---

Education and Inspections Bill

I absolutely accept that, and I completely endorse what the noble Baroness says about the need for help and not simply punitive measures. May I, as a prelude, also point out two other important elements in the package of reforms before the Committee? A key part of this part of the Bill and the Steer report is that schools and local authorities should take responsibility for making provision for excluded pupils from the fifth day of exclusion. One of the things that I found most shocking about our existing pattern of provision when we were considering the Steer report and the measures that we should take was that, at present, local authorities and schools are responsible only from the 15th day. That means three whole weeks of exclusion from school when no public authority, be it a school or a local authority, has any responsibility whatever for making this provision. Under the provisions, which I believe will come to be seen as bringing about extremely important changes, schools and local authorities—it is actually the local authorities who have the duty, but much of it will be exercised in conjunction with schools—now have responsibilities for making proper provision, including the kind of supported provision and education-related provision to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred, after the fifth day. That is a substantial improvement on the status quo. The issue that we then have to address is what we seek to do in the case of exclusions for fewer than five days. We could simply have done nothing. That would have been perfectly possible, and we could have left the status quo to continue. We could have extended the duty of local authorities from the first or the second day; indeed, we gave that considerable consideration. Our conclusion was that there were serious practical issues in expecting schools and local authorities to make that provision for all excluded pupils, given that the numbers involved are very large; as I said, 50 per cent of all temporary exclusions are for just one or two days. We looked at this in some detail and decided on balance that the right course for those first few days of exclusion was to expect parents to make proper supervisory arrangements for pupils, but subject to the defence of reasonable justification when it came to their capacity to make that provision, which is there. I stress that the only statutory responsibility on pupils in the Bill is with regard to their appearance in public places. They have a defence of reasonable justification if it is claimed that they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. In the letter dated 18 July on reasonable justification, which I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I do not think I copied it to the Committee, but I am happy to do so after the sitting—we set out in some detail what we thought would and would not constitute reasonable justification. I shall quote from it because this has been raised by a number of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave the example of a parent who wanted to take their child out of doors possibly because of cramped surroundings or lack of a garden, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The offence is quite clear. The parent must ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours in the first five days of exclusion without a reasonable justification. The letter states: "““A justification which is capable of being reasonable will depend on points of fact and proof””." We have prepared draft guidance to local authorities on reasonableness. The guidance explains that, "““authorities should not conclude that some justifications are automatically unreasonable. Some, such as a medical emergency, are probably more straightforward: hospital records, doctor’s certificates etc. will help in the consideration of an individual case. Other justifications, such as the pupil needing a haircut or shopping for clothes, are without more evidence unlikely to be reasonable, for these activities could readily be carried out at the weekend, after school hours or after the first few days on which the duty applied””." Of course, those activities would be carried out at those times if the pupil was not excluded in the first place. The letter went on: "““However, every case should be considered on its merits and all relevant evidence provided taken into account””." Taking account of what Sir Alan Steer said, the interpretation that we have set out in our responses to the points raised and the evident challenges that we face to see that pupils are properly provided for when they are excluded from school, the provisions in the Bill are reasonable. I hope that Members of the Committee are able to reflect on what I have said, just as I will reflect further on what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said, in particular. I made those general remarks because we were having a debate on these clauses standing part, but I shall turn now to the specific amendments. Amendment No. 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would amend Clause 91 to preventthe imposition of parenting orders where the misbehaviour of the child is substantially due to actions or omissions of the school. We do not accept that schools and local authorities will apply for a parenting order in cases where parenting is not a significant factor in the behaviour of the child, or without significant efforts having been made to investigate and resolve the issues prior to any consideration of compulsory measures. The approach is set out in guidance and we will seek to further emphasise these points in due course. Amendments Nos. 243 and 245, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would limit the scope of the offence of a child being in a public place by allowing excluded pupils to be in a public place during school hours for any reason, provided that they are accompanied by their parent or another authorised adult. As I have said, we believe that such an approach would render exclusion a less effective sanction. A significant proportion of truants found on truancy sweeps are in the company of an adult, and the presence of an adult or parent will not necessarily mean that the purpose of being in a public place is appropriate. We understand the desire to ensure that parents are able to go about their business, but nothing in the clause prevents them doing so. I stress that the clause does not require parents to supervise their children personally. The clause provides for a defence that there is ““reasonable justification”” for excluded children to be in a public place, which should allow for emergencies, such as either the child or the parent requiring medical attention. Amendment No. 244 would remove the five-day limit on a parent’s duty towards their children and enable the head teacher to have discretion to specify the days on which the duty is to apply. I have already partially explained the reason for the five-day limitin terms of the practicality of imposing such an extensive additional duty on schools and local authorities. On giving additional discretion to head teachers, it is important that any legislation which places a duty on an individual clearly defines the limits of that duty as well as the requirements. We therefore do not believe that we can support this amendment, nor Amendment No. 247, which would delay the start of the duty. It would mean that the requirement would not come into effect until the school day after the notice was given to or received by the parent. Where a pupil is excluded from the school in the morning, the duty will arise in the afternoon of that day and notice will have to be given to the parent prior to the afternoon session. Of course, the notice has to be given before there is a requirement on the parents. If such notice is given, the period of parental responsibility will start as soon as the notice is given to the parent and not on the following day. However, I should stress that it is good practice at the moment when children are excluded in the course of the day for the parent to be notified immediately. Indeed, a school would not be acting responsibly if it did not seek to contact a parent or guardian at the point of exclusion if it is necessary for a pupil to be removed from school, not least because the duty of care for the school extends to ensuring that there are proper arrangements if pupils have to leave the school at very short notice. But, as I have said, here again we are subject to the defence of reasonable justification. I hope that I have been able to set out the Government’s case on these issues and explain why we regard the duties we are imposing as a significant improvement to the current regime, which I stress again imposes no duties on anyone in respect of excluded pupils for the whole of the first 15 days of exclusion, and why we believe that these provisions—including the new duties on local authorities beyond the fifth day and those on parents not to allow their children without reasonable justification to be in public places during the first five days—represent a major step forward from the status quo.