case of persons permanently excluded from two or more schools]:
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125:
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 32 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies to the child.").
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("who,") and insert ("to whom,").
Page 25, line 38, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 39 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies.").
5.15 p.m.
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause--
(" . Where any child is the subject of disciplinary proceedings within a school, or related appeals procedures, there shall be no publication which reveals the name, address or school of the child concerned in the proceedings, except as may be required by the school's disciplinary procedure or any statutory procedure.").
The noble Lord said: Recently there have been an increasing number of occurrences where cases of alleged indiscipline on the part of individual school children have made the national news; that is, radio, television, newspapers and so forth. Serious anxiety has been expressed in a number of quarters about the damage that that can cause to children, their friends, families and communities. There is a precedent for our proposal at Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That prevents the publication of details about young people who are subject to proceedings in the courts. Those rules are firmly enforced and as a result the process of youth justice is enabled to proceed unhindered. How many times have we heard the phrase, "The young person whose name cannot be revealed for legal reasons"? That appears to be a remarkably effective deterrent.
It is a paradox that a young person accused of a serious offence outside school automatically receives the protection of legal anonymity, but children accused of misdemeanours at schools can find themselves the subject of national attention and branded, to quote a recent example, "the naughtiest child in the country". To have that label hung around one's neck must be as inflammatory as being labelled a disqualified person.
It was used of someone who I shall call Boy X, simply in order to avoid naming the poor fellow again. He was the subject of the exclusion row at Manton School in Nottinghamshire. The effect of that was to make Boy X a hero among his peers. Anyone aged from 10 to 14 will tell you that a boy or girl excluded from school instantly becomes a member of an elite. In the old days he or she was caned. He was pointed out as one of the boys who was regularly caned by the headmaster and of whom it was said, "My goodness, can't he take it". It gives a wholly unnecessary and undesirable notoriety to the children concerned. However, it will also be remembered when Boy X applies for a job near Manton School in Nottinghamshire. In fact, he would be well advised to get as far away from Nottinghamshire as he can when he seeks permanent paid employment. Furthermore, the notoriety is unnecessary unless one regards it as part of the punishment.
It might be possible to argue that the shame and obloquy of being branded in such a way by the tabloid press is part of the punishment. I would answer that by saying that all too often it appears before any guilt is established. Although of a lesser order of seriousness, school exclusions take the form of a quasi-judicial procedure including rights of appeal. Undoubtedly, it is the case that the individual child's right to a fair hearing and natural justice can be seriously prejudiced by media
Being publicly branded as wicked, evil or irredeemably disruptive at a young and impressionable age can have a profound effect. It can often bring about the result which the branding suggests. Even if the disciplinary procedures work properly and the young person concerned is ultimately not excluded from school, the very fact of national publicity can make it impossible for him to continue in that institution.
Similarly, it is very difficult for a person who has been branded by the media to move to a different school and become integrated because everyone at the new institution will be perfectly well aware of the case. The new pupil will be pointed out in playgrounds and will be noticed by all his peers. Inevitably, that will militate against re-establishing successful educational progress. In many cases, it could and would be a permanent blight on the young person's life.
In addition, the onus lies upon the Government, and perhaps the Minister, to prove that to name the individual concerned is necessary. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the press, local or national, will usually act responsibly. We have a thousand recent reasons for noticing that it has not and it does not. We all know that existing voluntary press codes suggest that children should not be named or interviewed without the consent of their parents. It seems that that is well and good, if it works. But recent experience has shown that that is an appallingly unsatisfactory and inadequate safeguard. For example, parents who are unfamiliar with being in the limelight and who may feel that it would be extremely beneficial to have their point of view aired in public are easily tempted to give their consent and to speak voluntarily to the media.
We have all had experience of being telephoned and asked to comment or to fill in a lacuna in the story a journalist is trying to write, which, of course, will be wholly to our satisfaction. A journalist will talk on until he gets what, in his trade or profession, is known as the "killer" quote. Sooner or later, any one of us has been put in the position where we have said something which we perhaps did not intend to say. We have had one or two quite recent examples in your Lordships' House. I shall say nothing about the individual instances, but they were painful to all concerned and should never have occurred.
Parents are placed in that position and are perhaps even more vulnerable than we are. Many of those who have spoken to the media have lived to regret their decision when they realise the full implications of what follows. But by then it is too late. Their name, address, such descriptions as "attractive, blonde-haired mother of two" and the identity of the child become public property and there is no way in which to recover their anonymity. There is no way back.
This amendment, about which I feel very strongly, as the Committee will probably have noticed, would protect children by preventing--in the scriptural sense that it would go before--disclosure of personal details in the media.
It is important to note that the drafting of the amendment would not preclude discussion of any general issues raised by particular cases or, indeed, identification of particular schools. Therefore, this amendment presents no threat to press freedom. The press need not fidget that they are being shackled in any way whatever. The amendment would not have prevented the media reporting the overall situation at, for example, the Ridings School but it would have prevented some of the more specific abuses which have subsequently given rise to complaints, many of which are still before the Press Complaints Commission.
The amendment makes it clear that the limited publication necessary to allow the legitimate exchange of information among professional persons entitled to have it would not be impeded, and the local authority would be able to undertake such communication of relevant details to fulfil its function under other education Acts. I should stress that the amendment has the support of the National Governors Council and the local authority associations.
I end my plea for this amendment with a short quotation citing examples of unacceptable behaviour by the media from a report of the 22nd annual meeting of the Metropolitan Local Education Authorities at Salford in November 1996. It states that that behaviour included,
Many of the children would not have needed any inducement at all to do that but money was actually offered. It goes on to refer to,
I think that most of us will have seen the shocking television pictures of that taking place. It goes on:
It is against that that I am fighting, and I beg to move.
"offering money to children as an inducement to act up for the cameras".
"The use of a mobile crane and telephoto lenses to film pupils in the classroom".
"Branding individual named children, who had been found by an independent body not to merit exclusion from school, as 'unteachable' or 'out of control'".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page