---

Lord Acton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for her heroic efforts in leading Members of Parliament in 1998–99 to success in getting some of "Yesterday in Parliament" put back on FM, but should not the goal, in view of the tremendous importance of the matter, be to get back to the pre-1998 position?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a matter for the BBC, not for the Government. It is a matter for the Government that the BBC fulfils its broad remit in terms of its public obligation. My noble friend will recognise that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to express a view on a particular editorial decision.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 1341
 

Business of the House: Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That leave be given to advance the Third Reading of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill from Thursday 3 March to Wednesday 2 March.—(Baroness Amos).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Railways Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 2, Schedule 3, Clauses 3 and 4, Schedule 4, Clauses 5 to 19, Schedule 5, Clauses 20 and 21, Schedule 6, Clause 22, Schedule 7, Clauses 23 to 25, Schedule 8, Clauses 26 to 45, Schedule 9, Clauses 46 to 52, Schedule 10, Clause 53, Schedule 11, Clauses 54 to 58, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 59.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Order 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 1342
 

Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) Regulations 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Modification of Pension Protection Provisions) Regulations 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) 2005

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that this is the last one. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [HL]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 1343
 

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 55:

After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—

"Exclusion of children: duties in relation to pupils
(1) Section 52 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (exclusion of pupils) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) It shall be the duty of all persons and bodies exercising functions under this section—
(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child that is proposed to be excluded, and
(b) to have regard in particular to the child's educational achievement.
(5B) Regulations shall make provision for compliance with the duty under subsection (5A) and in particular to ensure that pupils that are proposed to be excluded or have been excluded under the provisions of this section—
(a) have a proper opportunity to make representations in relation to their exclusion or proposed exclusion, and
(b) receive all information that might be relevant to such representations.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Grand Committee I moved a similar amendment, although the wording was slightly different for reasons which I shall explain.

The intention of the amendment was to ensure that the pupil's rights in respect of exclusion decisions and the hearing of exclusion appeals by the governors and independent appeals panels are adequately safeguarded. Current statutory guidance in England does not enforce the statutory involvement of a child in the exclusion process.

Guidance on school exclusions in England states that in situations where the governing body of the school reviews the exclusion,

"they should normally allow the excluded pupil to attend the meeting and speak, if the parent requests this".

As regards appeal hearings, it states that,

"an excluded pupil . . . should normally be allowed to attend the hearing and to speak on his or her own behalf, if he or she wishes to do so and the parent agrees".

However, not all schools make provision for children and young people to make representations at disciplinary committees or appeal hearings. Furthermore, the current guidance does not cover the provision of relevant information to children and young people regarding their exclusion. As a result, children are not always in a position to make representations at hearings, even if they are permitted.

In Grand Committee I referred to recent research undertaken by Save the Children, which indicated that children often feel a sense of injustice and disempowerment because they are not given the opportunity to put their side of the story. One young boy
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 1344
 
stated, "You don't get given your chance to say what happened. How are they going to know what happened?"

The research demonstrated that children and young people often felt that the exclusion process was something that happened around them but did not directly involve them. A number of young people told the researchers that had they been given a voice in the exclusion meetings they could have explained their behaviour and the reasons behind it—perhaps difficulties such as living in care or family problems.

There is currently an explanation that all parents and carers have the information and capacity to represent the best interests of the child throughout the process, but that is by no means always the case. One young man explained to the researchers that he wanted to appeal but his mother prevented him doing so because it would take too much time.

It was clear that most felt that exclusion was a very severe punishment which could well affect their future lives, including their opportunity to secure good employment. Many said that absences from school over a period meant that they became "thick"—in their words—and that they did not want that to happen.

I have provided a copy of the research conducted by Save the Children to my noble friend the Minister, since she seemed to be sympathetically inclined to the case that I made in Grand Committee, although not willing to accept the amendment. I have altered the wording at the request of a number of organisations interested in the issue. I have included that:

"It shall be the duty of all persons and bodies exercising functions under this [clause] . . . to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child that is proposed to be excluded",

in addition to having regard to the child's educational achievement.

Since Grand Committee, I have received a letter from my noble friend the Minister, for which I am very grateful, from which I gather that the Government do not want to accept an amendment, but are prepared to redraft the guidance which is already available. There are a couple of points that I should like to raise in connection with the proposed guidance, which I must say moves very largely in the direction of this amendment. I said earlier that I am very glad that that has happened.

The draft guidance indicates that the agreement of the parent for the involvement and participation of the pupil is required. As the Save the Children research indicates, the parent's co-operation may not always be available—like the young man who said that his mum would not let him appeal because it would take too much time. Therefore, why is it necessary always to have the parent's agreement for participation of the child?

Secondly, the Government seem willing to amend the guidance but not the regulations. Why is it not felt necessary or appropriate that the regulations should be amended?

Having made those points, I am very glad, as I said earlier, that the Government are prepared to move very largely in the direction of what we were asking for
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 1345
 
in Grand Committee, following no doubt the submission of the research that I provided. I beg to move.

---