Anti-social Behaviour Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Vernon Coaker (Gedling): May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? We all sympathise with head teachers, given the situations in which they find themselves. If I were a head teacher and new clause 2 were added to the Bill, would it mean that there was no right of appeal against any decision that I made? For example, I could decide permanently to exclude a child who had shouted out in class for the first time. Would there be guidelines on the sort of behaviour that merited permanent exclusion?

Mr. Hawkins: That is a helpful contribution—I always find the hon. Gentleman's contributions helpful. He is entitled to ask that question, to which the answer is no. We would limit appeals to cases where it is alleged that there has been an abuse of process. If there were apparently an abusive misuse by the head and the governing body, it could be attacked as an abuse of process. We do not want appeals panels to be misused. I understand from remarks by Department for Education and Skills Ministers—I do not know whether the Minister will enlighten us on this when he responds—that they will keep appeals panels under review. At some stage, we may see Government legislation that hems in appeals panels, and they may try to stop the malicious activities of that lottery-funded individual.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I have always shared a passion for dealing with antisocial behaviour of various kinds. He knows that Conservative Members are not trying to drive a coach and horses through the Bill because we want to use it where it can be helpful.

Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: I will give way after I have completed my response to the hon. Member for Gedling. Given that the legislation deals with exclusions and truancy, we want to take the opportunity to do some of the Government's work for them. We want to get rid of the misuse of appeals panels.

The Government may say that they cannot possibly accept new clause 2 in its current form but that they will examine the issue given the national publicity. The case in Epsom led the news for several days running. People were trying to find out whether the decision was going to be upheld or overturned. In the end, the children were found new schools. The local education authority had to step in but there was a ridiculous situation. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), went on television and said that the Government would not allow the decision to be upheld. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), had to admit that what he said on television was

Column Number: 129

wrong because the Government did not have the power to do it.

To conclude my response to the hon. Member for Gedling, it struck us that this is a good opportunity to try to highlight a big issue and to deal with it. I would be very happy if the Minister were to say that he cannot accept new clause 2 but that he will use the Bill to try to deal with the way in which appeals panels have become a scandal.

Shona McIsaac: I have been studying the new clause and—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—there would still be appeals through the courts. That would be ludicrous because head teachers would be tied up in the legal process if there were an appeal against an exclusion. If things were to go to court, public money would also be involved. I do not see how the new clause could work.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady would be right if we were saying that there should be unrestricted appeals in the courts. At the moment, if somebody challenges an exclusion decision before an appeals panel, the challenge is on the merits of the case. The parents, who are sometimes backed by the man funded by the lottery, say that their child should not have been excluded, or that the exclusion should have been temporary rather than permanent. The battle is therefore on the merits of the case. We are saying that the legislation should cover a gross abuse of process.

If a head teacher or governing body took leave of their senses—hopefully, no head or governing body ever will—and did something grossly improper, there has to be a fall-back, which is why the new clause is worded in that way. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the shadow schools Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the shadow Secretary of State. We are trying to stop the way in which appeals panels have been used.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): My hon. Friend would be grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). Can he help her and the Committee by confirming that as matters stand every case has to go to an appeals tribunal, where it is considered as a question of fact? She looks puzzled. She has not seen the words

''as a matter of law'',

which would reduce the scope for appeals; it would restrict appeals to those brought as a matter of law. At the moment, as a matter of fact, every single case goes to an appeals tribunal. I thought that she was going to support the new clause.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he, like me, has a number of years' experience practising as a barrister in the courts.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: Let me respond to the helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). He and I are well aware that if the ground of appeal is restricted to cases in which there has been an abuse of process, there will not be many appeals, which deals with the point about

Column Number: 130

public funds. It would have been possible as a matter of parliamentary procedure for us to table a new clause that said, ''No appeals on anything'', but it would have been struck down as being contrary to human rights legislation, or someone would have found some fault with it. If appeals are restricted to cases in which there has been an abuse of process, the number of appeals will be cut.

We do not want all exclusions to be challenged on their merits. What happened at the school in Epsom has happened in schools throughout the country

but the Epsom case received much publicity. The authority and decision making of governing bodies is being undermined. The Epsom case received so much coverage. The number of letters to the national press and people ringing radio and television programmes confirmed that the vast majority of the British public wanted to know why, when the head teacher and governing body had excluded pupils who had made death threats against a member of staff and repeated, anonymous telephone calls, their authority was undermined because an appeals panel forced the head and the governing body to take those pupils back.

3 pm

I remember the interviews with the teacher against whom the death threats had been made. He was devastated. He was a senior teacher with around 20 years' experience. Other parents said in interviews what a good teacher he was and that they needed to support good teachers.

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, but I do not want her to misunderstand the intention of our new clause. We want to restrict severely the number of appeals and to stop the undermining of heads' and governing bodies' authority that is happening at the moment.

Shona McIsaac: What the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere in a previous intervention said was that the new clause would create more work for lawyers because the matter would go through the court system. However, he has not responded to my point. Although he said that the number of appeals would be restricted, there would be some appeals through the court system and that would tie up head teachers in the courts.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady simply does not understand. May I suggest that after this debate she talks to some of her hon. Friends, particularly the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who resigned and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate who had to appear on television to discuss the matter. We are discussing a restricted group of people because only a tiny number might be able to allege abuse of process. If she shows the new clause to her right hon. and hon. Friends, I am sure that they will explain to her that there must be minimal grounds for appeal. People will not be tied up in court. We are trying to avoid so many exclusion decisions going to appeals panels and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, time after time—

Column Number: 131

especially when the lottery-funded man is involved—the original decision to exclude is overturned. Members on both sides of the Committee want to bolster the authority of heads and governing bodies when dealing with disruptive pupils. We cannot do that with the appeal panel system as it is. The new clause is a serious and genuine attempt to correct that abuse, which is why we tabled it. I hope that I have given the Committee an indication of how strongly we feel about this.

Mrs. Brooke: I oppose the new clause, but not because I do not accept some of the sentiments that have been expressed. I accept that there have been some appalling cases in which a school's discipline has been undermined. However, the new clause is an over-reaction in the opposite direction that could cause harm to others. The fact that we have had appeal panels apparently making decisions that are unacceptable to the majority of the public is not a case for abolishing the system. It is a case for reforming the system and getting the guidelines and processes right, and I know that the Government have made some progress with reforming appeal panels. I want to put on record that I oppose this draconian measure because it would remove fundamental rights, but I accept that reform is necessary so that appeal panels work well. It is easy to be lulled to either extreme. We must think about the policies of inclusion and the pressure on schools to keep as many pupils as possible. That has led to difficulties for some schools, and some parents have felt that their children's interests were being neglected. The reforms that are being introduced to provide more emphasis on the overall interest of schools should be sufficient. I think that the appeal panels will need to be monitored and it is for the Department for Education and Skills to get that right.

I oppose the draconian approach because, having been the chairman of an education authority, I know of one school—it was not in my constituency—that was responsible for three quarters of the exclusions of the whole education authority. It raised a few eyebrows that one school was responsible for so many exclusions. It had nothing to do with the school's location or the nature of its pupils, and it was absolutely vital that there were appeal panels and some support for parents when the pendulum swung too far the other way.

In some cases exclusions are not in the best interests of pupils. Those cases may be in the minority and the headline cases that we hear about may be rather more widespread than I would have thought, but the new clause is totally wrong. It takes away fundamental principles without focusing on the real issue of why we need a proper appeals process. We want to establish the best possible outcome for pupils. That may well be an alternative form of education, but in some cases it may be right to have a separate programme for a particular child, even if that is a little harder for the school. The new clause would force somebody out of the system without an appeal. That must be wrong.

Column Number: 132

 

---

Prepared 8 May 2003