Education and Inspections Bill |
|
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): Don’t come back on Monday. [Laughter.] Phil Hope: 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”. Mr. Chaytor: I just wanted to point out that I think that it was Milton not Keats who wrote that. [Laughter.] Phil Hope: 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. Column Number: 164 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. Mr. Gibb: Those all sound like truancy to me. Does the hon. Gentleman condone parents taking their children on holiday during term time? Phil Hope: 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
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.
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. Mr. Hayes: 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 the Prime Minister who said:
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. Column Number: 167 3.15 pmI 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:
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:
Column Number: 168 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
That is precisely why the document goes on to say, on page 101:
and, indeed,
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. Ms Angela C. Smith: 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? Mr. Hayes: 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:
Is that unreasonable? Is that an expectation beyond the capacity of local government?
Is that unacceptable? Is it an unbearable imposition on the agencies concerned?
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: 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
Mr. Hayes: 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: He doesn’t. Mr. Hayes: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 School improvement partners Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 5, page 3, line 22, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 25 and insert
Column Number: 170 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
No. 63, in clause 5, page 3, line 35, at end insert
Sarah Teather: The amendments are essentially probing amendments designed to test further what the Government mean the role of school improvement partners to be. The Education Act 2005 introduced a lighter touch for inspection. SIPs were established in documentation in 2004, and the Government have said that they intend SIPs to be critical friends. For that reason, we have tabled amendments with slightly different wording to explore exactly what the Government mean by that. We have suggested that SIPs should provide assistance and support rather than advice—a slightly more dictatorial term—to head teachers and the governing body. We want Government to be a little more explicit and to put on record their view on the role of SIPs. If the relationship is to work well for schools, it will require considerable sensitivity and discretion, so a number of things are important. Do schools have the right to reject any SIP imposed on them? Will there be a discussion between the school and the local education authority? What will be the nature of the SIPs? Will a SIP be one specific person trained through standardised training? There is a danger that it might be an adviser who is on-message rather than someone who is focused on the school’s needs for improvement. It could be someone who is specifically focused on targets or a Government-led predetermined agenda. Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 would extend the provisions of the clause to all types of schools. If the Minister considers SIPs to be such a great invention, why have they not been extended to all other types of school, particularly to academies? If the Government believe that they are important for driving up standards, it would be the Secretary of State’s role to appoint SIPs for academies. Amendment No. 62 explores whether informal relationships through federations of schools might be another means of driving up standards, and whether the Government would consider that to be adequate. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those questions. Mr. Hayes: I shall deal with the Liberal amendments in turn. I suspect that our views on the matter might be rather similar to the Government’s. The case has not been made for including other kinds of school within the orbit of the Bill. There is a good debate to be had on the role of school improvement partners, and no doubt we will have it later in our consideration. There is a specific debate to be had on who those people will
3.30 pmThat seems to me such an all-embracing category—with those other establishments that may be prescribed, not to mention those that are named—as to make it impractical, and more than that, undesirable. School improvement partners are part of the Bill, and the Bill deals with particular circumstances in particular schools. The amendment would widen it beyond what is reasonable. Sarah Teather: Our intention was to widen it to all schools, precisely to get the Government to explain why the provision should be applicable only to certain schools. As I said to begin with, the amendment is a probing amendment intended to establish the Government’s thinking about school improvement partners. The hon. Gentleman has not explained why they should not be applicable to other schools. Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady will achieve her purpose, then. She will certainly be able to probe the Government, who will no doubt explain. I was offering my own view, so she has succeeded in probing not only the Minister but the Opposition. That is something that she can take pride in. It seems to me that the amendment is closely in line with a case that has been made by the National Union of Teachers. Indeed, it is almost exactly what the NUT would have wanted. It is entirely appropriate to draw on the expertise of outside bodies, and the Opposition must do that, because they do not have the civil service available to them, as Ministers do, to support them at every turn. I understand the problems that small parties face, but it is worrying that the amendment shows the Liberal Democrats merely acting as the mouthpiece of an interest group. I am unconvinced by the amendment. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 31 March 2006 |