---

Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, we have that information and I shall furnish the noble Lord with it. I cannot do so at the moment—I shall have to write to him—but I know that information is available. In setting up the independent complaints service we want to make sure that parents and pupils whose complaints have not been dealt with fairly and properly have an effective route to seek redress. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that this service will not undermine the authority of schools or place any additional burdens on them. It is a delicate balance to strike. I am delighted that noble Lords have responded positively to our amendments on vexatious complaints. We do not want to encourage vexatious complaints, about which teaching unions have been concerned, and I am glad that we can be accommodating on that issue. As to whether or not a school’s authority may be undermined, which is the spirit behind Amendments 284 and 285, I emphasise again that what we are doing will not undermine a school’s authority. Schools will continue to agree their own behaviour policies and rules, which is absolutely right. They are the best bodies to do this and nothing we are doing will prevent them doing so. However, the service has to be able to consider complaints which relate to school rules. Not all schools apply their rules as they necessarily intended and surely pupils should have some route of redress in those areas. But where those rules and their implementation are reasonable and lawful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, would expect, there would be no expectation that they should be changed. The noble Baroness can be reassured about that. This is not about asking good schools to do anything that they are not already doing; it is about asking all schools to continue to strive to improve, to learn lessons where issues have led to formal complaints, and to go forward in the way we expect. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the prescribed functions of the head teacher. We will outline in regulations the functions of the head teacher, including their functions in relation to discipline. The functions for which a head teacher may be the subject of a complaint will be set out in regulations under Clause 199(2). I can reassure noble Lords that before we make these regulations, as you would expect, we will consult with stakeholders—including, importantly, teacher unions and parent representative bodies—on what might be included. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was concerned as to whether academies should be included in the service. Order-making powers under Clause 215 will allow us to bring academies into the service in the future. However, there are good reasons for deciding not to include them in the first place. They are schools facing significant issues, and many schools face challenging circumstances. Academies are often the solution for those longstanding problems in disadvantaged areas, and this represents a huge challenge for academy leadership. It would not be helpful to add to this by asking academies to help us to iron out the processes and structures of the service in these early stages, given that academies already have robust complaint procedures through the independent school standards regulations. If parents are not satisfied with the response to their complaint, it is heard by a panel that must include one person who is independent of the management and running of the school. There are processes there to offer safeguards to those wishing to complain in the context of an academy. On the question of disapplying normal conditions for the hearing of complaints, with regard to Amendment 288C, the local commissioner has some discretion to hear complaints if they are not made in writing or within the normal 12-month period. Sadly, not all parents are literate and there may be situations due to illness or incapacity where meeting the 12-month deadline might not be possible. I reassure noble Lords that the intention here is not to open the door for long-gone pupils to resurrect grievances from their school days. The testing phase will consider the circumstances when the commissioner might need to use that discretion. Again, we will work with teaching unions and others to ensure that we are all clear on the criteria that the service might use. On Amendment 288AA, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the intention behind Clause 200(6) is to give some limited flexibility. It is conceivable that a pupil may have a valid complaint about a school’s handling of their exam results but would be prevented from complaining because they have since left. We will need to continue consulting with stakeholders and will of course draw on the findings of the testing phase. None the less, I am sure that Parliament, in the shape of the Committee, will have an opportunity to scrutinise these as regulations too. On Amendments 289 and 290, regarding the involvement of pupils, let us remember that this is a service for pupils as well as for parents. I reassure noble Lords that, as a matter of course, the service will involve pupils if it feels that they are of an age and understanding to be able to voice their opinion. I assure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill that restricts the use of an advocate where the service feels it appropriate; for example, in the scenarios that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as for a child with disabilities. It is important to note, though, that advocacy may not be appropriate in every single case. If the legislation provided that the service must provide advocacy, the service would have to do so in every case, regardless of whether or not that was appropriate. In his current role, the commissioner has staff specifically trained in dealing with complaints from young people. These are considered and dealt with quickly. He also issues guidance aimed at young people that is easily available so that they are aware of what is available to them. We expect him to continue to do so with complaints about school issues. With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.