Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page



Clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out ("one school year") and insert ("three school terms").

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 42. The amendments in this group cover the length of the induction period, those schools which will be able to participate in the induction programme, the funding and appeal arrangements and the role of the local education authority in the process.

Amendment No. 29 makes clear that the induction period will last for three school terms. At earlier stages of the Bill we discussed the concept of the academic year. We envisage that for most teachers the period will run from the beginning of September until the end of July in the following year.

Amendment No. 31 will enable us to specify the periods of employment which will count towards the induction period. This is designed to take account of individual circumstances, for example, where a new teacher is able only to gain temporary employment in the first instance, and as a consequence has to move between schools during the period.

Amendment No. 31 will also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to preclude a teacher from serving more than one induction period. There will be exceptions to this rule where either the appropriate body or the appeal body decides that a teacher should serve a further induction period. They would only make such a decision in circumstances where the evidence did not appear to support the head teacher's recommendation, or where procedures were not properly followed at the school.

23 Jun 1998 : Column 129

Amendment No. 31 will also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to preclude teachers from serving an induction period in certain categories of school. We intend this to preclude teachers from serving an induction period in failing schools and those in special measures. This follows up the undertaking which my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Byers made to members of the committee in another place.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 confer on all inductees aggrieved by a decision on induction a right to appeal to the general teaching council, once it is established, and prior to that, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The detailed operation of the appeal arrangements will be prescribed in regulations.

A number of the amendments in this group clarify the role and functions of the local education authority in the induction process and the range of decisions which the LEA may take at the end of the induction period. Amendment No. 35 will enable LEAs to make reasonable charges for services which they provide in respect of induction, in such circumstances as may be prescribed. We have in mind here that LEAs may charge independent schools for providing these services.

Amendment No. 35 also spells out the arrangements which will apply when a teacher fails satisfactorily to complete an induction period and then submits an appeal. In such circumstances the regulations will require the employer of a teacher at a maintained school or a non-maintained special school to secure either the termination of his or her employment, or that he or she undertakes only such teaching duties as may be determined in accordance with the regulations. We intend to prescribe in regulations that teachers in such schools will only undertake a limited range of teaching duties pending appeal. In practice, this is likely to mean that they would undertake the sort of teaching duties that teaching assistants would undertake under the close supervision of a more experienced colleague. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the regulations will require the employer to secure the termination of the teacher's employment after a short period of notice. All of this is consistent with good employment practice.

Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are technical amendments designed to ensure that where a teacher continues to be employed at the same school, but is not undertaking his normal teaching duties there, his salary costs will not be met from the school's delegated budget, unless the LEA has good reason for deducting the costs from that budget.

Amendment No. 40 enables regulations to provide that any expenditure incurred by local education authorities for the purpose of implementing the induction programme will count as eligible expenditure for standards fund purposes. This will allow us to ring fence and target the money on those schools with new teachers, and will ensure the money is properly directed to where it is needed.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.--(Lord Whitty.)

23 Jun 1998 : Column 130

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not notice Amendment No. 40 in that group but that may be due to a fault in the list that I have. I wish to discuss Amendment No. 31. The National Association of Head Teachers has expressed alarm--which I share--at this amendment. The association writes in a letter to me that there has been no consultation and hardly any debate on this amendment. The amendment was tabled at the last minute. I believe it includes a provision that regulations may preclude certain schools--which would be identified by the Minister--from being schools at which newly qualified teachers may serve their induction period.

The NAHT was extremely disappointed that it was not consulted on this issue. It is also concerned at the practical implications that this measure will have for the staffing of schools, along with the reduction in the autonomy of head teachers and governing bodies. As the noble Lord is aware, and as the NAHT's letter states,

    "There is currently a recruitment crisis and shortage of teachers, particularly in certain subjects. School budgets remain tight ... and the reality is that in many cases newly qualified teachers are the keenest, if not the only ones willing, to take on the challenge of teaching in those schools that require a new way forward. Neither does the Government's amendment differentiate between those schools which remain subject to special measures but which have a new head teacher and other staff in place, and those in which the leadership and the rest of the teaching in the school remains in question.

    "If responsibility is to be delegated to heads, as indeed it should be, why cannot the decision be left to the head? He/she can decide whether the school can deal with the needs of a teacher in the induction period".
The letter also states that head teachers cannot,

    "understand why a head teacher of a primary school, if he/she is fortunate enough to find a talented newly qualified teacher, who is keen to take on the challenge of teaching in a school subject to special measures, should be prohibited from doing so. Why should a head teacher of a secondary school be prevented from recruiting a talented newly qualified maths, physics, or any other subject teacher? Although the Government's argument may be that the amendment is designed to safeguard pupils from poor teaching, it needs to be recognised that it does not necessarily do so. It might actually have the opposite effect by prohibiting the appointment of more talented, although newly qualified staff, and by inhibiting the replacement of those teachers considered to be underperforming. Indeed, it would be dangerous to conclude that all, or even the vast majority of teaching in a special measures school, is poor".

As I have said, there has been no consultation with the very people this measure will affect. We believe that it will work against the best interests of a school that may be failing but wants to improve.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I received exactly the same letter from the NAHT as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Like the noble Baroness, I share that association's concerns. It is not necessary for me also to read out the letter, but I endorse all that it says. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us and the association on this matter. If what is stated in the letter is correct, the association was not given the opportunity to comment during the consultative stages of the Bill.

23 Jun 1998 : Column 131

I have one or two further comments. Amendment No. 31 states,

    "precluding a person from serving more than one induction period except in any prescribed circumstances".
What does the Minister have in mind with regard to the prescribed circumstances? I think all of us would accept that it would be far from the norm for someone to serve more than one induction period, but I can envisage occasions where that is appropriate, for example after someone has taken a long career break.

I now turn to Amendment No. 29. As the Minister quite rightly said, we have discussed previously the issue of what a school year comprises and how many terms it should include. I am slightly puzzled at this measure. I understood him to say that one school year is recognised as lasting from September to July. I believe that is what most of us in this country understand to be one school year. However, I understand the words "one school year" will be replaced by the words "three school terms". That provision has been introduced at a time when there is much public debate on whether a school year should consist of four or even five school terms. If the Government intend the period to last from September to July--which is what I understood the Minister to say--why are they now changing that to what might be interpreted as a rather shorter period?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page