Clause 138 — Power of governing body: educational provision for improving behaviour

Orders of the Day – in the House of Commons at 6:30 pm on 17 November 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

Lords amendment: No. 168.

Photo of Sylvia Heal Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 169.

Photo of Sarah McCarthy-Fry Sarah McCarthy-Fry Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport

A school governing body already has the power under section 29(3) of the Education Act 2002 to direct a pupil off site to receive instruction or training. The clause provides that the governing body can also require registered pupils to attend off-site educational provision that is intended to improve their behaviour, such as anger management classes.

During the Bill's passage, concerns have been raised as to how the power would be used in practice. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners had a particularly helpful meeting with my hon. Friend Mr. Marsden and the Special Educational Consortium to discuss their concerns. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their helpful comments. My right hon. Friend mentioned to me earlier that we can perhaps consider these measures as the Blackpool amendments.

The amendments allow regulations to be made to determine the maximum length of time that a pupil can be required to attend off-site provision. It has always been our intention that governing bodies would be able to require pupils to attend off-site provision only for as long as is reasonable and necessary for the purpose of improving their behaviour. We intend to ensure that that is the case by making regulations that provide that governing bodies may not require a pupil to attend off-site provision for a period that goes beyond the end of the school year in which it is imposed.

We will also set out in regulations that a review must take place within 30 days of the requirement being imposed, and every 30 days thereafter while the pupil is attending off-site provision. We intend to impose an obligation to have regard to guidance, and to issue guidance that will emphasise the need to pay particular attention to pupils with special educational needs. That guidance will set out expectations that an assessment will be undertaken to examine what can be done to improve their behaviour in schools, and how their needs are being met, before an off-site referral is considered. It will also recommend a pre-placement meeting involving the parents, the head teacher, a governor and a local authority representative.

Photo of Gordon Marsden Gordon Marsden Labour, Blackpool South

I am grateful that my hon. Friend supports the amendments, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to take up the points that were made by a number of organisations. I also express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, who was particularly helpful and constructive in the discussions that we had. As the Bill passes into law, will these issues continue to be considered, and will the efficacy of the regulations be kept under review? I am sure that the Government will want to continue to address as a priority the large number of exclusions of young people with special educational needs.

Photo of Sarah McCarthy-Fry Sarah McCarthy-Fry Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport 6:45, 17 November 2008

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for the work that he did in Committee, as well as his ongoing work to protect children with special educational needs. We will of course keep the efficacy of the measures under review.

As I was saying, regulations will require that when a child has a statement of special educational needs, the local authority must be invited to review meetings and be informed of the outcome. With those important safeguards, we are confident that the requirement for pupils to attend off-site provision may not be imposed for longer than is reasonably necessary to improve the pupils' behaviour. I commend the amendments to the House.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

As the Minister said, the amendments deal with the power of a governing body to refer a pupil to educational provision to improve their behaviour. The House will know, as the Minister does, that of all the kinds of special needs, the problem of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties is the one that has grown most rapidly in the past decade. More of them are statemented than in previous years.

Clause 138 gives the school governing body the power to direct a registered pupil to attend any place outside the school premises for the purpose of receiving educational provision that is intended to improve their behaviour. As the Minister told us, it has always been the Government's intention that any such direction would be a short-term measure only. Lords amendments Nos. 168 and 169 make that absolutely explicit in the Bill. It appears that the virtuous flexibility that the Minister for Schools and Learners advocated with such vehemence the last time that I asked for something to be put in the Bill persuades him less on this occasion. It seems that the Government are therefore likely to agree with the Lords amendments.

My questions deal with what I believe could be unintended consequences of the amendments, although I acknowledge their advantages, which were well identified and articulated by Mr. Marsden when we debated the matter at an earlier stage. However, the amendments might prevent off-site education that extends beyond the end of a current academic year for those with behavioural problems. We believe that although the measure would not necessarily prevent permanent exclusions, it would prevent a head from sending a pupil to a referral unit or special school under clause 139. It might fetter the discretion of heads and, in so doing, weaken the resolve to tackle poor behaviour in schools. In the end, it could be beneficial to children with behavioural problems to spend more time outside their normal place of education, perhaps in a specialist school staffed by teachers who are experienced in providing the kind of help and support that children in such circumstances need. There is a risk that the amendment will have the unintended or unforeseen consequence of disadvantaging children of that type.

Photo of Gordon Marsden Gordon Marsden Labour, Blackpool South

I acknowledge the thoughtfulness with which the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, both in Committee and tonight. Is he concerned that in some cases, referrals of children in the circumstances he described are currently to pupil referral units? In some cases—I am choosing my words very carefully—those units may not be adequate for the purpose of achieving the behavioural changes that the pupils need.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

I acknowledge that this is a complex area, and the problem is that when we speak of such matters, by necessity we tend almost to speak in more general terms than the individual cases warrant. Behavioural and emotional difficulties are, by their nature, varied and complex, and the needs of the children concerned often require sensitive and highly skilled handling by the best possible professionals. The hon. Gentleman is right; I do not think that anyone, from any part of the House, could argue with their hand on their heart that such service is always delivered—despite the best intentions. He is therefore also right to say that we must be cautious about those referrals, their length and their character.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with my point, which is that the perverse effect of the measure may be to encourage permanent exclusions. If a head teacher feels that the only way in which they can cope with a child, in both their interests and those of the whole school community, is to exclude them permanently, rather than send them to a specialist school or a pupil referral unit for an extended period, that could be an unintended consequence of the amendments, which we broadly support, with the caveat that I know the Under-Secretary will deal with using her customary skill in the next few moments.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I add this point? Earlier, I spoke supportively about the Prince of Wales, who has done such good work with the Prince's Trust in dealing with some young people in great difficulties, and I described him as the greatest living Briton. Of course, I did not include in that estimation Her Majesty the Queen, who is in her gracious nobility beyond such estimates.

Photo of Sylvia Heal Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker

Order. There is a danger here of hon. Members bringing the royal family into these debates, and as hon. Members will know, that is not allowed.

Photo of Kelvin Hopkins Kelvin Hopkins Labour, Luton North

I have no intention of talking about the royal family, who behave very well, I am told.

I shall say a few words about behavioural difficulties for some pupils, because there is a range of behavioural difficulty. Some pupils require special education in a special institution, but the great majority require temporary removal from a classroom, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give as much support as possible, not so much to exclusion from the school, but to providing inclusion units within schools. I have seen them operate very successfully in my constituency. When they are run well by the right people, they work extremely well, but we should not force teachers to deal with unruly or difficult pupils, whatever their problem. They may have serious home difficulties or emotional problems, but the teachers should not have to deal with that; the pupils should be sent fairly quickly to a unit in the school. I have seen the inclusion units operate in my constituency to very good effect, but they need permanent, long-term funding; they do not need time-limited funding, which was the case with one such unit.

The techniques are simple: pupils can be referred to such units for a few days or perhaps one or two weeks. In one school in particular, they are required to arrive at school half an hour after all the other pupils, and to leave half an hour after them so that the referred pupils do not get mixed up with other pupils. The pupils have that degree of separation, and their reward, when they return to class, is to be able to mix with their friends and to come and go with them at the usual times. All sorts of techniques can be used on a graded basis, and they can help with pupil behaviour, but overall, we need good leadership in schools, the right ethos and a calm and controlled atmosphere, which has been missing for too long from too many of our schools. I have seen schools operating absolutely brilliantly in my constituency, and I should be happy for any hon. Friend to visit them any time.

Photo of Sarah McCarthy-Fry Sarah McCarthy-Fry Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State), Department for Transport

First, I shall put at rest the mind of Mr. Hayes in respect of what he saw as the possible unintended consequences of the legislation. I think that I can reassure him on that point. Although the amendment would mean that we could not go beyond the end of one academic year, there would be nothing to prevent the school from starting the process again in the following academic year. We do not want the process to be renewable, and that is why we say that we have to start the process all over again. Reasons would have to be given, as would the same two days' notice, and we are not saying that the behaviour that occurred in the previous academic year could be a reason for placing a pupil in off-site provision during the following academic year. That is why there must be continual review, and also why I do not believe that the amendment would encourage head teachers to go for permanent exclusion. The matter would have to be kept under permanent review, and we want to give young people, having spent time in off-site provision, the opportunity to go back and prove that they are able to take part in education.

In response to the comments that my hon. Friend Kelvin Hopkins made, let me say that I am sure that there are excellent examples of alternative provision, and that is exactly what we are including in the pilots that we introduced on 23 October. The pilots are looking at innovative ways of securing alternative provision, and I hope that when we evaluate them, we can also consider inclusion units in schools as we work towards the best way to ensure that the rest of the class is not disrupted by bad behaviour by removing for a limited time the pupils who express such behaviour in order to help them reintegrate into mainstream education. With that, I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 169 agreed to.

After Clause 139

Lords amendment: No. 170.

Photo of Sylvia Heal Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 181, 182, 209 and 210.

The amendments were introduced by the Government in another place in response to the noble Baronesses Walmsley and Howe and supported by all parties. I think that they were based originally on amendments that Mr. Laws had tabled. The amendments would make a small legislative change following a major change— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I am referring to a different set of amendments. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do beg your pardon. Let me start again.

The amendments would make a small legislative change following a major change in testing arrangements. They would amend section 88 of the Education Act 2002 to create an exemption for assessment arrangements from the general requirement that schools implement the national curriculum as it stands at the start of the school year. Instead, schools and local authorities would be required to implement the specified assessment arrangements for the time being. That will allow the Secretary of State to remove the obligation on schools and local authorities to administer key stage 3 national curriculum tests from 2009 onwards. The Secretary of State set out the rationale for the changes in his announcement to the House on 14 October.

Section 88 of the 2002 Act requires schools to implement the national curriculum, including testing arrangements, as it exists at the start of the school year. The current arrangements are set out in secondary legislation under an order made in 2003. Amendment No. 170 would require schools and local authorities to implement national curriculum assessment arrangements as they currently exist, so that changes to assessment arrangements made after the start of the school year could take effect this summer. It is important to note that the amendments refer only to the assessment arrangements within the national curriculum. The amendments do not seek to change any other part of the national curriculum after the start of the school year, because that would create unnecessary burdens on schools and necessitate changes to the careful planning of teaching and learning that would already have taken place.

Photo of Rob Marris Rob Marris PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office

Will my right hon. Friend clarify something? In amendment No. 170, proposed new subsection (2) would introduce to section 88 of the 2002 Act a new sub-paragraph, 1A(a), which uses the phrase, "local education authority". Will my right hon. Friend remind me, because I thought that that term had been abolished by legislation—in something like the Education and Inspections Act 2006?

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

Local authorities are, in effect, the "local education authority"; in some circumstances, we still use that latter term in law. That is how I understand the matter, but I am sure that if I am wrong, I shall quickly get alternative advice.

Photo of Barry Sheerman Barry Sheerman Chair, Children, Schools and Families Committee, Chair, Children, Schools and Families Committee

I understand that key stage 3 tests will still be able to be taken on a voluntary basis. Will that be on a school-by-school basis, rather than on a local authority basis?

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners) 7:00, 17 November 2008

Yes, that will be on a school-by-school basis. If head teachers and heads of department find the key stage 3 test useful for tracking progress, as some independent schools do, they can use them for that purpose. Obviously, we will ensure that they are set.

We want the changes to assessment arrangements to come into effect as soon as possible. That is why amendments Nos. 181 and 182 bring the legislative changes into effect on Royal Assent. We will then table an order to change the existing arrangements, because it would be unfair to compel pupils to take tests when there are no good reasons for administering them. The amendments will ensure that, this year, public money and school resources are not spent on arranging key stage 3 tests for which there is no longer a sound justification.

To return to the point that my hon. Friend Rob Marris made earlier, I should advise him that the relevant part of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 has not yet been commenced by order. That is why the language in this Bill is as it is.

Amendment No. 209 is a consequential amendment to ensure that these amendments are carried forward when section 74 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 comes into force. Amendment No. 210 is a technical amendment to ensure that the drafting of the schedule works in relation to these amendments. I hope that the House supports them.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

As the Minister said, the Secretary of State announced that from summer 2009 children would not be required to take key stage 3 tests. The amendments were introduced on Report in the Lords to make technical changes resulting from that decision. Lords amendments Nos. 170, 181, 182 and 209 refer to the removal of the obligation on schools and local education authorities to implement the assessment arrangements in schools.

We have consistently argued that there are problems with the content of some of the tests and that as a consequence they have, to some degree, become discredited. Those problems were compounded by the administration fiasco this summer. [Interruption.] The Minister looks surprised, but he knows that on current measurements 84,000 pupils in one year made no progress, or fell backwards, in English between key stage 2 and key stage 3.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

I was surprised because in Westminster Hall on the Thursday prior to our making the changes on the Tuesday, Mr. Gibb said explicitly that the tests should be retained and that they were the most important of the SATs.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

It is a pity that the Minister does not spend more time thinking about the children who have fallen back in English and maths than he does thinking about what my hon. Friend has said in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend has been absolutely consistent in championing the cause of schoolchildren in this country, in his advocacy of higher standards and in his determination that the methodology in schools and the approach taken by teachers should maximise the chances of every child in this country. He deserves the praise of not only the Minister but the whole House for so doing.

As I was saying, there has been a shocking decline in core standards among many young people, 28,000 and 140,000 of whom made no progress or fell backwards in maths and science respectively. These early years are among the most important in education; it is a tragedy that thousands of 14-year-olds have a reading age lower than 11 and that more than 40,000 young people leave school at 16 functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. Many of those young people fall into unemployment and delinquency, and they certainly fall into disengagement.

We should get the figures right; the Minister got them wrong earlier. I do not want to suggest that his ideas on the issue are half-baked, but they are certainly not fully formed. You take these issues seriously, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will know that the number of people not in education, employment or training—or NEETs—has risen by 132,000 in the past five years.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

Those are the Government's own figures, and I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm that.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

My point was about proportions. There have been significant demographic increases in the numbers in that age group, which is why there has been an increase in numbers. The overall percentages, however, remain broadly stable.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (14-19 Reform and Apprenticeships)

The numbers that I have here are not proportions, but numbers of people. [Interruption.] However, the hard figures and the proportions of such people aged 21, 22 and 23, for example, have risen over that period, and the Minister ought to know that.

I do not want to detain the House for too long. In conclusion, we want fewer and more rigorous tests, less bureaucracy, more freedom for professionals and a commitment to excellence for all, underpinned with a special focus on the most disadvantaged. That is what our nation, our teachers and our schools deserve, and it is what our children deserve. In that spirit, I note and welcome the amendments.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

I seem to be rising only to welcome U-turns from the Government this evening, and I cannot let this particular one pass without comment. As the Minister said, there has been not one U-turn, but a double U-turn on this issue. One has come from the Conservative party, which, as the Minister rightly said, was praising the key stage 3 tests as the most important just days before it welcomed their abolition. That will teach Mr. Gibb not to be so honest and straightforward in how he answers questions in future. I am sure that he will have learned that if and when he speaks from the Government Front Bench.

We welcome the U-turn on the key stage 3 tests. The provisions in the amendments allow for the Government to insist on the application of the national curriculum tests as they exist at the particular time of the year, rather than at the beginning of the year. That raises the subsidiary question of whether the Government anticipate any further U-turns on key stage tests—perhaps a further amendment to the manner of key stage 2 tests. There is also the related issue of when the Government will clarify the nature of the key stage 2 tests in 2009. Will the Minister say something about both points when he responds?

The Minister said that changes to the testing regime in-year were acceptable, whereas it would not be acceptable to carry out changes in-year to the curriculum, as that would be extremely destabilising. I register that point, but he may want to acknowledge that carrying out changes mid-year in the testing regime has serious implications for school planning and for those who provide materials for the key stage 3 tests. Like me, the Minister may have seen correspondence from publishers a large proportion of whose business was producing key stage 3 test documents for schools. They were less than amused by the very short notice given of this year's change in relation to the key stage 3 test.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, although the abolition of the compulsory key stage 3 testing regime this year was desirable, and although it may have been prompted by the unusual chaos in the testing regime over the spring and summer, we would not want a change at such short notice to be an example of how the testing regime should be changed in future? That change has caused a great deal of disruption to schools and those associated with the testing regime, including those who supply materials for it. I hope that he will recognise that as he sums up and that he will assure us that future changes to the testing regime will be more measured and thought out.

Photo of Rob Marris Rob Marris PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office

I welcome the effective abolition of the mandatory key stage 3 test. That was long overdue, and the Government have done well.

I want to focus on amendment No. 209, which amends part of section 74 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The 2006 Act itself would amend part of section 88 of the Education Act 2002. There are amendments to amendments, but as the Minister said, section 74 of the 2006 Act is not in force two years after its passage. Yet tonight we are amending it. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can explain in a little more detail—not exhaustive detail, as I am sure he could if he wished to—how it has come to pass that an Act passed by the House two years ago to amend an Act that was passed four years before it is not yet in force, although tonight we are amending it.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

When I see my right hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, I know that I need to be relatively brief. I will attempt to be so. I accept that we have had some debate by way of intervention with Mr. Hayes, and I accept his general support for the amendments with gratitude.

Mr. Laws asked a few questions and commented on the rapid U-turn by the Conservative party. I can tell him categorically that there will not be any U-turn on key stage 2 tests. We have proceeded with the procurement for 2009, which is coming to a conclusion. As the Secretary of State said in his statement, we think it important that there is an independently assessed national measure of performance that allows parents and us to judge the performance of primary schools. That function is performed in another respect by GCSEs, but in respect of key stage 2, if there are any changes, those will be informed by the expert group set up under the leadership of Sir Alasdair Macdonald, the head teacher from Tower Hamlets.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

Can the Minister tell us when the announcement on the key stage 2 contractor will be made?

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly when. As I said, that procurement process is coming to a conclusion. I had a note about it in my box this weekend, but as far as I recall the note did not include a date. In-year changes to national curriculum assessment would be exceptional; I am not proposing that we should make this a matter of routine. When we made the announcement back in October, some English and maths teachers got in touch to say, "What am I going to teach now?" I suggested that perhaps maths and English would be a good idea.

My hon. Friend Rob Marris raised some questions around the implementation of the 2006 Act. If I led him to believe that the whole Act had not been implemented, that was an error. Certain parts of the Act have been, and others, as has been pointed out, are still to be. I am advised with rigour that these are the appropriate amendments to the appropriate amendments of the appropriate Act. I hope that he takes my reassurance.

Photo of Rob Marris Rob Marris PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office

Can my right hon. Friend tell me the appropriate date when those appropriate amendments to the appropriate amendments to the appropriate Act will be brought into force?

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

As I said in my speech, the amendments will come into effect by regulation shortly, so they will have effect very soon. Clearly, they are in regard to the key stage 3 tests, which otherwise would have to be conducted by schools this summer. We will bring forward the regulations very soon. On that basis, I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 171.

Photo of Sylvia Heal Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 172, 183, 184, 187, 189, 208 and 214.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

These are the amendments introduced in the other place by the Government in response to amendments tabled by Baronesses Walmsley and Howe, supported by all parties and, I think, inspired by an amendment originally tabled by Mr. Laws.

The Government are committed to involving young people as widely as possible in matters that affect them. We demonstrate that commitment by consulting children and young people in the development of our policies—for example, in developing and evaluating the effectiveness of the children's plan. As we set out in the children's plan, the Government's aim is for all young people to want and be able to participate and take responsible action. Giving children and young people a say in decisions that affect them can improve engagement in learning, help to develop a more inclusive school environment, and improve behaviour and attendance.

I am sure that no one, least of all schools, would disagree that the voice of pupils is extremely important. As hon. Members will know, we have already acted decisively. In the 2002 Act, we required schools to have regard to statutory guidance about consulting pupils on decisions that affect them. We want to build on that now to ensure that all schools are consulting their pupils, as a minimum, on certain core aspects of school life. We know that more than 95 per cent. of schools in England already have school councils, which means that they are fulfilling this new duty. It simply is not the case that this duty, as some have alleged, will mean extra burdens on schools. It will provide clarity about the essentials, so that all schools and pupils are clear about the matters that they should be consulted on, as a minimum.

Next year, school staff, their representatives, governors and pupils will be consulted on what those essentials should be. We envisage that, as a minimum, those essentials might be policies relating to behaviour, uniform, school food, health and safety, equalities and sustainability.

Involving pupils in participation and decision making is already a key part of the personal, social and health education and citizenship education curriculums. It gives young people the opportunity to develop critical thinking, advocacy and influencing skills, and empowers them to make an active contribution to their school and wider community—exactly the skills that employers are saying we need to develop more of in our young people.

The new duty in these amendments gives a clear message about the importance that we place on the involvement of pupils in matters that affect their education and school life—I make no apology for that. However, we do not want to tell schools how to go about their business. The regulations will set out just the matters on which they must invite views, but they will continue to be free to do that in ways that work best for them. We will not prescribe the manner of consultation or which pupils should be consulted. That will be for schools to decide.

In drafting the new duty, we have sought a balance in defining a responsibility that is both unambiguous and manageable for school governing bodies. To that end, statutory guidance made under proposed new subsection (5) in amendment No. 171 will help schools to understand the scope of the new duty and set out examples of how best to involve pupils and invite their views. I commend the amendment to the House.

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools) 7:15, 17 November 2008

As the Minister has told us twice, the amendments were all tabled in another place by the Liberal Democrat peer Lady Walmsley. Few people, if any, would deny the advantages of a school giving pupils a voice in developing policies that affect the children at that school. That is increasingly accepted as best practice, and the best performing schools in the state sector will invariably have a long-established route through which pupils can express their views on key aspects of how the school is run.

I am a particularly strong supporter of school councils, not least because the views expressed by those councils are often as strong on issues of discipline and behaviour as my own and those of my party. On rare occasions, some school councils that I have met go beyond even our zero-tolerance approach to discipline and behaviour.

An ordered and safe school environment is a pre-occupation of pupil opinion in many of the schools that I have visited, even those where behaviour is good. As my noble Friend Lord Elton said in Committee in another place:

"One of the most convenient forums for this"— pupil voice—

"is a school council where matters of discipline naturally come up quite quickly for discussion between the pupils and staff."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 1 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 229.]

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this might speed things up. Does he not agree that Lord Elton is one of his noble Friends and that he moved the amendment in slightly longer form in Committee in another place, so therefore it would be untrue to say that these amendments were introduced and instigated solely by the Liberal Democrats?

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools)

This particular amendment was introduced by the Liberal Democrats, but I will return to Lord Elton in a moment. There is a common concern about extending the existing statutory duty on schools to take into account pupils' opinions. The concern is the extent to which the duty will be taken further and the fact that these additional duties will be statutory.

As my noble Friend Lord Elton said in another place on Third Reading:

"I am sorry that it has to be in legislation. We are a litigious nation and it would be very unfortunate if we were to have a rash of cases of parents saying, 'You were not listening to my little Johnny'."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 11 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 572.]

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools)

I have given the Minister the opinion of Lord Elton. This goes to the crux of our concern about these amendments.

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools)

I will not. The hon. Gentleman will soon have his moment.

As my noble Friend Lady Morris, who speaks for the Opposition in the other place, said in Committee:

"I sound a note of caution.... It may not be the best course of action to be too prescriptive. We think that it is best left up to schools, not central government, to decide on the best way to engage their students."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 1 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 230.]

We fully endorse that view. It is odd, therefore, that a Liberal Democrat peer should have tabled a series of very prescriptive and centralising amendments that will, once statutory guidance is introduced, effectively dictate to schools the issues on which they will be obliged to consult pupils. I had thought that it was a Liberal Democrat mantra that such decisions should be made at the local level.

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools)

I will not give way again; the right hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to speak when he concludes the debate.

Anyone going through the Hansard record of any Bill passing through this House would see it littered with Liberal Democrat amendments, prescribing their particular hobby horses and policy imperatives. They are in favour of local decision making, provided the decision is in line with Liberal Democrat policy and ideology. The Minister, Lady Morgan, clarified on Third Reading what amendments she was supporting. She said:

"As a minimum, schools should seek and take account of pupils' views on policies on the delivery of the curriculum, behaviour, the uniform, school food, health and safety, equalities and sustainability, not simply on what colour to paint the walls."

She continued:

"We are not minded to require governing bodies to take account of pupils' views on matters such as staff appointments or the school budget."

She then went on to say a most extraordinary thing, which I can only assume was not said with a straight face, namely that

"we are also keen to ensure that a duty on schools does not end up with centralised prescription... The regulations will simply set out the issues on which they must invite views. If they want to go further, they can."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 11 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 573.]

That is an extraordinary statement. If the words "regulation" and "must" do not amount to centralised prescription, I do not know what does.

It is not surprising that these amendments have received such a hostile reception from teachers and the teacher unions. As Chris Keates of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers said to The Times Educational Supplement:

"This is completely unnecessary and will be open to abuse. It is a distortion of the important concept of pupil voice that will lead to headteachers and teachers becoming very disillusioned."

John Dunford of the Association of School and College Leaders said:

"This is crazy. I am a strong supporter of pupil voice, but schools are increasingly consulting pupils because they think it is the right thing, not because Government tells them to."

He went on to say:

"I am annoyed and furious that yet another in this continual stream of legal and educational duties is being placed on schools. They all bring unintended consequences."

Our concern about the amendment is not based on the objective of encouraging schools to consult pupils on important matters affecting the school; rather, it is the fact that it is a statutory requirement. This is yet another statutory burden imposed on schools that are already creaking under the weight of fortnightly initiatives emanating from this Government. For that reason, I hope that all hon. Members will join us in the No Lobby to vote against Lords amendment No. 171.

Photo of Rob Marris Rob Marris PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office

I declare a sort of interest in that, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, my wife was the head of a primary school for a number of years.

I pay tribute to Dr. Bernard Trafford, who will be well known to Sir Patrick Cormack, who I see in his place. Dr. Trafford is the former head of Wolverhampton grammar school, who has taken a national lead on the issue of democracy in schools and the question of schools councils. In fact, he wrote a very informative booklet on the matter, which I have read and would recommend to right hon. and hon. Members.

I would like a little further clarification from the Minister: although I am not nearly as sceptical as Mr. Gibb, I am still somewhat sceptical. I appreciate that what would become, under amendment No. 171, section 29A(1) of the Education Act 2002 includes the word "must", as the hon. Gentleman has just explained. The full provision would read:

"The governing body of a maintained school must invite the views of pupils about prescribed matters."

That brings us on to what those "prescribed matters" are. That is explained in subsection (4), where we find that they "may be prescribed" by the Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales. That "may be" is therefore permissive. However, paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to be so widely drawn in respect of the matters that the Secretary of State "may" prescribe that I would like the Minister's reassurance. Paragraph (a) refers to

"the exercise, or proposed exercise, of a function of the governing body of a maintained school relating to the conduct of the school", and paragraph (b) to

"the exercise, or proposed exercise, of such a function in a particular way."

The function of a governing body of a school—I speak as someone who was a governor of a secondary school in my constituency for four years—is basically to run the school. If the Secretary of State may prescribe what the governors do, my understanding is that anything "may be prescribed" down to the last jot and tittle or the last comma in the running of a school. I hope that that is not the Government's intention—I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's reassurance on that, particularly with respect to hiring and firing.

I may be misreading the provision, but it seems to me that under what would become section 29A (2),

"the governing body of a maintained school must consider any relevant views of registered pupils", which suggests something contrary to what I understood my right hon. Friend to state in his opening remarks. It seems to suggest that the school must, on any number of issues that may be prescribed under subsection (4), consult every pupil in order to find out whether they have a relevant view or not. If the pupil does have a relevant view, the governing body, in exercising its functions pursuant to the regulations, must decide how much weight to give to it. How does it discover whether pupils have a relevant view or not? One assumes that the governing body has to ask them.

As I said, I may be misreading the amendment, but contrary to what I understood the Minister to say, there is a "how" about these matters because they cover everything. If my interpretation is correct, everything in a maintained school is covered—including hiring and firing. I understand the desire to make pupils feel included, particularly if we are going to move to compulsory education or training up to the age of 18—that means we are dealing with near-adults whose views should be taken into account; indeed, it is important to take account even of primary school pupils' views through school councils—but how much weight we accord those views, particularly when it comes to hiring and firing, can be an immensely delicate matter. I thus seek my right hon. Friend's reassurance that the Secretary of State, in making regulations under proposed new section 29A(4), will not include issues of hiring and firing in them.

Photo of Patrick Cormack Patrick Cormack Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

I promise that I shall not attempt to speak any longer than I did last Wednesday, but I would like to make a couple of brief points. I speak not only as the MP for South StaffordshireRob Marris was kind enough to refer to that—but as someone who was a schoolmaster for 10 years before I entered the House. Any good school has to have proud pupils; otherwise, it is not a good school. Proud pupils are those who like to take part, insofar as they can, in discussing with their teachers and others the running of the school. That is fine. However, to make that opportunity prescriptive and statutory is going a step too far.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I do not doubt the good intentions of those who moved the amendment in the other place. I am sorry to find myself at odds with, for example, the noble Baroness Howe, for whom I have the highest possible regard, but on this issue, she and those who support her are just plain wrong, because they have gone too far.

My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, made an admirable brief speech in which he pointed out some of the problems that will follow if we make this provision statutory—particularly if we allow future Secretaries of State to determine through future regulation what pupils must be consulted on. Nine times out of 10, anyone who goes into any school nowadays and asks what the head wants of Government will be told "To be left to get on with the job and run the school as I would wish to run it with my colleagues and my governors, without interference".

Over the last 10 years, the schools of this country have become burdened with excessive legislation. That is not entirely the fault of the present Government; the previous Conservative Government were also guilty of passing too many laws, in relation to health as well as education. We saw the absurdity of that tonight when we were discussing earlier amendments. It became clear that part of an Act that was passed in 2006 was effectively being repealed by this Bill although it had never been brought into force. Other examples, for instance in criminal justice legislation, demonstrate a similar legislative diarrhoea which has led to a rather unpleasant illness.

No one doubts the good intentions behind the amendment, but I ask the Minister to listen to the teachers—union leaders and others—who, over the weekend, described it as a step too far, and asked for it not to be made statutory. I hope that the thoughtful and sensible words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will ensure that we enter the same Lobby—if, that is, the Government persist with the amendments. It would be far better for us to disagree with the Lords and, while encouraging schools to have their councils and other forms of consultation, refrain from putting pupils into the driving seat and introducing the utter absurdity of involving them in what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West described as issues of hiring and firing. That would be entirely wrong.

I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend Mr. Gibb. I will vote accordingly if a vote is necessary, but I hope that it will not be.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families) 7:30, 17 November 2008

Although I enjoyed the speech by Mr. Gibb, I noticed that he was somewhat more reticent than usual when it came to allowing interventions. That may have been because the force of his argument against the amendments was somewhat undermined by the fact that they had enjoyed the support of his party in another place and, moreover, by the fact that he did not quote in full Lord Elton's words from the Third Reading debate on 11 November. He spoke of the noble Lord's reservations, but omitted the most important part of the quotation. Lord Elton said:

"I am glad to see the flexibility written into the amendment—the variety of ways in which consultation can take place."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 11 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 572.]

It is clear from those comments that although Lord Elton may have been concerned about the implications of too great a degree of prescriptiveness, he felt that the degree of flexibility in the amendment was quite acceptable.

Because he is assiduous in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will also know that, to some extent, the Liberal Democrat amendment was prompted by Lord Elton's amendment. He did not take quite enough credit for the role played by the Conservative party in another place in originating these proposals. Lord Elton tabled amendment No. 61, which sought to place a duty on the governing body of a maintained school

"to have due regard to the ascertainable views of the pupil on matters that affect him or her, taking account of his or her age and maturity."

Subsection (2) of the amendment stated:

"A governing body of a maintained school must establish a democratically formed school council or other collective mechanism, the purpose of which is to enable pupils to discuss matters relating to their school and their education and to make representations on these to the government body and the head teacher."

The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the prescriptive nature of the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lady Walmsley. What did she actually say when she had to comment on Lord Elton's amendment? She hesitated to support it, and also, she said,

"hesitated to be too prescriptive about the way in which the voice of the students should be collected".

She continued:

"We devised our own amendment that did not specify a school council because we did not want to be too prescriptive; we wanted to give schools the opportunity to be creative and respond appropriately to their own circumstances, devising their own ways of gathering students' views".—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 1 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 228-29.]

When we look at what actually happened in another place, we discover that—rather contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—there was an extremely prescriptive Tory amendment, followed by Liberal Democrat criticism of the extent of the prescriptiveness and by a Liberal Democrat amendment featuring much more flexibility, which was commended by the Conservatives and which they supported when it became a Government amendment and was accepted by another place as a whole.

There was another interesting aspect of the views of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, perhaps, his reservations about pressing his points too strongly. He quoted from various publications, including The Times Educational Supplement, which had reported some of the things that teachers' leaders had said over the last week or so. I noted that one quotation was missing. The hon. Gentleman smiles modestly—sheepishly, even. That is because he knows very well which quotation I mean. It is the quotation from his favourite principal of his favourite school, which he mentions frequently. I refer to Mossbourne academy in Hackney, which the hon. Gentleman cited with appropriate reverence earlier. He was referring to an excellent school, but why did he not refer to the quotation from Sir Michael Wilshaw, its head? According to the front page of this week's TES, he said that

"schools would not have to alter what they were already doing for pupil voice", because so many are already, in very appropriate ways, consulting the pupil body, and presumably the academy as well. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Education Act 2002, which already places obligations on schools to consult.

Photo of Nick Gibb Nick Gibb Shadow Minister (Education) (Schools)

This is the point, is it not? Schools are probably already doing that, but what burdens heads and other teachers is the introduction of more statutory obligations to read and understand, and the requirement to assess whether their schools are fulfilling those obligations. That is the problem with putting requirements such as this into law.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

Surely the issue, as Lord Elton put it, is whether there is sufficient flexibility in the amendment. Presumably it was the fact that Lord Elton and his noble Friends were persuaded of the existence of such flexibility that caused the Conservative party in another place to give a fair wind to the proposals. Sir Patrick Cormack was rightly anxious for the responsibilities to consult with the student body not to become too onerous. I have no doubt that he has read Lords amendment No. 171, which is framed in very modest terms. It suggests that the governing bodies should invite the views of pupils and consider them. It is not prescriptive in relation to how that should be done, or about the acceptance of those views.

Photo of Patrick Cormack Patrick Cormack Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

The point is that this must be done. It will become a legal obligation. It is yet another legislative burden that we do not need to place on hard-pressed people whose sole aim is to run good schools.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

We all note the clear divisions in the Conservative party between the views expressed in this place and another place. I simply draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the view of his noble Friends that there is enough flexibility in the amendment to allow for his concerns. He will also know that on 11 November Baroness Morgan put on the record in another place the specific areas in which there would be a requirement on schools to consult in different ways with pupils, and those certainly excluded issues such as staff appointments— [Interruption.]

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure Members would not want to bring the discussion of this amendment to too early a close.

I also invite Members to take reassurance in one other respect. The significance of the amendment will be heavily dependent on the regulations that are brought forward by the Minister on this point, and it will be quite possible for the Minister to make sure that they are drafted in such a way as to ensure the flexibility that all Members would wish for. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that when the regulations are brought forward, they will embed the flexibility that all Members of this House want, and that ensured there was unanimity on this amendment in another place.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

The hon. Gentleman has made the case very well, and I do not need to detain the House for long. We have yet another U-turn from the Conservative party. It is not quite as rapid a U-turn as that which Mr. Gibb made on standard assessment tests, but it is extraordinary: Baroness Verma, who led for the Opposition on this in the Lords, said on 30 October that the amendment responded to the concerns of her noble Friend Lady Morris:

"The amendment has been tailored to meet that small concern and I am happy to offer my support for it"—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 30 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1743.], but the Tory Front-Bench team is voting against it now.

I give the reassurance to Mr. Laws and my hon. Friend Rob Marris that we will consult social partners, schools and unions on what should be in the regulations. We have already said we do not intend to be prescriptive on matters such as staff or terms and conditions. This will be at a high level. The amendment will retain the flexibility everyone has been asking for, and it is bizarre and inflexible of the Opposition to want to vote against it.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 120.

Division number 325 Orders of the Day — Clause 138 — Power of governing body: educational provision for improving behaviour

Aye: 288 MPs

No: 120 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

Tellers

No: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 172 to 215 agreed to