| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200B:
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require pupil referral units to have as their main objective the satisfactory reintegration of pupils into mainstream schools. The organisation of LEA off-site provision for pupils out of school was created under the Education Act 1993 and institutions were so designated from September 1994. In January 1995 there were 286 pupil referral units with 5,043 pupils and a staffing of 1,446 full-time equivalent teachers.
Concern has been expressed about the quality of education at PRUs following an Ofsted inspection report in 1995. Local education authorities have been making progress towards defining the place of their PRUs in the range of provision for pupils in difficulties. Clause 26 requiring LEAs to prepare a plan for children with behavioural difficulties is welcome. The development by Ofsted of an agreed framework for inspection is also welcome.
Current DfEE guidance in Circular 1194--The education by LEAs of children otherwise than at School--notes that for children out of mainstream school,
That advice flows through to all the arrangements for PRUs, including the need not to provide the national curriculum, though there is still a need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
The need to get young people who have been excluded from school back into education is paramount. PRUs can provide an effective means of achieving that end through their specialised teaching staff and generous teacher-pupil ratio. The purpose of this amendment is to write into primary legislation a policy objective which is supported by the Government and all other interested bodies. An amendment with the same wording was debated in Standing Committee D in another place on 16th January 1997. The Minister of State, Mr. Forth, was not convinced that there was a need to include in the Bill:
He believed that guidelines and the need for flexibility were sufficient. He said that the Government might reconsider the matter if it was found that PRUs were failing to give priority to return pupils to mainstream education. Why wait? Rather than wait and see how
Lord Henley: I understand the intention behind this amendment and I would agree in general that most PRUs should act, as has been put on another occasion, as a revolving door. However, what the noble Baroness's amendment fails to take into account is the sheer variety of the PRUs and the variety of pupils within them. There are currently 328 PRUs. Their intakes vary considerably. Pupils may, for example, have been excluded; they may be persistent non-attenders, suffering from neurotic disorders, including school phobia; they may be pregnant or young mothers and unable to attend ordinary school; or they may have other characteristics.
I would accept that in general most younger pupils excluded from school who have not yet embarked on their GCSE courses should be returned to school--and this might sometimes be a special school--as soon as possible. However, I do not think I could accept the noble Baroness's point that it would always be appropriate, or the primary function of a PRU, automatically to aim at reintegrating all the older disaffected pupils when they might be better integrated into another setting. Similarly, I do not think it would be right to require the return to a mainstream school of, say, an 11 year-old mother who was successfully pursuing her studies in a PRU.
What matters in these cases is that a judgment has to be made of what would be the most suitable educational progression for the individual pupil. While I am sympathetic to the wording of this amendment and its declaratory tone, I have to say that one could not put in declaratory words of that sort if it was only in certain circumstances that that was going to be the prime object or the principal objective of the PRU, because many of them will have other objectives for other pupils.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether I could press the Minister to see whether there might possibly on Report be a form of wording that would satisfy my noble friend Lady David and overcome the difficulties to which the Minister referred. Such a form of words could refer to, "unless quite clearly not in the interests of the pupil through, for example, age, pregnancy or a severe medical problem". I do not mean that a comprehensive list should be given, but perhaps it could be made absolutely clear that in the case of 10 or 11 year-olds the prime objective was to achieve a return to mainstream education. It ought to be possible for us to achieve what is wanted and to overcome the quite legitimate objections and the valid points raised by the Minister.
Lord Henley: On Report I shall obviously be prepared to consider amendments tabled by either noble Baroness should they wish to do so. However, I believe that they would find it difficult to draft provisions in the manner they have suggested. That is often one of the dangers of having declaratory principles in Bills--
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for her support and advice. I also thank the Minister because that was not a wholly unsympathetic reply. I should like to read in Hansard what he has said. It may be that we can cook up another amendment, but with slightly different words, for the next stage of the Bill, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200C:
The noble Baroness said: As I did not think that this amendment quite fitted with Amendment No. 200B, I thought that it might be better if I spoke to it separately. The amendment seeks to find out why the consent of the Secretary of State is required before a joint committee is established for two or more PRUs.
Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which includes provision for the establishment of pupil referral units, defines PRUs as a school established and maintained by a local education authority. Quite rightly, there is no role for the Secretary of State in the establishment, change or closure of PRUs. It would clearly be ridiculous for the Secretary of State to be involved in the approval or otherwise of decisions to establish PRUs. It would reduce the flexibility of PRUs to be organised to meet the continuing development of need in an area. This is not to say that under other powers the Secretary of State should not collect information on LEA practice on the establishment of PRUs, which is a proper exercise of her role and provides valuable feedback to LEAs on the development of this new type of school. What we want to know is why the Secretary of State's consent is required before a joint committee is established. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Intervening in such situations seems a curious use of the Secretary of State's power, particularly when the Government's mood is what one might call "deregulatory".
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may respond briefly. The Government believe that in most cases there should be a separate management committee for each unit. We believe that that is the best way to ensure proper management and oversight of most units. The Secretary of State will be setting out in guidance the factors that she will take into account in deciding whether to approve any particular arrangement of LEAs coming together, but her principal or long-stop role will be to provide that necessary safeguard against joint committees being established solely for the administrative convenience of the LEAs and not leaving it as we think it normally--I stress "normally"--ought to be, which is that there should be a separate management committee for each unit.
Baroness David: I cannot say that I am convinced by the Minister's answer. It seems to me that this is not a
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 201:
The right reverend Prelate said: In contrast to the last amendment that I moved, this is brief and, I hope, crystal clear. It refers to the joint management committees which we have just discussed and in particular to the requirement for such committees to include persons representing schools, including grant-maintained schools. This amendment would add voluntary schools to the grant-maintained group. Clearly, voluntary schools are greater in number than grant-maintained schools and if there is an argument for including grant-maintained schools in such a committee, that argument must surely extend to the voluntary sector also. I beg to move.
Page 48, line 22, at beginning insert--
("( ) At the beginning of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996 (pupil referral units) there shall be inserted--
" A1. A pupil referral unit shall have as its principal objective the satisfactory reintegration into school after a limited period of pupils referred to it".").
"the prime aim in respect of all children who are away from school should be to secure their return to mainstream education, including special schools, as soon as practicable".
"a form of words which states that reintegration is the principal objective".
Page 48, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Page 49, line 1, after ("(including") insert ("voluntary and").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page