---

Education and Skills Bill

As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just pointed out, we have two amendments in this group, which between them do pretty much the same as he has very neatly done in his single amendment. Amendment No. 230A is about representation of pupils and access to information in the school exclusion process. Amendment No. 230B is about the right to appeal and access to advocacy in that process. Permanent exclusions have been reducing in number; however in 2005-06 there were over 9,000 cases of permanent exclusion, and there were 343,840 semi-permanent or fixed temporary exclusions. That is an awful lot, and that was an increase over the previous year. Currently, children have no legal right to participate in one of the most significant and possibly damaging decisions affecting them. Although the Government have guidance that says all the right things, it is not enforceable. If the Minister is minded to accept either the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or our amendments, that situation would be corrected. In October 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in relation to Article 12, said that the Government should, "““ensure that children throughout the State party have the right to be heard before exclusion and have the right to appeal against temporary and permanent exclusion””." Noble Lords should note the word ““right”” in both parts of that sentence. On Amendment No. 230B, the committee said in the same report that the Government should, "““ensure that children throughout the State party have the … right to appeal against temporary and permanent exclusion””." It is very important that those children should have an advocate to speak for them, if they feel that they need it. An advocate is an independent person assisting the young person to make his or her voice heard. Advocates are able to interpret difficult technical jargon in a way that the child will understand. There are already precedents for this. Children currently have a legal right of access to independent advocacy when they are in care. If a 16 or 17 year-old lacks capacity to consent or protest, but has no one to speak to them, such as a family or friends when decisions about serious medical treatment are being made, they can have an independent advocate under the independent mental capacity advocate scheme. This can also happen when such children wish to make a complaint about the NHS. Therefore, we are not suggesting something that has never been done before. It works very well and I know that the Government are convinced of the benefit of advocacy, because it can help to improve the quality of decision making. The cost might worry the Government, so perhaps I can set the Minister’s mind at rest. Save the Children estimates that it would cost just £133 per case or £147 in London, where everything is more expensive, to provide advocacy for a child going through an exclusion appeal. This investment may provide very good value for money by keeping more children in mainstream education and improving communication between teachers and children. The Government estimate that a place in a mainstream establishment costs £4,000 a year, whereas a pupil referral unit, where most permanently excluded children go, costs £15,000. Therefore, there could be a considerable saving if the child’s point of view was adequately and clearly put on his behalf by an advocate. This does not necessarily undermine the head teacher’s ability to keep control in his school; it is just a matter of putting the correct situation to the panel of governors who consider it, rather than making any assumptions about what the child feels or has done. It is just a matter of fairness and simple justice. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if we do not get the answer that we hope for from the Minister, I, too, will be prepared to take this matter further.