---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 20: Page 2, line 32, at end insert- ““( ) Where the representations concern the education of the qualifying child, the local education authority shall whenever possible ensure that the views of the child himself are taken into account.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 217 in my name in this group and support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, Amendment No. 127. This group is all about the voice of the child. Like the right reverend Prelate and Martin Luther King,I, too, had a dream. During the passage of the Childcare Bill that dream was fulfilled, because the Minister kindly tabled a government amendment—but I do not hold it against him that it was a government amendment—to put in a reference to the voice of the child. I think that it was in Clause 3, towards the end of the Bill’s passage through this House. If we can put consultation with very young children on issues such as planning childcare services into the Childcare Bill, surely we can put the voice of older children in appropriate places in this Bill. Amendment No. 20 says: "““Where the representations concern the education of the qualifying child, the local education authority shall whenever possible ensure that the views of the child himself are taken into account””." That is perfectly reasonable, and I hardly feel that it is necessary to say any more—because it seems so obvious that it should be done. I know that the Minister has the right attitude with regard to consulting children, especially because of his enthusiasm for school councils. I shall not say anything about Amendment No. 127 on school councils. I shall leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, but he has my enthusiastic support on that amendment. Amendment No. 52 to Clause 6 ensures that the views of children are fully explored and considered in providing recreational facilities—and not just a few token children, but a proper representative sample. It is essential that children and young people are able to access high quality and sufficient facilities for such recreational activities for the improvement of their well-being, which is what we all want to happen, irrespective of their parents’ or carers’ financial circumstances or background. That is particularly important for children who are socially excludedfor any reason. To support the Youth Matters consultation, the NSPCC organised 10 focus groups of young people on behalf of the DfES to ensure that their views were heard. I give some quotes from those young people to illustrate why it is necessary to obtain a representative sample of all young people—because their responses vary so much. A 12 year-old from Shrewsbury said: "““They’re not seeing the whole picture, they’re not showing what everyone is doing, just what a select group are doing””." So young people themselves are aware of the potential for just taking a little token group and listening to what they have to say. A 17 year-old from Gloucester said: "““The only way the Government can try and stop young people or any person who’s drinking or taking drugs is to occupy their time with things they find fun””." Ask the young people what they find fun, and do not ask their parents or teachers or anybody else to decide for them. Another young person from Gloucester said: "““You’ve got to help the low achievers, otherwise that’s just letting the brilliant ones get all, while the ones who have problems don’t get a look in””." That is the comment of a very socially inclusive young person. The current wording in the Bill states that the views of qualifying young people should be ascertained, which means any young person between 13 and 20. It is essential, however, to find a way of ensuringthat the views of young people are genuinely representative and reflect a full cross-section ofyoung people in the community. I hope the Minister will look kindly on the insertion of the words““a representative sample of””. Amendment No. 217 concerns the school discipline policy. This is where the governors are given the duty to consult various people, including a sample of pupils. It is an area where every child should be given an opportunity to input their views—not just a few children, or even a representative sample, but every child in the school. If children are to sign up to the school’s disciplinary policy and help the staff enforce it through peer pressure, they really need to be able to own that policy, to feel that they had a hand in developing and publishing it on behalf of their school. Unless every single child in the school is asked their opinion and feels they have had that opportunity to input, if they break that discipline policy they can turn around and say, ““No one asked me. I don’t think it’s right. My school shouldn't have made those rules””. I know many children who belong to families where the parents take the same approach in setting their own discipline policies, house rules and even pocket money levels. When the children are consulted about what they think is reasonable and negotiate with their parents, they are much more likely to adhere to the rules they feel they have jointly reached. With regard to the discipline policy which the governors and the head teacher between them have to come to, it is important to talk not just to a sample, however representative it might be, but to every single child. That is what Amendment No. 217 attempts to introduce into the Bill. I beg to move.