| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as was discussed earlier, I very much look forward to schools coming forward with proposals. Of course, as I said on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, we want to see proposals from schools and from local education authorities which have a positive impact on children's education in the widest possible sense.
It is important that we do not lose our focus on raising standards in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord has concentrated specifically on transport, and in later debates on the Bill there will be opportunities to return to that issue. I am sure that we shall do so.
I do not believe that the test of raising standards is inconsistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to bring forward in his amendment. Higher standards are intrinsically linked to improving and benefiting the quality of children's education. It is my view that one cannot have one without the other.
Perhaps I may take another one or two examples. If proposals were put forward to improve attendance or reduce the number of exclusions, I believe that that would both benefit the quality of a child's education and drive up the educational standards achieved by the school, LEA and individual pupils.
Therefore, I very much hope that we shall see proposals which benefit the education of children in England—and Wales, for that matter, although Wales is not referred to specifically in the amendment. But we must not lose sight of why we have introduced the power. We have done so in order to give schools and LEAs the opportunity to drive up standards even higher. If, within that, a proposal were to be brought forward which included the issue of school transport, it would be within the ability of a school to propose that under the power to innovate and for us to consider the matter carefully in that context.
Therefore, I believe that we are taking the same position on this matter. If it would be of benefit, between now and Third Reading I should be very happy to discuss the issue of transport with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because that is what he has specifically raised today. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted by the noble Baroness's offer and I shall certainly take it up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6 in this group. I have said previously in your Lordships House that it is important to ensure that all children continue to receive a broad and balanced curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society. I do not want anything in the Bill to change that.
I hope that I have also been absolutely clear that the power to innovate must not be used to benefit one group of pupils at the expense of another. We want proposals to be brought forward which, if successful, will benefit pupils in schools all over the country.
I hope that noble Lords will know that I take extremely seriously the educational welfare of children with disabilities and special educational needs. We have had much debate on this matter, and I am committed to ensuring that no part of the Bill has a detrimental effect on children with disabilities or special educational needs.
In Committee, I was able to offer the reassurance to noble Lords that the guidance covering applications for the power to innovate would state clearly that,
We have said here, in another place and in the draft of the guidance to be issued that we want to see higher standards for all children, including those with disabilities and special educational needs. Proposals which had a negative impact on education provision for special educational needs pupils would not be considered to raise standards. However, in answer to, and in sympathy with, the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this area, I want to create additional protection for this important group of children.
I am happy to respond to those concerns by writing safeguards into the legislation. That is why I have put forward Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. They make clear that no order can be made if it appears to the Secretary of State or National Assembly that the proposed order
In moving Amendment No. 6, I hope that I can offer further reassurance to noble Lords about the way in which the proposals under the power to innovate will work. Guidance will make clear to applicants that they should take explicit account of the interests of children with special educational needs in relation to all projects. That must mean promoting their interests, as well as protecting them. We have already made clear that any proposal should be the subject of consultation with all parents, which should certainly include, as always, the parents of children with special educational needs whose children might be affected either beneficially or adversely. Again this should be an area where we consult children with SEN, as we learn how to do so more effectively.
Following that, we shall set out in guidance that we would expect the Secretary of State's attention to be drawn to any SEN issues in the proposal. Once flexibilities have been agreed, I can confirm that monitoring, including in relation to the annual report and when deciding whether to extend a project, will look at SEN issues. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have attached my name to one amendment in this group which, in the light of the Minister's remarks, I shall not be pressing. I have one simple question. Where a school, or schools put together a committee of parents representing all parents—this would certainly apply under federations if they come into being—such a committee would not always specifically represent children with special educational needs. However, when speaking to the government amendments, the Minister said that consultation with parents would include consulting parents who specifically represented children with SEN. Therefore, for the sake of the record, perhaps the Minister will answer the following question. If there are children with special education needs in a school but the body of parents representing all children in a school do not have specific expertise in the subject or represent children with SEN, will it be possible for a parent representing those children to be included in the consultation process?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendment No. 4, which noble Lords on these Benches will not be pressing. That is partly because we are extremely grateful to the Minister for Amendment No. 6, which answers almost all that we required. However, it does not quite meet our concerns, and other noble Lords may wish to speak
I welcome Amendment No. 2, especially the little phrase at the end, which refers to the,
I very much welcome the two government amendments from the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for the work that she has put in to ensure that such amendments were brought forward.
"(1A) In forming an opinion as to whether a project may contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England or Wales, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall—
(a) have regard to the need for the curriculum for any school affected by the project to be a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and of society, and
(b) consider the likely effect of the project on all the children who may be affected by it."
"in determining whether or not a proposal raises standards the Secretary of State will have regard to:
i) the need to raise standards for all children, including those with Special Educational Needs; and
ii) the need to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society through a broad and balanced curriculum".
4.30 p.m.
"except [in] legislation relating to the education of disabled children and children with special educational needs",
while the Minister's amendment makes it clear that such an order would be made where,
"it appears to the Secretary of State ... that the proposed order would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs".
I take the point made by the Minister that there could be cases where a proposed innovation that is affected by the legislation is, nevertheless, regarded as being a good way forward. We would not wish to exclude such an amendment. I take it that that is the spirit in which we have achieved slightly different wording.
"likely effect of the project on all the children who may be affected by it".
When schools propose to innovate, the Minister was right to point out that our amendment does not make it clear that there might be repercussions as regards other schools; and that, therefore, there should be discussions with other schools. I am pleased to see that we now have a recognition on the face of the Bill that an innovation pushed through by one school could have quite a detrimental effect upon other schools. Such considerations must be taken into account. Indeed, if the effect were too detrimental, I hope that the Secretary of State would not allow it to go ahead.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page