Clause 4 - Duty to identify children not receiving education
Education and Inspections Bill
2:30 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(1A)A local education authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities of children in their area who—
(a)are of compulsory school age,
(b)are registered pupils at a school, and
(c)are not attending school on a regular basis, andthe authority shall publish the numbers of such pupils.’.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 89, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(1B)In exercising their functions under this section to establish the circumstances of children in their area a local education authority may consult any relevant information databases.’.
No. 90, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(1C)In this section “information databases”, in relation to children and young people, refers to those databases mentioned in section 12 of the Children Act 2004.’.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
When I spoke earlier, I inadvertently failed to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I hope that you will not hold it against me. I know that in your usual benevolent spirit, you will chair our affairs with erudition, courtesy and, I hope, kindness.
Our considerations bring us to the duties of local education authorities to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education: those who are not registered at school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. However, as we know, there is a growing problem of children registered at schools who regularly play truant and therefore do not receive a proper education. Amendments Nos. 13, 89 and 90 draw attention to that problem. They follow a theme.
You will have studied the amendments in detail, Mr. Chope, as will other Committee members, but it is worth drawing attention to them. They would extend the scope of the Bill to take account of children who are registered but who are in effect not receiving an education because of their truancy.
Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)
I welcome you to the Chair as well, Mr. Chope. Clause 4 does not deal just with young people who play truant. The illustrative guidance also identifies 13 vulnerable groups. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to vulnerable groups, such as young carers and looked-after children, who are also at risk. I do not want the Committee to think that we are talking only about truants.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I do not mean to be unkind, but the hon. Lady did not quite understand what I said. We do not wish to dilute the Bill in any sense respecting the groups that she referred to; it is absolutely essential that it should deal with those people. Our concern is that it should deal with more young people—that is, those playing truant. We are not seeking to replace the aspects of the Bill that address vulnerable groups; we are adding children who are registered but not attending. We should not underestimate the scale or depth of that problem. I hope that she does not underestimate it, although I find it hard to believe that she would. I think that she wants to reassure me.
Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)
I do wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I beg his pardon if I misunderstood him. I have looked at the amendments and the section quite closely, because it places a new and welcome duty on local education authorities. The regulatory impact assessment suggests a figure of 10,000 children falling into the category, but it is a difficult assessment to make. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but the amendment would seem to turn the clause about-face. I interpret it as giving the LEA a duty to consider the 8 million children who are currently registered, rather than 10,000.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
Order. I think that the hon. Lady has had long enough; the point has been made.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The hon. Lady’s interpretation—I am trying to choose my words as gently as I can—is perverse. The amendments are worded with the formula “at end insert”. They would add groups of children that we consider should also be the Bill’s and local education authorities’ proper concern. We are quite content with the idea that looked-after children and other vulnerable children should be the proper concern of the Bill and local authorities, but we are most worried about those children who are registered and who are not receiving an education, who are, in effect, in similar circumstances to those who are not registered, because they are playing truant.
I was about to say that I invite the hon. Lady to re-examine the matter and that I consider the difference between us to be a happy one, and not born of anything sinister. We may come to an agreement about it in debate on the group, but I return to my theme. Truancy is a profound problem and, as I was about to say, it goes back some time. The Prime Minister recognised it early in his time as leader of his party and our country, and has regularly promised, before and since becoming Prime Minister, to deal with it. The Government have recognised the problem and promised to do something about it.
I refer hon. Members to a question asked at Prime Minister’s Question Time by the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard):
“He promised to cut truancy by a third. Figures yesterday show that truancy has gone up by nearly a third: 1million children play truant each year. How does he explain that failure?”
The Prime Minister, honestly enough—the Under-Secretary shakes his head, but the Prime Minister was rather more candid—said:
“In respect of truancy, it is correct; we have accepted that we have not met the truancy target.”
He went on to say that there were
“extra pupils attending school today, which is important.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1661.]
I shall come to the figures a little later, but the story continues, because once again, with typical diligence, my right hon. and learned Friend raised the matter on 9 February last year. He drew attention to a report by the National Audit Office that said
“that the Government had spent nearly £900million on improving behaviour in schools and reducing truancy”.
But, he said,
“as we know, behaviour in schools has not improved and truancy has increased.”
The Prime Minister, on that occasion, was a little more defensive, and said:
“The amount of money that was spent on truancy specifically was a tiny proportion of the £860million.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1492.]
Perhaps it was too tiny a proportion, if there was some relation between cause and effect. He went on to acknowledge once again that the Government had failed to meet their truancy target.
That sad saga continues, because later last year my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), after pointing out that in 2001
“the Labour party manifesto pledged to cut truancy in our schools”
asked the Prime Minister about the issue again.
“ What has happened in the intervening years,”
said my hon. Friend, with typical boldness,
“and who is responsible for the gross failure”?
The Prime Minister, with frankness for which he should receive our praise, repeated:
“It is true that truancy has not been cut”. —[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 261-2.]
He went on, as he often does when under pressure in such circumstances, to talk in general terms about investment and spending.
Given that sorry history, the Committee will understand our focus, in proposing the amendments, on children who are registered at schools but are not receiving an education. I have some even more shocking news for the Committee, and I hesitate to bring it to its attention because I know that hon. Members are looking forward to their hot cross buns and eggs and do not want to be disturbed too much before that happy time with family and friends. However, the Minister—who has briefly exited the Committee for a sojourn—revealed just a few weeks ago, in response to a parliamentary question that I asked on 19 January, that 774,347 pupils played truant from secondary schools in the academic year 2004–05. The figure was 566,644 in 2001–02.
Ms Angela C. Smith:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I will when I have finished my sentence. That is an increase, as the right hon. Lady, with her razor-sharp mathematical mind, will already have calculated, of more than 200,000. I wonder whether she is as worried as I am—and perhaps a little guilty, which I am not—about that.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The fact that the hon. Gentleman is able to quote such numbers suggests that procedures are in place to ensure that data on children who play truant from school are readily available. In other words, local authorities are collecting such data and publishing the figures and the good ones are taking action to reduce the numbers of children who do not attend. Does he not agree?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
There is no suggestion on this side of the Committee that there are not good local authorities doing good work. The right hon. Lady will already have heard me say that. I fully acknowledge that hard-working councillors across our country do excellent work. It is long overdue that people in this place should pay tribute to the work of councillors of all political parties and authorities up and down Britain who do that work diligently and effectively. It is also true that local authorities play a valuable role in all kinds of ways, including in dealing with this sort of problem. However, it is the responsibility of this House to provide the appropriate legislative support for that energy, and we seek, through the amendments, to strengthen the Bill where it applies to children who play truant.
Given the figures that I have quoted from a very recent parliamentary answer from the Minister who is presiding from the Government Benches over the Committee stage of this Bill, we have real cause for concern. The problem is not easy to deal with; no Government would find it easy. However, there are concentrations of truancy in some of our most deprived areas and the problem is still more profound in poorly performing schools serving disadvantaged areas. There are schools in which a substantial part of the school population regularly truants. The teachers and governors of such schools and their local authorities deserve our support through the emphasis that we place on the matter, and that is precisely what we seek to give them.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I was heartened by what the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough had to say about local education authorities. Does he not therefore disagree with his hon. Friend’s new clause 14, which would abolish them?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is a dear man with whom I have many discussions long into the night about many subjects, which it would be entirely improper for me to air in this Committee, and entirely out of order. If they are selected, we might have a chance to debate my hon. Friend’s amendments, at which point the similarities and differences between us will become clear and cause excitement in Committee.
The Government have acknowledged the problem of truancy and, as a result, there has been a succession of campaigns to reduce it. In 1998, the Department for Education and Skills accepted a public service agreement target to reduce unauthorised absences by a third by 2002. In 2002, it agreed to a less ambitious target to reduce absences by 10 per cent. by 2004. The Minister, with the same honesty that the Prime Minister displays when answering questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends, said in answer to me:
“Neither of these targets was met.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1575W.]
Surely therefore it must be reasonable that the duties established under clause 4 to identify children not receiving education should be extended to children registered at a school, but who are not attending it regularly.
I draw the attention of members of the Committee to amendments Nos. 89 and 90. We want information to be shared whenever possible and we want to enable a local education authority to consult any relevant information database referred to under section 12 of the Children Act 2004. I rushed out to my office for a copy of “Every Child Matters”. As the Committee can imagine, I study it daily. It makes it clear that the Government intend to create a synergy among those agencies with shared or similar responsibilities for children in a fresh way. That is a noble aim.
We support the idea that, whenever possible, the agencies should share relevant information.We all know from experience in our political lives and in our real lives—we all have real lives—that sometimes that is not the case and that those disparate agencies with responsibilities for young people do not always act as co-operatively or collaboratively as they might. That is especially true when dealing with sensitive information that can be pivotal to the welfare of children and their education. We seek through the amendments to strengthen the Bill in that respect. I have every confidence that they will be readily accepted by the Minister. The Under-Secretary with his usual affable smile has nodded in agreement with almost every word that I have uttered. If the Government accept the amendments, it would be to their benefit and, more significantly, to the benefit of those children who play truant and the others to whom reference has been made in this short debate and who deserve our assistance in every way.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
This is a very welcome clause. As other members of the Committee have suggested, it attempts to safeguard young people such as Victoria Climbié who did not attend school and basically fell through the net. There are far too many cases of young people who are trafficked or who arrive on visas from other countries and disappear, especially in London.
As for amendment No. 13, I am not clear what Conservatives Members want to achieve. The amendment would not implement a new policy to tackle the problem of truancy. It attempts merely to make it an obligation to publish truancy figures. It is my understanding that truancy figures are already published, which makes amendment No. 13 rather superfluous.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are helpful, and I urge the Government to consider them seriously. However, what would happen with independent schools? Who would be responsible for updating the databases with information from schools outside the state sector? Who would be responsible for monitoring them? Those issues must be addressed. Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are helpful and could serve as a safeguard in addition to clause 4, which is very welcome.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)
I do not support amendment No. 13. At an earlier sitting we discussed children who are not in education and have not been identified. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) commented that there are children under the radar of the education authorities. As they are outside education and other normal structures, it is hard to see how the Bill addresses their needs. It seems to me that clause 4 addresses the categories covered by Kids Company, which was mentioned. I would like the Minister to clarify that.
Clause 4 is welcome. It would enable local authorities to identify the children of Travellers, homeless people and those asylum seekers who have been given leave to remain in the country, and it would give a much clearer indication of those children who are not receiving the education that we would like.
Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)
I am concerned about amendment No. 13 in particular. I welcome the spirit of the remarks by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and as a former teacher I am concerned about young people playing truant. However, clause 4 seeks to go much further than young people playing truant. It identifies the vulnerable groups that I mentioned during an earlier intervention. I am concerned that amendment No. 13 could tie up local education authorities and schools in a lot of bureaucracy, which is not what we want to do.
There are approximately 8 million children between the ages of five and 16 in full-time education. In my interpretation, the logical outcome of amendment No. 13 is that rather than concentrating on the 10,000 young people who the regulatory impact assessment estimates to be out of education, either because they are wilfully truanting or belong to one of the vulnerable groups identified in the illustrative guidance, schools would have to register and education authorities would have to investigate each of the 8 million children in full-time education.
The illustrative guidance rightly draws attention to the sensitive issue of children who do not attend school but are, quite properly, educated at home. The guidance states that there must be sympathy:
“The parent does not have to inform anyone if their child never starts school. If the child’s name is provided to the LEA as a child who may be missing education, then the LEA should contact the parents to find out if the child is receiving an education. It is in the interests of the child, parents and the LEA if the initial contact is clear, but not threatening. A collaborative partnership between parents and the LEA will be more effective for the child than one that is based on mutual mistrust.”
Although I understand the reasons for amendment No. 13, I fear that its phrasing would threaten that delicate relationship. I wonder whether the amendment was drafted before the illustrative guidance came out.
Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Lady raises a valuable point on home education. Will the Minister specify whether the clause covers children who are educated at home and whether they would be affected by the amendment?
Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)
I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point. As it was in the illustrative guidance I had assumed that that was so. We need to be very careful about those young people and ensure that their needs are treated sensitively.
The issues raised in amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are, in my reading, also covered by the illustrative guidance. Is it really necessary for them to be in the Bill? I will listen to the Minister with interest when he comes to the matter. It is extremely important that we deal in the Bill with this group of young people, who are vulnerable whether they are truanting or missing school for another reason. We must deal with them sensitively in the Bill and also in the guidance that goes out to schools. I am not entirely convinced that the amendments would help us to be sensitive to those children.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I do not want to go over the same territory as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who ably moved the amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, but the clause is important. The Lord Laming inquiry found that Victoria Climbié was not attending school, and if the social workers involved had realised that that was an important point and followed up on it, perhaps she might be alive today. Anything that can be done to identify children who are missing from education—that does not just mean through truancy—is important as it could be a life-or-death matter.
The regulatory impact assessment and the illustrative guidance point out that there are no official figures for the number of children missing education, but Ofsted puts the figure at about 10,000. If we look at the school census returns and compare the number on the school roll at the age of 14 in 2003 with the number on it at the age of 15 in 2004, there is a gap of about 7,000 children who did not return in 2004. That indicates that the Ofsted figure is probably about right.
Ofsted also reported that good practice in this area among local authorities is patchy and that there are significant weaknesses in the overall pattern of support. The regulatory impact assessment says that an alternative to clause 4 would be to implement the non-statutory guidance issued in July 2004, but when local authorities were asked whether they would meet the duties under the guidance, 11 per cent. said that they would not, due to a lack of funding, and 14 per cent. said that they would only partly meet them, for the same reason. Twenty-five per cent. of local authorities would not be able fully to implement the guidance on children missing from education due to a lack of funding. The Government’s conclusion, on the basis of those findings, is that they should simply make the duties statutory, forcing local authorities to do it regardless of their funding position. That is my interpretation of the regulatory impact assessment. Will the Under-Secretary address that point when responding to the debate?
Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 have the support of the NSPCC. They are intended to make use of the databases that are being established under the Children Act, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred. Whether or not one agrees with the establishment of such databases for all children regardless of the degree of risk that they face, if they are established and they function well it makes sense for local authorities exercising their duties under clause 4 to have access to that information. As the NSPCC has said about the amendment:
“We recommend local education authorities should refer to the information-sharing child index set out in section 12 of the Children Act when attempting to identify children not receiving education. This will ensure that the information database is updated to reflect the child’s educational circumstances and also that awareness is raised of any information which highlights any cause for concern in relation to the child.”
On those databases, paragraph 2.16 of the regulatory impact assessment mentions the issue of home schooling, which the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) also raised. That paragraph reads:
“The Government is engaging early with this group to find ways of improving relationships between home educators and local authorities, stressing that the Government is not seeking to introduce a compulsory registration scheme.”
Will the Under Secretary put it on the record that the Government do not intend to introduce such a registration scheme? With those few remarks, I look forward to his response.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13, 89 and 90. This is the first opportunity that I have had to contribute to the Committee’s proceedings, and I am looking forward to your supportive stewardship, Mr. Chope. I am reminded of the words of my head of education at Wandsworth comprehensive school in the 1970s—
Jonathan R Shaw (PPS (Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State), Department for Education and Skills; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
Don’t come back on Monday. [Laughter.]
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
He said that too, but during rehearsals of a school play in which I had a minor part with no lines, I was stood looking frustrated and he told me to remember the words of Keats: “They also serve who only stand and wait”. Those words could be paraphrased for Committee members: “They also serve who only sit and vote”.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I just wanted to point out that I think that it was Milton not Keats who wrote that. [Laughter.]
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
That is why I took biology and maths at A-level rather than English literature.
I am glad to be part of my right hon. Friend the Minister for School’s Labour team in Committee this week. It is a little known fact that my right hon. Friend is an Aston Villa supporter—indeed, she is a season ticket holder. I know that Opposition Members support other teams—Arsenal was mentioned earlier. I hope that I can be Luke Moore to her Milan Baros, although perhaps with more success than they are enjoying at the moment.
As we have heard, amendment No. 13 appears to place a new statutory duty on local authorities to make arrangements to identify children of compulsory school age who are registered at a school but who are not attending regularly, and to publish the numbers of pupils involved. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because schools already monitor attendance through the daily attendance register and can access support from the local authority education welfare service when there are attendance issues. Furthermore, local authorities have access to school attendance registers, so they would be aware of pupils with attendance problems. At local authority level, annual data on the number of pupils of compulsory school age who are recorded as absent for a half-day session are published in England and Wales—that point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
It might be helpful if I explained to hon. Members that although the parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their child is registered at a school and attends regularly, when there are school attendance problems, it is at the school level that the biggest direct influence can be brought to bear in to raise levels of attendance. When intervention at that level fails to bring about an improvement in attendance, a referral can be made to the education welfare service, which will have in place arrangements with schools in the area to assist them in tackling attendance issues. That would involve referral monitoring and review. Education welfare officers will work with schools and families to help identify the causes of poor attendance in individual cases and to resolve them. For example, where necessary they will arrange home visits to assist parents in meeting their responsibilities of ensuring that their child, if registered at a school, attends regularly.
I should like to emphasise that, contrary to the picture painted by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the arrangements that I have just described are working well. School absence has fallen for four consecutive years: the overall absence rate in England in 2004–05 was 6.44 per cent., which is the lowest since records began. However, I do not want to let any of his points go unchallenged, because we take school attendance seriously. On average, 10,000 fewer pupils every day were absent from school in 2004–05 than were in 2003–04, and 60,000 fewer than in 1996–97 under the Conservative Government. That is a massive improvement.
I acknowledge that there was a minor increase in unauthorised absence in 2004–05, but the hon. Gentleman is wholly mistaken to equate unauthorised absence with truancy: the terms are not interchangeable. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of those recorded as having missed one half-day session were truanting. While some unauthorised absence is clearly truancy, the term also covers a range of other reasons such as lateness, term-time holidays taken without the school’s permission and unsatisfactory or unexplained absences.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Those all sound like truancy to me. Does the hon. Gentleman condone parents taking their children on holiday during term time?
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
Far from condoning it, we have taken direct action to deal more effectively with that problem. A significant factor behind the minor increase is the fact that schools are taking a stricter line as a result of Government action on authorising absence—for example, term-time holidays—and are marking pupils’ absence as unauthorised unless a valid reason is given. The average amount of time lost to unauthorised absence per pupil has fallen. That suggests that much of the additional unauthorised absence is for very short periods and is therefore likely to be due to one of those non-truancy causes.
In case that is open to challenge by the hon. Gentleman, we have figures from South Gloucestershire local authority about term-time holidays. In 2003–04 on average each day 320 pupils were on a term-time holiday, 12 of which were unauthorised. The following year that was reduced to 291 pupils a day on holiday—a reduction of 39 pupils. Those pupils were back in school as a result of the action taken by that local authority following our guidance. Although 12 of those absences were unauthorised in 2003–04, 15 were unauthorised in 2004–05, resulting in a 25 per cent. increase in unauthorised absences because of the stricter line that the local authority was taking on what is recorded as an unauthorised absence. By explaining the figures in that way, we give the lie to the Tory allegation that we have not been tackling truancy. Far from it, we have been successfully bearing down to increase the numbers of pupils who are now attending school and doing so more regularly.
Amendment No. 89 appears to introduce legislation that enables local authorities to consult “any relevant information databases” to help them to identify children not receiving a suitable education. Amendment No. 90 gives a definition of “information databases” as the information sharing index as provided under section 12 of the Children Act 2004.
We recognise the importance of amendments Nos. 89 and 90. Local authorities should be able to access appropriate information in order to identify children who are missing education. However, the amendments are unnecessary as through statutory guidance—hon. Members have referred to the draft version before us today—we will encourage local authorities to make use of local databases and information held by their partners. That is in keeping with the Children Act 2004, which already gives local authorities duties to promote co-operation between each of their relevant partners, for example the police and primary care trusts and to make arrangements with them to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Local authorities are expected to work with all schools to determine whether a child is in the school. The hon. Member for Brent, East can be assured of that point. She mentioned the independent sector as well as academies. We want the independent sector to play the same role as the maintained sector in sharing information. Independent schools will be subject to the same safeguarding duty as maintained schools. We have started discussions with the Independent Schools Council on how details of attendance at independent schools can be collected. So we are taking that point firmly on board.
Amendment No. 90 is also unnecessary. The information sharing databases provided under section 12 of the 2004 Act databases contain certain prescribed information, which, under the existing legislation, the local authority will be able to access for certain purposes. Section 12 specifically allows for the creation of an information sharing index which will be operational in all English local authorities by the end of 2008. It will be an important tool to support local authorities in their duty to identify children not receiving education. The index will contain basic information on all children aged up to 18 in England, including where they are being educated.
My only confusion is that the Opposition have prayed in aid and supported the information sharing index, yet three days ago on 27 March in a debate on a statutory instrument Conservative Members voted against measures to trial the development of the very same information sharing index. Do the Conservatives support the information sharing index or not? They voted against it three days ago; I assume they will vote for it today, as part of the guidance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who is not in his seat, voted against the regulations to test the data-matching system as a precursor to introducing the full information sharing index.
I assume from the absence of any intervention to clarify their position, that the Opposition have changed their mind in the past three days and there have been more—what do we call them? [Hon. Members: “Flip-flops!”] Very good. I could not quite remember the phrase. Obviously, we now have support for the measure in the future. It has been designed to help to support improved communication between practitioners working with children and young people.
I think I have clarified all the matters that hon. Members raised. The guidance covers parents who educate their children at home. We respect the right of parents to educate their children at home and we have no current plans to introduce compulsory registration of parents who choose to do so. However, the guidance will ensure that the mechanisms I have described captures children who are missing education but are not in that category. I hope that hon. Members will ask leave to withdraw their amendments.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
It is a great pleasure to hear the Under-Secretary speak in the Committee for the first time. I hope that my response will do justice to his contribution.
First, let us bottom out the matter of truancy. Ultimately, I am not the one who is disappointed with the Government’s performance on truancy; it is the Prime Minister who is disappointed. It is he who said:
“It is true that truancy has not been cut.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 262.]
It is the Prime Minister who said:
“In respect of truancy, it is correct; we have accepted that we have not met the truancy target.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1661.]
It is the Prime Minister who acknowledges the severity of the problem and the Government’s failure thus far to address it.
The Minister for Schools is back in the Committee. I would never want to embarrass her, but I must draw her attention once again to the straightforward written answer that she gave me which showed that the number of pupils absent for at least one half-day due to unauthorised absence in maintained mainstream schools had risen from 566,644 to 774,347. The Under-Secretary says that that is a small matter—a minor increase, a slight blip in the figures—but it is more than that.
The Under-Secretary said, properly, that not all those children were, in his terms, playing truant, and in her answer the Minister for Schools went on to say that those figures covered all unexplained or unjustified—that is the phrase—absences. I wonder if the Under-Secretary or the Minister for Schools would like to intervene to tell me what estimate they have made of the number of children among the 774,347 who in their terms were playing truant. Do they want to enlighten me or the Committee?
Clearly, they do not want to do so, so we must assume that they have not done that analysis and do not know whether the figures could be broken down more precisely, or that they acknowledge my point that none of those absences are acceptable. As the Minister for Schools said, they are all unjustified.
I do not want to make too much of this—[Laughter.] I speak, as ever, with the moderation that I have learned from my peers in this House. However, these are serious matters. There are parts of our country with schools in considerable difficulties, facing circumstances in which a large number of the children registered are playing truant. Our amendment says that that needs to be taken account of.
Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for South Swindon that that in no way affects our concern, which she shares, for those children who are not registered. She is right; to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, who put the matter graphically and with appropriate emotion, there is no doubt that there are children below the radar, who are outside all the normal estimates of welfare and reasonable expectation. Those children deserve our wholehearted, cross-party concentration and effort. We do not make light of that, but we do say that many of the children playing truant require extra support and concentration; they also need our effort on the non-partisan basis that I propose.
Milton was mentioned earlier, and the Under-Secretary’s comments on truancy reminded me of what Milton said about speech and conversation. Just as I do not want to be excessively harsh with the Minister for Schools, I do not want to be excessively harsh with the hon. Gentleman, either. However, Milton wrote:
“But all was false and hollow; though his tongue
Dropped manna, and could make the worse appear
The better”.
The Under-Secretary has attempted to make the worse appear the better, for on truancy the Government have a sad record that he should not want to defend. We need to accept that we must do better on truancy. We are attempting to do that through our modest amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has mentioned that the amendments are supported by the NSPCC, which recommends that local education authorities should refer to the information sharing child index set out in section 12 of the Children Act 2004. The Under-Secretary mentioned that and said that in another Committee at another time colleagues of ours took a particular view on that database; they may well have thought that it is too all-encompassing. But if that database is to be created, it is right that the Bill, on the basis of consistency and coherence, should take account of what it contains. That is our case. I shall not get into a debate about the efficacy of a database—you would not let me do so, Mr. Chope. I simply say that if that information is available, it is vital that we take account of it in the Bill. In that respect, I support the NSPCC.
I mentioned “Every Child Matters” earlier and I shall mention it again, because it is highly relevant to the amendment. On page 5, in the executive summary, it says:
“From past inquiries into the deaths of Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford to recent cases such as Lauren Wright and Ainlee Walker, there are striking similarities which show some of the problems are of long standing. The common threads which led in each case to a failure to intervene early ... were poor co-ordination”
and
“a failure to share information”.
That is precisely why the document goes on to say, on page 101:
“By the end of September 2003 local authorities should ... have a named individual to whom agencies and professionals working with children and young people can pass details of children and young people found to be missing from education. The individual would take the lead in brokering support for such children and young people through the most appropriate agencies”
and, indeed,
“audit of current practice including identification of information-sharing protocols, assessment processes, strategies for securing the engagement of stakeholders and mechanisms for ensuring that children in need of support receive appropriate services at the earliest opportunity.”
It goes on to talk about local authorities and information sharing in considerably more detail, but I shall not tire the Committee by going into that detail at this stage. The important point is that the amendments are designed to be helpful in that they add to the Bill in the way that I have explained.
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that all children in a local authority area should be on information databases in order to ensure that all children are registered?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The hon. Lady says that as though that would be some unbearable imposition on local authorities. Indeed, her hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said in respect of our amendment No. 13 that it would impose unbearable pressure—that it would be bureaucratic and too difficult for local authorities. Too difficult? Let us read the amendment so that we are clear about the scale of that difficulty and the extent of that imposition on local authorities. The amendment states:
“A local authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities of children in their area who ... are of compulsory school age,”
Is that unreasonable? Is that an expectation beyond the capacity of local government?
“are registered pupils at a school,”
Is that unacceptable? Is it an unbearable imposition on the agencies concerned?
“and ... are not attending school on a regular basis, and the authority shall publish the numbers of such pupils.”
None of that seems unreasonable to me. I should have thought that that was good practice. Although the hon. Member for South Swindon considers that it would be excessively bureaucratic and too much of an imposition on local authorities, few outside this place would share her view.
Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Lord Warner, Minister of State), Department of Health; South Swindon, Labour)
I do not think that I said that it would be too difficult for local authorities; that is the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of my words. However, it would be bureaucratic on top of the systems that are already in place. That is the issue. The Minister told us that there are systems in place in local authorities and in schools to do the very thing that he wants to do. The hon. Gentleman is asking schools and local authorities to put an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of that. I understood that he and his party were always trying to prevent local authorities from being bureaucratic and employing too many people to push bits of paper around. That is what the amendment would do. I want the measure to concentrate on the 10,000 children in the relevant category.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The hon. Lady must use her extensive cerebral capacity to think slightly more carefully about her contributions. When I invited the Minister for Schools to break down the figures in her parliamentary answer, she chose not to intervene on me. It is unlikely that the Government know precisely how the figure of 774,347 children breaks down into the various categories that the Minister described. When the hon. Lady says that what we want is already happening, is she referring to our paragraph (c)—the requirement on the local authority to make arrangements to establish the identities of children who are not attending school on a regular basis and to publish the numbers of such pupils—and telling me that local authorities already do that, but that Ministers do not know about it? Or is she telling me that local authorities publish the information and can break down the figures, but the whole of the great edifice of the Department cannot? I find that hard to believe.
We have had a healthy debate—with no acrimony, I hope—but there are differences between us. I wait to hear the Minister’s response, if he wants to say more.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
He doesn’t.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I thought that he might have changed his mind, given the power of my argument. On balance, given his assurances—because we have made our point firmly in Committee and because I know that the Government take child care and the interests of children very seriously—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.