---

Children, Schools and Families Bill

My Lords, I declare several relevant interests, first as a parent with two children still at school, also as a school governor of a school with a religious character, and as a foundation governor of a maintained school. Professionally, I have also taught, both in the voluntary aided sector and the state sector, working with both mainstream children and with children with special needs. In parenthesis, perhaps I may say how much I strongly agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, about children with special needs. I hold a chair at Liverpool John Moores University. The Roscoe Foundation for Citizenship, which I founded, runs a citizenship award scheme in 1,000 schools in the north-west of England. I am also patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Before turning to the education provisions in the Bill, which will form the main part of my remarks, I express a general anxiety about the lack of scrutiny which this Bill received in another place and the danger that a truncated process in your Lordships’ House may well lead to a defective and flawed piece of legislation reaching the statute book. If it cannot be given adequate time for proper consideration before a general election, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the Government should not expect to see the Bill glide effortlessly on to the statute book. The Secretary of State, Mr Ed Balls, has said that he hopes this Bill will enable Britain to achieve its ambition of creating a world-class education system, a statement reiterated by the Minister today. Mr Balls has argued for, ""a … guaranteed extra catch-up support for every child who falls behind, more powers for parents, a boost to the status of the teaching profession".—[Official Report, Commons,11/1/10; col. 425.]" If that philosophical approach were made manifest in every provision of the Bill, it would be hard to quarrel with its provisions. As currently drafted, however, the Bill errs on the side of bureaucratic centralised interference in education, eroding both the rights of parents and the status of teachers. This is a great pity because under the stewardship of earlier education Ministers, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Government did much that was positive, particularly through the creation of the academies. I cannot believe that the cocktail of additional stultifying bureaucratic provisions, pupil and parent guarantees, home-school agreements, parental surveys, school improvement partners and draconian regulation for home education, all of which have been alluded to in the debate so far, will do more than generate more paperwork and headaches for teachers and parents alike. Every teacher I know feels ground down by a calculating and target-led approach which would do justice to Thomas Gradgrind. We over-examine, over-assess and over-centralise. The professionalism of teachers has been compromised and their ability to innovate has been submerged in an unending tide of bureaucratic control. It would be more helpful if, instead of costly legislation, the Government were more focused on the size, for instance, of primary schools. Figures today reveal that 460,000 of those under 11—one in eight of children—are in classes of more than 30 and 210 teachers lead classes of more than 41. In so many respects, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, has said, this is a missed opportunities Bill. It is a great pity that the Government did not try to build consensus with the Official Opposition. It strikes me that one of the best pieces of legislation in the 20th century was the Education Act 1944 which was agreed by both sides. RA Butler was Secretary of State at the time and Chuter Ede, a Labour Member, was his PPS. That was one of the great pieces of legislation, enabling vast numbers of people, including people like myself from relatively underprivileged backgrounds, to have the opportunity of going on into higher education. It was agreed through consensus. This Bill, by contrast, is being driven through with an ideological determination. I am certain that if there were proper debate around, for instance, the excellent proposals put forward by Mr Michael Gove on Swedish-style free schools and his welcome remarks expressed as recently as Saturday last about creating a new-look curriculum based on consultation with some of the finest minds in the country and especially his ideas about the teaching of history, modern languages and science, we would doubtless find much common ground. The Royal Society of Chemistry has described the science syllabus as "catastrophic". Surely we should take note and do something about it. Too many of our schools are far too big. Children disappear into anonymous situations where their childhood is crushed and their potential remains unfulfilled. How much better it would be if our primary schools emulated the preparatory schools of the independent sector and the age of transfer was 13 rather than 11. This would not only allow the immediate reduction in size of too many vast schools but would preserve the innocence of children, allowing them to mature at a better pace. The years 11 to 13 are two of the most productive and fertile years for learning but too frequently youngsters transferring at 11 lose their way in an environment that can become unfriendly and hostile. For reasons I will detail in a moment, I hope this Bill will be shelved and that we will wait for something that will free schools, respect parents and honour the professionalism of teachers. Before doing so, let me echo a specific concern about the proposals to release sensitive information about young people in the family court, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland. Sue Berelowitz, deputy children's commissioner for England, was right to say that, ""If these children and young people's concerns fail to be addressed in the Bill, we could be faced with a situation where they are unwilling to speak out during family court proceedings and this could result in their best interests not being met"." I hope the Minister will respond to that and also to the Law Society’s point that the current proposals should be deferred. Let me turn to the main burden of my remarks, the effect of this new legislation on schools. First, I want to register, as others have done, the strongest possible objection to Clause 26 which seeks to change the way that parents who educate their children at home are to be regulated. The estimated cost of the implementation of this is about £20 million, about £1,000 per home-educated child. This is money that could be far better spent in other areas of education than in another layer of inspection. Twenty-two per cent of children nationally enjoy private maths tuition, 43 per cent in London. Are they to be legislated for next? Do we not need to ask why parents feel the need to use private tutors or home educate or why more than half a million parents opt for the independent sector, or why Cabinet Ministers and political leaders are among the millions who rightly choose faith schools? We should celebrate the diversity of this position and learn from it; not seek to crush it. I was particularly struck by a letter I received about the home-education provision from Professor and Mrs Bruce Stafford, who said that, ""this Bill replaces our right to educate ‘otherwise’ with a licensing scheme and in so doing removes our right to privacy and the presumption of innocence"." Having looked at the arguments, it is hard not to conclude that the Badman review on which the relevant clauses in the Bill are based was poorly conducted. Fair and reasonable legislation cannot emerge from a flawed evidential review. There are already laws in place to protect a child where there is a suspicion that children are at risk of harm or that insufficient education is taking place. The Bill’s proposals are opposed by the majority of home educators. Of the respondents to the proposal, 4,497 out of 4,833—that is 93 per cent—thought that the proposals did not strike the right balance; 3,281 respondents out of 3,776—that is 87 per cent—disagreed with the proposals for registration and monitoring. Given the Secretary of State’s own criterion of giving power to parents, home-educating parents would judge the Bill to be a failure. Concerns have also been expressed by parents about the scope of the Government’s proposals for PSHE. This is my second major concern about the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lady Howarth, to whom I am grateful for the curtain raiser in her remarks a little earlier, that young people need to have an understanding of sex in relationships, but many parents are anxious that their children should not lose their innocence too young and that teaching about sexual relationships should not seek to eliminate the role and the wishes of parents—a point made by the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. Loving long-term relationships, particularly the blessing of a durable marriage and the gift of children, should not be seen as a redundant concept. At the moment, sex education is taught in a way that provides scope for considerable parental influence on two bases. The first basis is that the curriculum is devolved to schools and determined on a school-by-school basis by governors in consultation with parents. This arrangement means that this particularly delicate subject is taught in line with the ethos of the school that is chosen by parents and that there is scope for parental involvement in determining the curriculum to a degree that would not be possible were it in the national curriculum. Secondly, if parents find themselves in a minority and unable to shape the curriculum as they wish, with the result that the child is to be taught in a way to which they object, they can currently exercise their right to withdraw their child from sex education lessons. The Bill seeks to take away powers from schools and parents by placing sex education and relationship education—SRE—on to the national curriculum and removing the parental right to withdraw children for the last year at school. How does that sit alongside the rights of parents—a point which the Minister restated today? This trend towards centralisation is confirmed very eloquently by a timely legal opinion from the eminent employment and human rights QC, John Bowers. It states: ""In essence at present the SRE policy and resulting curriculum is not determined centrally by the National Curriculum but on a school by school basis by parents and governors. The Bill therefore ""represents a radical appropriation of power by central government, enabling them to dictate teaching on a matter over which many parents have strongly held moral or religious convictions. The Bill would further erode parental influence in an area which many parents would assert is a matter for the family rather than for schools"." This erosion of the rights of parents should be resisted. First, government rhetoric, certainly during the era of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has quite properly gone very much in the direction of devolving more powers to schools and enhancing parental choice. In the midst of this enlightened trend, the centralising clauses are entirely inappropriate. Secondly, research demonstrates very clearly that SRE works best when parents are more involved. If we are to respond effectively to the evidence base, we should increase not decrease the role of parents in SRE. Decreasing the scope for parental influence is precisely what the Bill would do. The proposed changes to the right of parents to withdraw their children from such lessons are entirely contrary to the spirit of Protocol 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which states that, ""the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions"." Many parents are particularly outraged at this proposal, and at the other main innovation in the Bill that henceforth primary schools must teach SRE to children from the age of five. This is causing considerable public hostility. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents to the Government’s own consultation said that they did not want SRE to be placed on the national curriculum, and 79 per cent of respondents said that they did not want the parental right to withdraw a child to be interfered with. Simply ignoring the views of parents on such a sensitive matter smacks of arrogance and the worst kind of nanny state. The proposed changes will also put governors and teachers with conscientious objections in an invidious position. Counsel’s opinion, which I cited earlier, is that the new impositions may lead to applications, by pressure groups as well as by parents, for judicial review to enforce the relevant duties. It would be unfortunate if the Bill led to an increase in such litigation, thus diverting vital resources away from front-line teaching. We owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the voluntary endeavour of school governors, and we should trust them and not dictate to them. There is an additional consideration for schools of a religious character. Many parents opt to send their children to a faith school precisely because of the values which it espouses and the ethos which it strives to create. Recent remarks by the Schools Secretary risk undermining the character of those schools and have caused consternation and indignation. Last week, I tabled a Written Question to the Government, indicating my intention to raise this point. It was reported in the media that: ""Catholic schools must teach pupils where to access an abortion, Schools Secretary Ed Balls has said"." Mr Balls said this on the "Today" programme: ""What this changes is that for the first time"—" Catholic schools— ""cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument"." The Minister herself said something similar today at the Dispatch Box. I cannot begin to tell the Minister how much anxiety this has engendered, and not just among Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Anglicans, who as a matter of conscience believe abortion to be the taking of an innocent life. This is not a trivial matter, and I hope that the Government realise the implications. The Government need to understand that such a fundamental attack on the character and ethos of faith schools will create a crisis of conscience for parents and teachers alike. After their inept handling of the adoption agencies issue, the Government should understand the enormity of this question which they have opened. As someone who left a political party when it said that abortion had to be a party policy rather than a matter of conscience, I can say with some feeling that Catholics and many others will not meekly accept that their children should routinely be taught how to procure abortions. That is promotion, not information, and the Government really do need to clarify the difference between the two. This is a wholly unacceptable assault on the rights of conscience, beliefs, the integrity of religious foundations, and the integrity of families. I hope the Minister will assure the House that teachers will, as professionally skilled practitioners, have the discretion and flexibility to teach SRE in ways that are consonant with their identification of the needs and the maturity of their pupils, and that this will be reflected in their ability to choose appropriate materials and strategies, subject to the school’s SRE policy as determined by the school’s governing body. I hope that the Government will assure us that the level of prescription in the programmes of study for PSHE education, particularly SRE, will not compromise the values of schools with a religious character or require them to promote activities or behaviour that undermine their religious values. I also ask the Government to give similar reassurances on matters of guidance or regulation that they may issue from time to time on PSHE education, and SRE in particular. To conclude, while I am deeply opposed to the legislation before us, I do not wish to give the impression that I am complacent about the problems that it seeks to address. Our teenage pregnancy rate and levels of abortion among young people are some of the highest in the world, but in looking at the problem we fail to see the elephant in the room. Clauses 10 to 14 are some of the most unenlightened clauses that I have ever encountered in my 30 years in Parliament. They marginalise parents and make life impossible for governors, faith schools and teachers. If the Bill reaches Committee and Report, I intend to lay amendments that challenge many of its aspects. I hope, for the reasons that I have given and because of my other objections to the Bill, that this legislation never reaches the statute book.