---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, drew the House’s attention to an important point relating to the definition of school hours in Clause 100 and its implications for our policy on the whereabouts of excluded pupils. Our intention is for pupils not to be present in a public place during school hours on the first five days of exclusion without reasonable justification. In ““school hours””, we include the lunch hour and other breaks that a school may permit during the day. Amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 128 and 131 in the name of the noble Baroness provide a more sufficient and robust definition of ““school hours”” than is in the Bill. They improve the Bill and we are very glad to accept them. Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 129, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are concerned with the provisions the Bill makes for excluded pupils. We have given a great deal of further attention to that issue and the noble Baroness was good enough to quote some of the correspondence. However, I have a reply outstanding to the latest letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I will reply, but I hope I can give some indication of where we will be going on that and I hope that the noble Baroness will find that at least a move in the right direction. Amendment No. 126 would mean that local authorities would have to make provision from day one of the exclusion, in the case of temporary exclusions, rather than, as proposed in the Bill, from day six. Under existing arrangements, schools and local authorities can and do make provision earlier than the sixth day either at a pupil referral unit or through another form of alternative provision. The issue here is whether we should require local authorities to make alternative provision earlier than the sixth day. We considered this issue long and hard, and I appreciate the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, but our conclusion was that to make a move in this direction was certainly unaffordable at the moment and probably unworkable. Let me explain why. First, an appropriate place will not always be available immediately in a pupil referral unit unless there is a very significant expansion of supply. To have that significant expansion of supply and other provision that would be suitable for pupils would, in our view, be prohibitively expensive. Our estimate was that it would cost some £53 million a year, compared with the cost of making such provision available from day six, which is around £16 million a year. We accept that some local authorities are in a position to make this provision now because of the facilities they have available. However, it is not simply a case of the availability of places in pupil referral units. It is important to note that under the law, quite rightly, provision for excluded pupils has to be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs that they may have. Although a pupil referral unit placement may be suitable for excluded pupils in the first few days of exclusion, it may not be. Therefore, that may not be the answer even if we were able to resource PRU provision. It may not be the appropriate provision for a particular excluded child in a particular circumstance. The conclusion we have reached is that the position in the Bill is right, but of course we expect local authorities to be mindful of their responsibilities. A conscientious local authority would be very mindful indeed of the needs of parents who find it difficult or well nigh impossible to make personal arrangements for the supervision of their children during a short-term exclusion. Amendments Nos. 127 and 129 address the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, about the duties introduced under Clause 100. Reflecting on the concerns expressed in Committee and following the meeting of my officials with several parents’ organisations to which the noble Baroness referred, we recognise that parents need a clearer explanation of their duty under Clause 100. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, undertaking to ensure that the model letter my department offers head teachers to send to parents when a child is excluded is revised to set out clearly the precise nature of their duty under Clause 100, the days on which that duty will apply, the consequences of failing in that duty and the availability of the defence of reasonable justification. Picking up on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her latest letter to me, the model letter will also include the telephone number of local authorities’ education welfare services or equivalent. I undertake to speak to the Local Government Association about commitments it may be able to give about, for example, helpline arrangements with extended hours to ensure that this is as accessible as possible for parents, including those who are at work during the day. I undertake to report back—I fear that I shall be unable to do so in the coming week—to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams, on the results on those discussions, and to circulate details to other noble Lords. However, after careful consideration, we are not persuaded that we should go further and seek to define ““reasonable justification”” in the way in which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would wish. There are two reasons. First, to include in the notice which the parent receives an indication of what is and what is not a reasonable justification may simply present parents with a list of ready-made excuses. Secondly, having considered what such a list might look like, we do not believe that it is viable to compile it. It would be well nigh impossible to predict the range of factual circumstances in which the defence would be available. The test of what is reasonable will depend on the merits of the individual case. What is reasonable in some circumstances will not necessarily be reasonable in all circumstances. Public libraries were raised in our earlier discussion. Let us take that as an example—I have given some thought to it. Going to a public library might be a reasonable justification for a pupil who needed to undertake specific study, particularly in the run-up to examinations, but it might not be reasonable if the reason for going was to play computer games and to lark around. That is just one example of how to seek to specify ““reasonable justification”” in guidance or a letter to parents would be well nigh impossible. Those who will bring forward cases under this clause will be reasonable people working for public authorities and they will make reasonable judgments. I reiterate that we accept that parents, particularly those who may be disadvantaged, need clear guidance. I have gone some way towards clarifying that advice. I am happy to commit the Government to consulting interest groups on the wording of our guidance, but we cannot go as far as to agree to the notice from head teachers including a list of acceptable justifications. I further stress that the duty placed on parents under Clause 100 is quite specific: they must ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours during the first five days of exclusion. There is no duty on the parent to supervise their child or to be with their child during that time. Where a child may need supervision, the clause does not require the parent to exercise that supervision; a friend or relative could do it. A parent, therefore, is at liberty to arrange for the supervision of the child in whatever way they choose and this need not be in person; hence, they have no need to take time off work, to take their child to work with them, or to accompany their child to a pupil referral unit. However, as I have said, the greater availability of advice from the education welfare service—which I hope we can provide—should mean that those parents who have no capacity to make arrangements will be given proper support. I know that what I have said falls short of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was seeking, but I hope that I have been able to meet at least some of her concerns. I hope that she and the House will welcome what I have said as achieving the objectives that we all share. Having read the Steer report, I accept what the noble Baroness said. It is the professionals’ remark that the penalty of short-term exclusion often seemed to be no penalty at all which led us into this territory in the first place.