| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Warnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, I seek clarification. I have become rather muddled as to whether the home-school agreement is general or particular. Although it may set out the general policy of the school, what the school expects of the parents and what it promises to do, each parent will sign it on behalf of a particular child. It may be that one would feel unable to make this particular promise about the particular child. How do I know that I can control him or get him to go to school? I thought that this document was made with reference to a particular parent and for his particular child or children, but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness has misunderstood it. The documents are intended as statements of general principle setting out what the school will endeavour to provide for every child and what the school in turn expects of every parent. It may be that the school will, quite rightly, expect the child to turn up every day. Obviously, it will be particularised to the extent that it will be signed by the particular parents, but it is a general statement of principles.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask a further question. It seems
to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raises an extremely important point about certain parents, particularly single parents, who may for one reason or another be inadequate or find very great difficulty in fulfilling the conditions of the partnership document. Is there any possibility that the child of such parents may be regarded as a child in need and the social services department or the local education authority may assume some of the responsibilities of the parents?
Lord Henley: Obviously, if the child was formally in care they would be the appropriate authorities to make such a decision. If the child was not in care and its parents fell into the category spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am sure that, as we discussed earlier in considering the interaction between social services, the LEA and so on, that would be something that they should take into account. I am sure that in developing their proposals for such a home school partnership such possibilities--sadly they are rather frequent--should be taken into account. But in the end it must be the parent. As always, I should not want to undermine the role of that parent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a similar question to that asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am a little confused, and I apologise if it involves repetition. The House of Lords Library notes on the Bill state, "The clause allows"--that is, Clause 30:
- "for LEA schools to use home school agreements as part of their admission arrangements and to refuse a pupil whose parents have refused to sign the agreement".
In his reply to that I think the Minister said that the parents would have a right of appeal to the independent commission. But if we take that sentence at its face value, it means all of the agreement. As I made clear in a contribution to an earlier debate on another amendment that is in need of clarification.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that that is the case. As I made clear earlier, and as I have made clear on this amendment, they can be used as part of the general admissions process. If parents are not prepared to sign them, well then it is open to the school, even when they have surplus places, to say that they do not wish to take that child.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With great respect, and I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, that does not answer the point which we have both made. To put it bluntly, does it mean that part of the document may be agreed, or not? That is the point we dealt with.
Lord Henley: I do not know what the noble Lord does when he signs a document, but normally when one
signs a document--insurance, or whatever--one signs the whole document. One cannot sign part of a document and then suggest that one has agreed partially.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Or one does not sign at all. The Minister could not have given a better example, because I had to sign a document today. I refused to sign it because of a certain figure on it.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord refuses to sign, or if the parents--as I made clear--refuse to sign, it is open to the school to consider that as part of the admissions process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, the most recent exchange has demonstrated the grave concern we feel that this home school agreement should be used in any way as part of an admissions process. It would appear to us on these Benches, and to other Members of the Committee, that for a government who have espoused the cause of parental choice, to bring in a mechanism which may allow schools to create a home school document which some of the parents in their catchment area find unacceptable, and then to be able to exclude them from school on those grounds, is dangerous. Perhaps more worrying than that, it is a denial of the advantages of the home school agreement in principle, because once it becomes a matter of coercion--we must keep putting this on the record--it is no longer an agreement.
The document may have been agreed by a group of parents, or the majority of the parents, in a set of circumstances, but in no way can it be called an agreement if a parent is told, "You either sign, or your child does not get the place". That is anathema to anyone who has watched with pride and pleasure the development of the home school agreement. To turn it into a mechanism for turning away children is wrong.
Secondly, the concern is that by making it such a rigid pre-admission agreement, there is a danger of it being used, wittingly or unwittingly, against certain parents. I think of the cases of children I met in Lancashire where I chaired the education committee. They were young children going into secondary school for the first time. They lived at home with a parent in advanced stages of an illness who was not able to read or sign anything. The child was the carer.
Of course a reasonable governing body or head teacher will take into account the fact that that parent is unable to sign, when they discover all the circumstances. School places will quickly be filled with those who sign readily, quickly and on the right day, and some people will quickly be denied their rights.
The Government have done what they have sadly done on so many occasions with education legislation: they have taken home school agreements which have been a brilliant--where they have occurred--
imaginative, and innovative process, and then sat in Whitehall and tried to legislate to impose them on all schools in the country.
Lord Henley: We have just debated an amendment upon which the noble Baroness was defeated, where the noble Baroness was trying to impose it on every school in the country. That is not what we are trying to do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was to enable schools to use it to exclude pupils from the school. There are things which are necessary if there is to be an agreement. On these Benches we would not start from here. If the Government are determined to impose the agreement as an admissions procedure we shall seek to amend it. The words used by the Minister tonight give grave cause for concern.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may come back just once again. I have said nothing different from what I said on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness upon which the Committee divided and came to a firm conclusion. In that amendment, the noble Baroness and her noble friends were seeking to impose a duty on local authorities to have such a home school policy in all schools, but not to allow them to make use of them in the admission process. All we are saying is that we believe it is for the schools to decide whether to have such a policy. We should like to see many more, although I believe the vast majority of schools have such a policy, but in addition--it is clear in Clause 30--then to use them as part of the admission process should they so wish.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down, did I hear him say that he thought that most schools had a policy for some sort of home school arrangement which they could use to exclude people coming into the school?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness did not hear me correctly. Most schools have some sort of home school policy. I did not say that they would use that as part of the admission process. What I am saying is that Clause 30 gives them the power to do so, and just that.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My attempt to lift the partnership document out of the context of admission has obviously failed totally. That no doubt indicates where emotions in this place lie at the moment. I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who paid attention to the thrust of the amendments. I am glad that there has been such a warm reception for the principle which lies behind the amendment.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about those parents who might, for one reason or another, be in need of some kind of care. I had a recent experience when I went into a home in Leeds. A single black mother had two children. She was partially deaf. As a result of that, when her children came back from school--I was present in the home
when they did--they were unable to communicate to her their sense of freshness and interest in the work that they had been doing. Because I was in the house, they did so to me. I found it a moving experience. I wonder what would have happened had I not been there. They would have come back, and they would not have had the kind of encouragement and support for which they might have looked. It was no one's fault that that was the case, but it inevitably happened. I do not have any easy answers. I am sure that the schools are aware of the home circumstances of their children and will find ways of working with such families. I agree that it is a point of great importance.I do not believe that I heard any Member of the Committee say that an amendment with the intentions of mine should not be enshrined in statute somewhere. I did hear objection to linking it to this particular partnership document.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I understand that my amendment would mean a shift. The partnership document as at present in the Bill would be a general document to which each individual parent would be required to assent. My amendment would require it to be a matter of agreement and negotiation between a school and a family. I accept that that is a change in the intention of the partnership document.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I shall read what the Minister has said. It may be that we shall wish to find a way of expressing our concerns, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page