| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dearing: My Lords, when the Minister spoke on Report on this amendment, the logic that she adduced for not accepting it was persuasive; that is, that we must care for every child as an individual and not by category. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the fact that exclusion is 10 or 20 times more likely, and that 30 to 40 per cent of young offenders have been in care. We should also bear in mind the fact that the amendment seeks only to require governors to see that teachers are aware that such children are in their care. That is not asking a great deal. Given the damage that is done to their lives through insufficient care, there is a special case in this regard.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken on this matter. I agree with what noble Lords have said about the tenacity of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I believe that he and I have met 11 times outside the Chamber during the passage of the Bill to discuss this matter. I am enormously grateful for the amount of time that he has devoted to doing that.
The two amendments in this group try to address the needs of what we recognise is an extremely vulnerable group of children. The issue before us is twofold. First, is this the right way to tackle the matter? Secondly, is this the way to make a difference in those children's lives so that we can all go home and feel comfortable that we have achieved something? Alternatively, do we need to consider whether legislation is always the answer to some of the questions that have been raised? I argue that the way in which the Government approach the matter demonstrates our commitment to this very vulnerable group of children whose educational achievements and life chances constitute a scandal. What one puts on the face of legislation must constitute a crystal clear way of addressing the issue.
I shall not reiterate everything that I have said previously in the House or in discussions elsewhere. We take very seriously the report of the Social Exclusion Unit, which firmly stated that the critical relationship was with the corporate parent. The corporate parent needs to do what we hope every parent does for their child, which is to ensure that they get back-up and support in education. We all know that educational attainment and achievement are still too much determined by the kind of background that one has. If children do not have a supportive environment with opportunities to learn and to use computer equipment and so on, they can be
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1491
disadvantaged. We believe it is critical that we make it absolutely clear where the responsibility lies and do not shirk it or shuffle it off elsewhere.
The noble Earl and I met with a group of young people who were either in care or leaving care. They mentioned the critical word that we have incorporated into our PSA target; namely, stability. What they really want is stability. Often that translated for the older ones into the kind of accommodation that they would obtain. As we have seen on some BBC programmes featuring looked-after children, stability for them constituted not carrying their possessions around in black plastic bags but having the stability that is their due. Stability is critical because without it children cannot acquire educational attainment. We can demonstrate that we have taken this issue extremely seriously.
I turn to Amendment No. 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I know that she did so in a helpful spirit. However, we are back to my favourite word of "list" which I have not used yet on this Third Reading. I know that the noble Baroness will recognise the difficulties that a list engenders. Immediately I thought of Traveller children who constitute a very particular group of children who need additional support. They often have instability in their lives and often do not get the support that is needed to help their educational attainment, not least because they travel. I think also of young carers—a group that we have discussed previously in your Lordships' House—who have an average age of 11. They desperately need support. However, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will recognise, young carers often do not want to be recognised as such. They fear bullying and being asked questions about their parents, perhaps because the parent has a mental health problem.
I do not want any list ever to appear in a piece of legislation that might make a disadvantaged child less likely to get the attention and support of a school. The only way for them to get that attention and support is to make sure that every child matters and that every child in every class in every school is important. That is the critical line that I cannot cross because I consider that it is so important. It is also important that we recognise a school's capacity, that we ensure that we support schools effectively and that we seek to do things as efficiently as we possibly can.
The noble Earl referred to designated teachers. I accept absolutely what he said about there being more work to be done in that regard. We want to make sure that designated teachers work effectively but that does not mean that we do something else instead; it means that we ensure that we give them the necessary support. I agree with much of what the noble Earl said in that regard. He introduced me to the gentleman who had done the relevant research who had much to say about ensuring that the training that is given is pitched at the right level and that appropriate support is given.
I undertake to ensure that the guidance we send out on the duty to promote the educational attainment of children will reinforce the importance of giving
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1492
governors and teachers the right kind of advice and training to support looked-after children. That guidance will go to local authorities.
We are pursuing the recommendation to provide guidance on the kind of questions that governors could raise with their schools about the education of looked-after children. We will link that guidance with the guidance on Clause 44. We are taking forward the recommendation on the Teacher Training Agency for best-practice materials to help the education of looked-after children, making sure that all teachers are aware of how the care system operates and understand the particular needs of children in care. That work will build on the existing teacher training guidance, which already makes it clear that teachers,
"are expected to have a professional commitment to raising the educational achievement of all their pupils, whatever their background".
I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about personalisation being critical. We believe that we have the position right. The corporate parent must take responsibility and do it properly. We will look at the guidance and do what I have undertaken to do. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for trying to assuage my concerns, and for spelling out how she will ensure that practice is reinforced in this area. That will clearly be helpful and improve what is being delivered currently.
My noble friend Lady Howarth raised a very important point about the sensitivity of the information and how children in care may not wish the school's people to know their background. When the department was working hard to develop the guidance, it thought about that issue carefully and came to its conclusions after a lot of consideration. The question is extremely difficult. I can tell her that an awful lot of thought has gone into preparing the guidance on the subject. A very careful balance has to be struck. The same is true of the information-sharing on the database. Partnership working between the school and the local authority is so sensitive and needs so much thought, but that thought was undertaken. The conclusion was that there should be a designated teacher, but a senior and well trained teacher. Unfortunately, that is not the case consistently enough. I recognise the significance of what she said, however.
I welcome what the Minister said, and will have to take it away; I detect that there might not be much progress if I sought to press the amendment. I absolutely agree with what she said about the corporate parent. It is the local authority, as my noble friend said, but there is a partnership also. We are discussing a Bill that enshrines new means to encourage partnership working. It is vital that schools and local authorities work together. One in four children is placed out of their local authority. It becomes very hard for the local authority to keep in touch with its child, so in practice what the school does is very important.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1493
I will continue to raise the issue with the Minister, and I am sure that she will continue to raise it with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 45:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |