Adoption

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

We believe this may have been misinterpreted by some social workers with, I am sure, the best interests of children in mind. The president of the Family Division has clarified the meaning, particularly in Re B-S and in Re R, where he made it absolutely clear that the law on adoption had not changed. However, it seems that these decisions have sometimes been misinterpreted as raising the legal test for adoption so that adoption should not be pursued unless there is no other option. We are particularly concerned about this.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the greatest shortfall in adoptions is among harder-to-place children. What assurances can he give to people willing to adopt children in that category that they will have full support to enable the adoptions to become permanent?

[Lord Nash]

We have made £30 million available for the central agency fees, specifically for this category of children. The regional adoption agencies, which the noble Lord will know about because we debated them, will give these harder-to-place children immediate access to a larger pool of potential adopters.

Vulnerable Children: Kinship Care

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Armstrong on securing this debate on a most important topic.

Kinship carers include every kind of relative, as well as friends who are raising children unable to live with their parents. They provide a crucial web of support for children who have often suffered in ways that most of us, I suspect, could not imagine. Yet it seems they are undervalued by the organisation that ought to be most indebted to them—the Government.

We know that 95% of children living under kinship care arrangements are not “looked after” by the local authority. Therefore, by keeping vulnerable children out of the care system, these kinship carers save the taxpayer billions of pounds each year in care costs, as noble Lords have already said. The financial cost of raising the child typically falls directly on the kinship carers themselves, yet they are treated as the poor relation in terms of parents looking after children who are not their own.

Kinship carers get less support than those who undertake straight fostering, so it may be in a local authority’s financial interest to place a child under a special guardianship order rather than to remove them from that environment and place them into a foster placement or a children’s home. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong outlined, taking on someone else’s child is much more demanding than just adding a child to your family. The Government should acknowledge this important fact.

By contrast, adoption has been the main focus for the Government recently. The Education and Adoption Bill makes provision for regional adoption agencies, which are a welcome development, and recently we heard from no less an authority than the Prime Minister that further legislation on adoption is apparently in the pipeline. The question that has to be asked is why the same attention has not been given to the 95% of children who are in other forms of care, including those who cannot live with their parents and who are being raised by kinship carers. We might also ask why the same rationale for supporting adoption—not least in terms of post-adoption support—has not been applied to kinship care. Unfortunately, the Education and Adoption Bill was drafted so tightly that the adoption provisions could not be amended in favour of kinship care—or, indeed, any other form of care.

Various noble Lords referred to the survey carried out by the charity Family Rights Group. I will not repeat the figures here, but I pay tribute to the group and to the Kinship Care Alliance for the very thorough briefing that it kindly provided.

We know that a review of special guardianship orders is under way and will report next year. It would be hugely encouraging for the estimated 130,000 families raising children in kinship care across the country—often, as we have heard, at cost to themselves and their own children —if a similar review was announced into kinship care.

My noble friend Lady Drake referred to last night’s refusal by the Government during the welfare reform Bill to exempt parents of adopted children from the two-plus children tax credits limit. That point bears repeating because it makes no sense at all. I know that the Minister will say, “It’s not my department”. Of course, as far as that Bill is concerned he is correct, but it is his responsibility. That mean-spirited decision by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will impact on his department to a considerable extent. At a time when more parents are needed for all looked-after children, the cost of taking a child under a family’s wing is considerable. Parents who already have their own children will now be deterred for financial reasons from becoming involved, which means it will become even more difficult to find sufficient parents for looked-after children. For kinship care, the decision will make it even more difficult to place sibling groups.

I hope that the Minister is fully aware of the implications of the denial of exemption to parents prepared to take on the care of children from troubled backgrounds and that, as a result, he will speak to his colleague and even echo the case made so eloquently by many noble Lords in this Chamber 24 hours ago. It is not too late to have that important exemption inserted in the welfare reform Bill. The Minister would be failing in his duty of service to the Department for Education and many of the children who rely on it for their care if he does not highlight the damage that will be done to children in kinship care and others as a result of the Government’s, at least current, intransigence.

Finally, why should kinship carers be valued less highly than adoptive parents? My noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined changes that they advocated to the support that could be supplied to kinship carers. I would add to that a positive step the Government could take: to extend the adoption support fund and the adoption passport to children subject to a special guardianship order. If a child is in the care system the parents looking after them are entitled to foster parent or adoptive parent payments. It is fair to ask why those should not be available to and apply to kinship carers.

Often, an older sibling or grandparent steps in to prevent a child being formally taken into care, but if they do that the support given to them is much less. In effect, they are punished financially for relieving the system of the need to look after that child, which means that both the family and the child lose out. That is surely neither logical nor fair. Typically they are the same children with the same range of needs. The legal route taken on how the child gets the care they need should not matter; it is surely first and foremost about meeting the needs of the child and properly supporting those who take on the role of carer.

I have a huge amount of admiration and respect for anyone willing to look after a child who is not their own and provide them with something they may never have known—a loving home in which the child can flourish and reach their potential. I believe that the Minister shares that view, but he needs to use the influence that comes with his office to demonstrate that kinship carers are valued as highly as any other person acting in loco parentis. I hope he will indicate that that is indeed what he intends to do.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for calling a debate on this important subject. I am sure that the whole House would agree that kinship carers, many of whom are grandparents, play a pivotal role in caring for children who cannot live with their parents. I welcome the opportunity to answer for the Government in this short debate.

First, I make it clear that the Government do not see a hierarchy between adoption, fostering, residential care or kinship care. We are interested not in favouring one type of care over another, but in what is right for each individual child. Over the last five years we have made significant strides in this regard. I am grateful for the supportive remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.

For a majority of children, kinship care will be the first and best option. This is not just because it is what the law requires, but because we know kinship care offers children a vitally important bond of familial love and belonging. That is why we applaud kinship carers who step in, often in a crisis or emergency, to take on the care of a child, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said. There will, of course, be many children being looked after by relatives where care proceedings are not an issue but where the primary carers are ill or in distress and cannot easily care for the child. However, the Government recognise that kinship carers take on a role that might otherwise have to be performed by the state. Kinship carers enable vulnerable children and young people to remain with their families, with people they know and trust who can provide the right commitment, security and stability they need to thrive.

We know, through voluntary sector research, that children benefit from living with their extended family and that placement stability is a factor in children’s later achievement. Children in placements with relatives are likely to be more stable than ones in unrelated fostering or residential care. In particular, research indicates that children in these arrangements have fewer emotional and behaviour problems and achieve more academically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, an analysis carried out by researchers at the universities of Oxford and Bristol and published only last week found that, among the cohort of looked-after children who were eligible for GCSEs in 2013, children in kinship care had higher GCSE point scores on average than children in other types of care. That is why, through the discretionary housing fund and through funding the advice line provided by the Family Rights Group, we are trying to help kinship carers to safeguard children’s futures by keeping them within the wider family and community.

I welcome the chance, through this debate, to consider the support available to kinship carers and what we are doing to improve this. We know they need better information and support. That is why, during the previous Parliament, we issued family and friends care statutory guidance for local authorities. This makes clear that every council should publish a family and friends care policy, setting out how it will support the needs of children living with kinship carers, whether or not they are looked after. In particular, we made a commitment to increase the number of local authorities that have published their policies for supporting family and friend carers. Following national sector learning days organised by the DfE with local authorities, 83% of English local authorities have now published a policy, compared with 42% in 2012. We intend to write again to councils on this issue.

We recognise that kinship carers are not always accessing the support they should have. Although most authorities have policies in place, we now have to focus on the quality of the support they offer to family and friends carers. To this end, the department has been funding the voluntary sector organisation Grandparents Plus to develop models of best practice in early help and to identify how to overcome the barriers to providing good, well-structured services and early support for kinship carers. Also, we have seen the use of special guardianship orders increase year on year since their inception in 2005. Special guardians are mainly family members, often grandparents, who provide loving, permanent homes for children. This has largely been a positive development and we welcome it. My department has recently completed a review of special guardianship. Evidence from this suggests that special guardianships are, in the main, positive relationships which protect children’s welfare and improve their outcomes into adulthood. We are currently considering the results of the review, including looking at how we might improve appropriate support to special guardians.

We have been working closely with the key voluntary sector organisations, the Family Rights Group and the Kinship Care Alliance. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I can say that we plan to publish the report of the review before Christmas. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to the important work done by the Family Rights Group, and we are providing financial support to it for its work with kinship carers through, for instance, its helpline and promoting the use of family group conferences. My department has been funding them for more than seven years. That clearly demonstrates our commitment to the valuable work that they do for kinship carers.

We are currently reviewing our grant payments to voluntary and community-based organisations beyond the end of this financial year in the light of the spending review. We will have more information on this in the new year. In the mean time, I express my thanks to the Family Rights Group for its support to families and emphasise that the Government recognise the important work that it does.

The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned the concept of a presumption of kinship care. The law already states that children should be looked after by their families wherever possible. She also mentioned mental health. Improving access to CAMHS for vulnerable children is a priority of this Government. We have committed £1.4 billion to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years and we are working closely with the DoH and NHS England. The transformation to services we expect is set out in the Future in Mind report, which makes suggestions about what more can be done to improve access, develop better partnership working with parents and carers and provide the right support for children who have suffered trauma.

Many family members make great sacrifices in order to care for children. Local authorities have a legal duty to support children who leave care under other legal orders, and carers should discuss any needs with their local authorities. Children who have left care for a friends and family placement underpinned by a special guardianship or relevant child arrangement order have access to priority school admissions, pupil premium and free early education for two year-olds.

In relation to support for adopters and whether this should be extended, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the Adoption Support Fund has been set up to address the serious gaps in specialist services for adopted children. It is still in its infancy. If it proves successful, we will look to apply the learning in other areas. We are considering how to improve support for special guardianship as part of the special guardianship review, which, as I said, will be published before Christmas. However, given the wide range of needs and circumstances of family carers, it would be inappropriate as well as complex to provide a national allowance which is both equitable and simple to administer. Children placed in a kinship care arrangement by a local authority are looked-after children, in which case their carer must be approved as a foster carer. In these circumstances, kinship carers must receive the same support as all other foster carers, including financial support. However, the majority of kinship carers will be caring for children who are not looked after. Relatives caring for a child in these circumstances are entitled to support such as child benefit and other benefits available to parents, subject to the usual eligibility criteria. It would be difficult to require local authorities to provide a dedicated support service solely for relative carers, as most of the services required will be the same as those needed by other families.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned that our recent focus had been on adoption; our recent focus has indeed been on improving one area in relation to it. As we have mentioned in other debates, we have done a great deal of work over the last five years on improving the provision for all children in care. The Children and Families Act was a substantial piece of legislation which has substantially improved the fostering arrangements and introduced early placements. Long-term foster care has been recognised as a distinct placement. We have invested £100 million in Pupil Premium Plus. We have virtual school heads and we are currently conducting a review of children’s homes.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The Minister mentioned other pieces of legislation that have recently gone on to the statute book. I do not expect him to comment specifically on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but I wonder if he and his department are considering the impact of the decision not to exempt adoptive parents from the two-plus children tax credit limit, because there will undoubtedly be an effect on his department, and indeed on the ability of the number of adopters and kinship carers to be extended in the future.

[Lord Nash]

Noble Lords will be aware that this was discussed last night. I know that my noble friend Lord Freud will have listened carefully to those arguments and will be considering the response. I will discuss it with him.

Finally, I know that the House recognises the crucial role that working grandparents play in providing childcare and supporting working families, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned. That is why we have announced plans to extend the current system of shared parental pay and leave to cover working grandparents, thereby providing much greater choice for families trying to balance childcare and work. We will bring forward legislation to enable the change to be implemented by 2018.

I am sure the whole House agrees that kinship carers —grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and friends—fulfil a vital role in the care system and deserve the continued support of the Government. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

2: Clause 13, page 8, line 25, after “authorities” insert “and voluntary adoption agencies operating in the area jointly”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 6 and 7, which I thought would be treated as individual amendments but, to my surprise, have been grouped. So here we are.

Amendment 2 has been resubmitted, because we share the concerns of the professionals in the field about what the future might hold for voluntary adoption agencies after the full establishment of the regional adoption agencies. Having said that, I think that moving Amendment 2 should be a formality, because, within the past few days, the Minister has to all intents and purposes already indicated—in writing no less—his tacit acceptance of it.

In moving what was then Amendment 32ZA in Committee, I highlighted the fears of many voluntary adoption agencies that they could be squeezed out with the establishment of the regional agencies and that considerable difficulties remained as far as their involvement was concerned. I went on to say that we owed a duty to them to air those views and seek the Government’s help in prioritising them. Well, we did, and the Government did. In fact, those of us involved with the Bill received letters from Ministers in both Houses, and both responded positively. The Minister of State for Children and Families, Edward Timpson, clearly stated the Government’s commitment to making sure that voluntary adoption agencies are involved in regional adoption agencies. He stated that,

“the excellence in practice of VAAs is at the heart of the regionalised system”,

and that he wanted VAAs to be leading players in the design of that system, which was why,

“I have not approved a proposal to set up a regional adoption agency without a clear commitment to involving voluntary adoption agencies in the design of the service—and I will make sure local authorities keep that commitment”.

That is very welcome—so far, so good—but it leaves the umbrella body for voluntary adoption agencies, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, with concerns, because it believes that the Minister’s commitments do not go far enough in explaining how the Government will achieve that aim. In the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the paragraph on the matching process is important—and this refers also to Amendment 7. The Minister states that a regional adoption agency will have one pool of adopters that it will draw on when matching children in its area and that this will minimise sequential decision-making.

However, the issue of concern is that, within that single pool of adopters, those approved by a voluntary adoption agency will have a price attached to them in some way. Voluntary adoption agencies somehow have to cover the cost of recruiting, training and approving those adopters, as well as supporting them after placement. This may be through the current inter-agency fee of £27,000, through “block purchase” arrangements where a regional adoption agency pays for a set number of VAA adopters a year, or through other arrangements. It is not yet known how this will be arranged in the various regions; the point is that individual regional arrangements will decide it, and that is an area of uncertainty for the voluntary agencies.

If that means that voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters will be seen as coming with a cost attached to them in a way that adopters approved by the regional adoption agency will not, that is potentially an issue. Of course, adopters approved by the regional agency also come with a cost, although that is less visible. The evidence also suggests that, despite perceptions of voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters being expensive, the costs of providing an adopter are virtually the same across both the statutory and the voluntary sector. There are further concerns, as it is accepted that the inter-agency fee does not cover this full cost. Indeed, the CVAA, the consortium, estimates a shortfall of at least £10,000 per placement, which suggests that local authorities get excellent value for money from using voluntary adoption agency adopters.

In Committee, I raised the issue of what is known as sequential decision-making. In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister said:

“A regional adoption agency will have one pool of adopters that it will draw on when matching the children in its area. Individual local authorities will therefore no longer have their ‘own’ adopters to match their children with ‘in house’ as they do currently. This will ensure that sequential decision making is minimised”.

Yes, it will be minimised, but not ruled out. That remains an issue for the voluntary adoption agencies.

Part of what drives that behaviour, understandably, is the fact that local authorities often have a preference for adopters they have approved. This, in addition to the perception that voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters involve an additional cost, causes a mindset that leads to sequential decision-making. There is no reason to suppose that this mindset would be any different in a regional adoption agency. Voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters would still have to be paid for by some means, and that would not be approved in-house by the statutory part of the regional agency.

The basic issue is that, within regional agencies, voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters will still be the second preference of those deciding on matches. This is bad for children because it causes delay, and bad for local authorities because delay in placing children incurs huge costs. I was surprised—I wonder if Ministers are aware—that providing local authority-based residential care costs more than £100,000 per child per year. That is why there is a need to reform the matching process to ensure that those making the decisions are focused solely on finding the best match for the child as quickly as possible. This would be better for all parties involved and would help the Government achieve their aims of reducing delay for children and involving voluntary adoption agencies in regional adoption agencies.

Further, there is the issue of voluntary adoption agencies having to divert resources towards administrative and governance processes during the transition. We know that the Department for Education has allocated £4.5 million for this purpose but can the Minister say whether any further funding will be made available? Voluntary adoption agencies are already saying that the funding is beginning to dry up and, with the transition likely to be spread over a number of years, the problem can only intensify.

The final reason why the ministerial letters have not assuaged the concerns of those involved at the front line is that it is unclear how the Department for Education will influence the role for voluntary adoption agencies and a given regional agency. That is where typically smaller specialist voluntary agencies would be contracted to regional agencies. The assumption is that it will be for a regional agency to decide when to contract out and to which agencies. Given such uncertainties, there is clearly an issue about predictability of income for smaller voluntary agencies, some of which have already expressed fears that they will be at risk. Can the Minister offer any encouraging words to the voluntary adoption agencies to meet those worries?

Amendment 6 aims to clarify whether the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to adoption functions could be used in respect of a particular group. The key concern is about accountability and ensuring that the new system results in meaningful improvements for vulnerable children, especially the harder-to-place ones, and specifically those in the categories listed in the amendment.

The overhaul of the adoption system introduced by this amendment to the 2002 Act will have failed in its objective if it does not meet the challenges inherent in the current system. There is universal agreement that where adoption is in the best interests of the child, that child should be placed with a suitable family at the earliest opportunity. That must not mean a wait of more than two years, which it often does.

Overall there is not a shortage of prospective adopters. In March of this year, across England there were 2,810 children waiting to be matched and 3,350 approved adopters. The mismatch between these figures highlights the need for an improved system and the introduction of regional adoption agencies may in time produce that. However, there is an existential shortage of prospective adopters for certain groups of children. These groups contain harder-to-place children and include those over the age of four, those with disabilities, black, Asian and minority ethnic children and sibling groups.

The length of time between the decision being made that adoption is in the child’s best interests and the adoption taking place is, of course, key. According to the Adoption Leadership Board, in June of this year no fewer than 71% of children waiting more than 18 months between the placement order and the placement fell into a harder-to-place category; more than half of children from black, Asian and minority ethnic back- grounds waiting to be placed had been waiting 18 months or more since the placement order was made; and 64% of disabled children had been waiting 18 months or more, as had 47% of sibling groups. These indicate the scale of the problem, the extent of the improvement needed in the adoption system and the need for greater emphasis to be given to harder-to-place children.

For the new regional adoption agencies to be deemed a success, it is essential that the time these children spend waiting to be adopted is reduced, and quickly. Understandably, it will always be more difficult to find prospective adopters willing and able to adopt children in the groups to which I already referred. Part of the rationale offered by the Government for the introduction of the regional agencies is that they will lead to a larger pool of adopters from which it will be easier to find a match for harder-to-place children. There is some justification for that, and I certainly hope it proves correct. There is, however, no automatic link between creating regional adoption agencies and improving outcomes for these groups. In fact, there is a risk that the new agencies might feel under pressure to increase the overall numbers and speed of adoptions, creating an incentive to concentrate on the most straightforward matches which, of course, involve babies.

The Prime Minister’s speech on 2 November mentioned new measures to double the number of children placed with adoptive families sooner, halving the time they spend in care waiting to move into their new home. That was greeted with caution among professionals, who have serious doubts that the necessary resources will be forthcoming to allow that increase to become reality. I hope the Minister might be able to offer some reassurance to them in his reply. Equally, concern has been expressed that what I call this “hell-for-leather approach” might contravene the legal duty of local authorities under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That legislation states that it is the general duty of every local authority to,

“safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and … so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs”.

Therefore, for the Government to prioritise more and quicker adoption is questionable both morally and legally, unless local authorities are providing a good Section 17 service to families. As a consequence of the cuts that local authorities are required to make—ironically, not least in Oxfordshire, about which the Prime Minister himself has been moved to complain—there is major concern among professionals that this is not so.

Equally, there is real concern that the process of creating new regional adoption agencies will divert existing resources, leading to an undermining of current relationships. The new system will inevitably take some years to become fully effective, and there are concerns among the various agencies as to whether they will have the necessary resources during the transitional period to invest in effective services and support for children and adopters.

The £30 million made available by the Government to assist harder-to-place children is welcome, but it will not last long. It was disappointing that the Autumn Statement seemed to have nothing to say regarding additional resources for these children. Without that, it is not clear how the Government can ensure that the system will improve the waiting time for harder-to-place groups. That brings us back to voluntary adoption agencies, which have particular expertise in working with harder-to-place children; perhaps that is another aspect of their invaluable work that should be recognised.

In Committee, the Minister stated that regional adoption agencies would be,

“incentivised to find the right family for a child as quickly as possible”.—[Official Report, 17/11/2015; col. GC 47.]

Can he outline what form these incentives might take?

Returning to Amendment 6 specifically, the Government must prioritise and ensure that these groups do not continue to be left on the fringes of the adoption system. One means of achieving that would be to accept the addition to Clause 13 contained in this amendment, to allow them to become a full part of the Secretary of State’s powers under that clause. As I stated at the outset, this seems to be very much in line with the content of the Minister’s letter, so I hope he will not find any reason not to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I think that the noble Earl has withdrawn from that, so I am now—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 6 and 7, which aim to ensure that voluntary adoption agencies play an important role in the move to, and the future services provided by, regional adoption agencies. Broadly, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, and the Government’s intentions are in the same place.

First, I take this opportunity to again set out our commitment to the voluntary adoption agency sector. Its expertise and the services that it provides have already been central to the improvements we have seen in the adoption sector. We absolutely want this to continue. As I have previously told the House, these organisations have a central role to play in regionalisation, as referred to in the letter that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Children and Families recently sent to the chief executives of all VAAs, reiterating our commitment to their involvement.

Voluntary adoption agencies have knowledge and specialist skills that will be crucial in ensuring that the new regional agencies provide the high-quality services we expect to see. That is why all the projects we are funding this year include VAAs. We have also been clear with projects that VAAs should not simply be involved once decisions about the design of the new regional adoption agency are made. We have required all projects to commit to involving voluntary agencies in the early design phase of their work.

Amendment 2 would mean that local authorities and VAAs would jointly decide who should deliver the adoption functions on behalf of the local authorities being directed. I absolutely agree that it is important that VAAs have a role in any conversations about using the power introduced through the Bill, and I assure noble Lords that this will be the case. As I set out in our last debate, where the power is needed, decisions about its use will be made following extensive discussions with all those involved or affected, including VAAs. All relevant agencies will have the chance to comment on the proposal before a final decision is taken. In addition, the Adoption Leadership Board, of which the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies is a key member, will have an important role to play in shaping any decisions about regionalisation.

It would, however, be impractical and unbalanced to give a VAA joint decision-making power with the local authority in relation to the question of which agency should carry out the functions on the authority’s behalf. The local authority has statutory responsibility for delivering its functions. Although it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make a decision, instead of a local authority, about who should carry out those functions in the limited circumstances where this proves necessary, it is not appropriate to give a VAA the power to make that kind of decision on behalf of a local authority or to veto a local authority’s proposed course of action. Instead, we need to use the mechanisms I outlined above to ensure that the views of VAAs are taken into account when decisions are made about how the power will be used.

Amendment 6 would allow the Bill to be used in relation to particular groups of children. This would enable the legislation to be used to make specific arrangements relating to hard-to-place groups of children. Over the last few years we have made significant strides to improve things for this section of children but there is a lot further to go. I completely agree with the motivation behind this amendment. We know that certain groups of children wait much longer for adoption than others. In 2014-15, hard-to-place children waited, on average, almost seven months longer for adoption than other children.

I am pleased to be able to clarify that subsection (5) of the clause is intended to enable it to be used in exactly this way. Subsection (5) enables a direction to be made in relation to certain categories of children. If, for example, arrangements between a group of local authorities are not working well enough for disabled children, this legislation could be used to direct those authorities to make different arrangements for them. This could, for example, include requiring local authorities to make arrangements for their family-finding functions in relation to those children to be undertaken by a specific, specialist VAA.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 7. When we discussed this issue previously, and again today, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, expressed his concern that VAA adopters would not be used by regional adoption agencies in the future because of financial considerations, and that this would lead to a continuation of the practice of sequential decision-making, which we are all keen to see end. First, I can clarify that VAA adopters do not represent a higher cost than adopters recruited by a local authority. A report by the University of Bristol in 2009 found that interagency fees were perceived as excessive by local authorities, despite the fact that they were found to be lower than what local authorities spend on placing children internally. It is crucial that we address this myth, as it is damaging to VAAs and drives the poor practice of sequential decision-making. I emphasise again that one of the key objectives of the policy is that each regional adoption agency will have a single pool of adopters. This is key to ensuring that swift, non-sequential matching decisions can be made. This is what we all want to see.

The local authorities and VAAs which make up a regional adoption agency will need to come to an agreement about which adopters are part of their central pool, and how the VAAs are remunerated for their investment in recruiting and approving adopters. The department is not prescribing the financial arrangements that will underpin new regional agencies, as we want to be led by what VAAs and local authorities think works. However, we are providing a comprehensive package of support to help local areas work through issues such as these, and come up with models which enable VAAs and local authorities to work together seamlessly and fairly.

Some regional adoption agencies may have the VAA partners doing all the adopter recruitment, given their skill and track record in this area. This would certainly be an interesting model. We will be working with VAAs and local authorities to develop fair and robust financial models which ensure that VAAs are not disadvantaged. However, I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the financial drivers in this. He raised a number of points that we want the sector not to be nervous about. I think that it would be helpful—if the noble Lord is willing to do this—if I organised a meeting with the noble Lord, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, Minister Timpson and officials, to discuss these issues in greater detail. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is nodding in agreement to that.

Finally, I remind noble Lords that regional adoption agencies will not be, and are not intended to be, entirely self-sufficient. There are, of course, some children for whom even a regional agency’s larger pool of adopters will not suffice, either because the child has particular needs or because the agency does not have an appropriate approved adopter ready at the point the child needs a match. Social workers in regional agencies will be expected to identify these children quickly and act promptly on their behalf by engaging with the national pool of adopters using national matching tools.

In view of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, much of which I welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, commented on the Yorkshire pilot and the support for voluntary adoption agencies. Given the very sad episode that she related, I could not agree more that permanence has to be the aim when children are being placed. It is not just a question of finding a place fairly quickly but of finding one that both the child and the family have a good chance of making sustainable and, ultimately, permanent. That is what we are looking for. That is why I raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s comment that we should simply look to double the number. It is not a numbers game in that sense. I will raise this issue again in the next group of amendments, but I point out that Clause 13, on the terms of adoption, concerns only 5% of the children in care.

I was pleased to hear the Minister stress what he called the essential role of voluntary adoption agencies—those agencies will also be pleased to hear that—and that he foresees them having a role at the early design phase. That is what they are looking for. I do not doubt the Government’s will in this regard, and nor do the voluntary adoption agencies, but it is a question of how they intend to make it happen. This is a case of walking the walk and talking the talk, and doubts remain about how they will match the intention with the reality. Of course, it is not me, my colleagues or, indeed, the other opposition parties that the Minister needs to reassure on this point, but the CVAA and its member organisations. The CVAA was obviously centrally involved in the Adoption Leadership Board and those discussions can—and I am sure do—take place, but I simply reiterate that that the voluntary adoption agencies need that reassurance.

The Minister said that he agreed with the motivation behind Amendment 6. It is helpful to have his comments on the record that subsection (5)—if I am quoting him correctly—is designed to enable the measure to be used in the way the amendment suggests. That is useful and will be welcomed by organisations such as Barnardo’s, which has real concerns about harder-to-place children and the fact that the numbers are increasing and the resources to tackle that are at least in doubt, although the hope is that additional resources will be made available. The Minister may be able to reveal that in the near future.

I understand what the Minister is saying on the sequential decision-making issue but am slightly puzzled when he says that there is no difference in cost between voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities in this regard. He referred to the Bristol University study. I had not heard of that but, even more surprisingly, it seems to have eluded the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, which is saying there are situations where local authorities may have—I will put it no more damagingly than this—a back-scratching operation whereby there might be a bit of a trade-off, such as the whole interagency fee not being required to be paid in certain situations or an understanding about some future arrangement between the two. Voluntary adoption agencies are effectively excluded from that. The new arrangements will certainly make that more difficult but they may not rule it out and that needs to be taken into account. I will look at the Bristol University survey and see what it says. I very much hope that that is the case but it may not be. Finally, I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting and I would certainly be pleased to take that up.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

3: Clause 13, page 8, line 35, at end insert “including but not limited to mental health support for children and adolescents prior to the making of a placement order;
(f) the provision of a mental health assessment prior to the making of a placement order.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, we turn now to mental health support, which is very important indeed. Amendment 3 follows on from what was Amendment 33 in Committee, to which I spoke. I emphasised then that the issue of support once a child is placed in adoption can be crucial to whether that adoption becomes permanent—the point we were making a few moments ago in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Often, specialist support is needed to care for a child appropriately.

I also quoted figures supplied by the NSPCC which I think bear repeating because they show that 45% of children in care have a mental health disorder, compared with only 10% of the general child population. The mental health needs of children in care were debated thoroughly in relation to that amendment and those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The NSPCC has now met with Ministers, yet the organisation still believes that specific measures need to be included in the Bill to provide mental health assessment and support as early as possible during a child’s time in the care system. Amendment 3 sets the placement order as the milestone point by which children should have received that assessment.

What is needed is to prioritise vulnerable children, particularly those who have experienced abuse or neglect, which includes a significant majority of looked-after children. The Government must give a commitment to create the earliest possible provision of automatic assessment and support for those children within the adoption system. I will not repeat the point I made in Committee—that Clause 13 aims to provide for only 5% of children in care. We believe that the Bill is wrongly skewed in favour of adoption to the exclusion of all other forms of care. The vast majority of professionals in the field want nothing more than good provision for all looked-after children, whether their welfare be met by adoption, special guardianship, a child arrangements order—what used to be a residence order—long-term fostering or kinship care.

I say in passing that Sir Martin Narey’s announcement that he will be standing down as chair of the Adoption Leadership Board next year offers the Government an opportunity to demonstrate that they value all forms of care equally. The arrival of a new person to head the board should be used as an opportunity to broaden its remit to include all forms of permanency.

Recent research carried out by the NSPCC highlighted that one-fifth of children referred to local specialist NHS mental health services are rejected for treatment. This was described by the NSPCC as creating,

“a ‘time bomb’ of serious mental health conditions”.

Children in care not being able to access the mental health support they need to rebuild their lives represents a serious gap in provision—one that I highlighted in Committee—but I am afraid the Minister did not provide an answer as to how that gap might be filled. I ask him again: does he grasp the extent of the problem being set out for him by the professionals, the people working daily with children with mental health problems? If so, does he believe that sufficient resources will be made available to meet the needs of children in care who are not currently receiving the support they desperately need? Ultimately, the care that can be provided in mental health and other areas for children in care comes down to resources.

In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, referred to the £1.25 billion that the Government have made available to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years, through the implementation of the report Future in Mind. She also mentioned that clinical commissioning groups were involved in that process, although how that huge sum of money is being spent continues to be something of a mystery. Although Future in Mind makes a number of recommendations, there is real doubt as to where we are in the delivery of those recommendations or detailed plans for spending the promised funds. With the majority of that money being spent through clinical commissioning groups, and given all the layers of devolution that there are in the National Health Service, it remains unclear just how that report’s priorities will be met.

The answer to those questions seemed to become less, rather than more, clear last week with the Autumn Statement, when the Chancellor said that “we build on that”—the £1.25 billion—

“with £600 million of additional funding, meaning that by 2020 significantly more people will have access to talking therapies, perinatal mental health services and crisis care”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 707.]

The question is: what might this mean for the mental health needs of children in the care system? The Chancellor did not indicate whether the extra resources were for children, but—let us look on the positive side— he did not rule out children being prioritised within its reach either.

In response to a Question from Luciana Berger in another place as to how that £600 million will be prioritised, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Alistair Burt, confirmed that the sum is to be spread,

“over the next five years … and … is additional to current spending. The levels of funding in individual years and the specific mental health service improvements it will fund will be determined in the new year, once the Mental Health Taskforce has reported”.

We know that there are to be additional resources available, so my question to both Ministers today is: what representations will they and their officials in the DfE be making to ensure that a proportion of that money is earmarked to fund the improvements required in mental health services for children and young people in care over the five-year period that is meant to be covered?

In conclusion, given the spending pressures which councils face and a situation that can only deteriorate still further as a result of the Autumn Statement, surely the Government should now be prepared to acknowledge that all children entering the care system should receive an automatic mental health assessment, in addition to the physical assessment that they currently receive. Why on earth should that not happen? Children in care should then immediately receive the report that the assessment shows is necessary to enable them to deal with their condition. Thereafter, common sense surely dictates that there must be regular monitoring of children’s mental health while in care to ensure that the support they are being given is contributing to their improved state of health. I suggest that these demands are not unrealistic and should become expectations on behalf of children who need support to enable them to develop into adulthood. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3 and 4. I was taken with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in Committee when, speaking for the Government, she said:

“I absolutely agree that the mental health of adopted children is a key issue”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. GC 38.]

She went on to say that the £1.25 billion would be available and how the Future in Mind report would be implemented. Of course, we all want to see children who are in adoption find the right parents to adopt them as quickly as possible, but we also want to make sure that that adoption works. It is no good children being adopted if the adoption then breaks down.

One of the reasons that adoption regularly breaks down is that we have not properly assessed the children, particularly in relation to mental health. If we want to make sure that adoption works, we must put this crucial area right. I will not—well, I will—repeat the figures that 45% of children in care have a mental disorder, which is a huge number, while 60% of those who come into care have experienced neglect or abuse.

How do we ensure that we get this right? To me, it is very simple; to use an old expression, it is not rocket science. It is about providing the expertise and the resources but also about making sure it happens, which is why these amendments actually specify how it should happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I cannot understand why the Government would not agree to that. It will be to their credit, and to the success of the Bill, that children who are adopted or who go into care are in the right situation and getting the right support.

We have come a long way in terms of mental health issues in the last few years—and it literally is only in the last few years. One of the areas I am concerned about is that we say, “Oh, there’s a strategy; there’s X amount of money available”, but often those resources do not go to the right people. I know from experience and from talking to other teachers that getting CAMHS into schools now is much harder than it was a few years ago. Never mind a few weeks’ wait, it can often be several months before that support is given. So I wonder whether, when the Minister replies, we might hear how mental health support might be given to schools in a more orderly and speedy way.

I repeat that I want it enshrined in the Bill that we do the assessment for children and young people as soon as possible so that we get it right. In replying, perhaps the Minister could say whether, if the mental health strategy comes out and says that, the Government will agree to it and implement it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which focus on improving the mental health needs of children adopted from care. I thank noble Lords for raising these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, we had a detailed discussion in our previous debate in Committee, when I set out that improving the mental health of both looked-after and adopted children is a key issue for the Government. Following the debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools sent a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, describing in more detail the actions that we are taking to improve the assessment and support that these vulnerable children receive.

As the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, said, I set out that the Government have committed £1.25 billion to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years through the implementation of Future in Mind, the report resulting from the Government’s review of child and adolescent mental health services. I can give noble Lords an assurance that we are now working closely with the Department of Health and NHS England on the implementation of Future in Mind. The NHS England guidance on completing local transformation plans stipulates that they should cover the needs of the most vulnerable children, such as looked-after and adopted children. Key to this is that local areas must work together to understand the vulnerabilities of these children and young people and transform their services accordingly. We are absolutely committed to looking at the needs of children and making sure that they are properly addressed. This will include addressing the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about filling in the current gaps in services.

Local NHS clinical commissioning groups, in developing their local transformation plans, have worked closely with their local health and well-being boards and partners in local authorities, youth justice and education. All clinical commissioning groups have now submitted their plans, which are currently being assessed by NHS England. Improving the assessment of and support for looked-after children will be a key priority for our programme of work. I agree with all noble Lords and with the NSPCC, which has been cited a number of times in this debate, that getting the assessment right when children enter and leave care for adoption is important.

All looked-after children already have a health assessment at least once a year which must include an assessment of their emotional and mental health as well as their physical health. That assessment, which informs the development of their health plan, should take account of the information provided from the strength and difficulties questionnaire that is completed by their carer. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that for some young people with a range of problems, a follow-on referral to a specialist health service is required.

Turning to the provision of a mental health assessment prior to adoption placement, when an agency is considering adoption for a child, it should immediately consult its medical adviser to determine whether the health information obtained through the most recent health assessment is sufficient, up to date and as broad-ranging as it needs to be. Where a new health assessment is needed, this should be organised in time for the medical adviser to complete their part of the child’s permanence report. That is because, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, permanence is key.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I hesitate to break the noble Baroness’s flow. She mentioned that a new health assessment will be undertaken, but she did not specifically mention a mental health assessment. That is the point. The physical assessment is always done, so why should the mental health assessment not always be done at the same time or immediately afterwards to make sure that any problems are spotted at the earliest opportunity?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The broad health assessment will include those elements. It must include a summary by the agency’s medical adviser of the child’s current physical and mental health, so both are included. When an application is made to a court for a placement order, the agency is required to submit the summary as part of the application. Local clinical commissioning groups should use these assessments of looked-after children and adopted children to inform their local transformation plans to ensure that they can meet the needs of their local population.

At the national level, the Department for Education hosted a roundtable event last month bringing together children’s social care and mental health stakeholders to discuss how to improve mental health services for looked-after children and adopted children. As a result, we are considering how centres of excellence, possibly linked to regional adoption agencies, might enable the mental health needs of looked-after children and adopted children to be better met. Following that roundtable event, Edward Timpson, the Minister of State for Children and Families, met Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for Community and Social Care, to discuss how to ensure that mental health services can meet the particular needs of these children and young people in an effective and timely way. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the two departments are working closely together.

In addition, we are providing £4.5 million of funding in this financial year to accelerate the development and implementation of regional adoption agencies. Adoption support, including mental health, is a key element of that. We are clear that regional adoption agencies should have a focus on improving the assessment of adopted children’s mental health needs and the provision of appropriate mental health support services. I should also mention the government-funded adoption support fund. More than 2,000 families have already benefited from £7.5 million of therapeutic services provided by the fund for adopted children and their families. We know that getting a high-quality assessment of need is critical, and local authorities are increasingly using the fund to pay for specialist assessments and, where appropriate, specialist therapeutic support.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised concerns about this Government’s focus on adoption. We are engaged in comprehensive reform, but we are also doing a number of other things. For instance, we have established a programme of reform for social work, including the development of new assessment and accreditation systems for three levels of professional practice for children’s social workers in England. We have created the children’s services innovation programme and we have introduced “staying put” to allow children to remain with their former foster carers after the age of 18. We are engaged in reform across children’s services that will benefit all looked-after children.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about getting CAMHS into schools. We heard from head teachers who came to the briefing a few weeks ago that one of the benefits of multi-academy trusts is being able to recruit professionals to work across a number of schools, so we are seeing improvements in that. Alongside this, the Future in Mind report says that there will be mental health training for health professionals and others who work with children and young people, such as staff in schools, to help them to identify problems and ensure that young people get the help that they need. So it is something that is on our agenda and we are continuing to look at how we can improve that.

I hope that the explanations I have given will reassure the noble Lord that we are committed to meeting the objectives of these amendments, and that he will be feel reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Listowel]

In welcoming what the Minister said, and in noting that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is sitting next to her, which is comforting in this current discussion, I ask her whether she has quite recognised the nub of the concern of Peers all around the House. While current practice is that a GP, a generalist, will give a health assessment that will include mental health elements when a child comes into care, many of us believe that that is inadequate, and we have been trying to communicate this to the Government. While there is a strengths and difficulties questionnaire, which is useful, it simply does not meet the need for a mental health professional to undertake an initial assessment of all children coming into care so that their mental health needs can be identified early on and they can then be met with services following. I listened with great care to what the Minister said and it was very helpful, but I hope that she can assure us that the Government recognise that that is the concern that many noble Lords are raising—the need for a specialist mental health professional to do that initial assessment for every child coming into care.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, along with all other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this group of amendments on this important area.

I was very pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, had received a letter from the Minister for Children and Families, I think he said, subsequent to our last sitting in Committee. I wonder whether he might be prepared to share that with us because it might have information of general interest to those of us who have been involved with the Bill and are looking to take these issues forward.

My noble friend Lady Massey raised an important point about what the outcomes of not providing this proper mental health care could be. You do not need a very vivid imagination to foresee that there will be many effects, once children reach adulthood, if some of the issues with which they are trying to deal in childhood are not adequately cared for and are allowed to get worse as they approach adulthood, not least at a time when they have to go out into the world and live on their own. That is an important point and it was well made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, if I noted her point down correctly, talked about the resources being targeted at need rather than category. I very much agree, as she will know. Despite what the Minister said, I do not doubt that the Government are committed to other forms of care but it looks as if this is given a disproportionate amount of attention; it is the only one involved in the Bill, and then there were the remarks—attributed to, I think, the Prime Minister in his speech in November—that further legislation was somewhere in the pipeline,. Those working in the other categories would value something of substance from the Government to say, “We’ve looked to beef up the ability of the adoption sector; now this is what we are doing for the other sectors”. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that the Government will come forward with that in due course.

The Minister said that mental health care for children in adoption was a key issue for the Government. I am perfectly willing to accept that, but I come back to the point made on Amendment 2 that there should be an assessment prior to placement. In response to that, the Minister said that assessments were carried out prior to placement but she seemed to say, and I hope that I am quoting her correctly on this, that both types of assessments—that is, physical health assessments as well as mental—were included. That is very welcome, but it is not understood by the organisations involved in adoption, judging by the comments they have made to me and other noble Lords as the Bill has progressed through its various stages. It therefore might be helpful if she could write to me, perhaps to expand a bit about what mental health assessments are given prior to placement, as I think everyone involved sees that as a key issue.

The Minister also mentioned the £4.5 million that the Government have provided to accelerate the establishment of the regional adoption agencies. While that is welcome, I made the point in moving the amendment that that is seen to be if not running dry then already running a bit thin, and I wanted some assurance of what might follow that. She mentioned another sum of £12.5 million. I do not know whether that will be used in the same way. Some of it might be, but certainly the feeling among the adoption agencies is that £4.5 million will get things started but will not take the whole process very much further, and that additional resources will be necessary.

When the Minister assured me that the Department for Education works closely with the Department of Health, I thought, “Well, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?”. However, a serious point is: how will the progress of implementing the recommendations of Future in Mind be reported? How can they be monitored and made available to organisations in the field that are involved in their delivery to some extent but which also care about being able to trace the effectiveness of those recommendations that are put into place? Some form of reporting would therefore certainly be valuable. Again, I ask either of the Ministers whether they would be prepared to write about that, because £1.25 billion, which is over a five-year period, is a huge sum of money—although I am not sure when the five-year period started. I think I am right in saying that Future in Mind was published in 2012 but I do not know whether that was the start of the five-year period. However, that is one of the questions that may well be answered in the Minister’s response.

We have had a number of helpful comments from the Minister. Those involved will be happy to take some of them forward and, I hope, to build on them, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

No.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Are you in the right Room?

[Lord Storey]

I could see all these faces nodding—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey]

I will try a second time.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has a view that he has expressed a number of times: that there is not time for consultation with parents; that if a school is failing, we have to get on with putting it right; and that, the longer we delay doing something, the more effect it will have on the progress of a child and the success of the school. That is a view that I can understand, but I equally understand that parents play a hugely important part in the development of a child’s education. The notion that a school should close down and become an academy without any discussion among those parents is very strange. That does not seem the correct way we have viewed education over the last X number of years. We have always seen parents as pivotal—as part of that partnership.

On my second point, again the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, resonated with me. On Second Reading, he talked about his own experiences in Pimlico, and I think he alluded to some of the abuse that he and his wife received when they were consulting to start up the school. As someone who closed more schools in Liverpool at the time of falling rolls than anyone else, I know those sort of pressures. Yes, some people will use consultation as a means of maintaining the status quo or for political reasons, but that does not make this the right thing to do. Surely we can look at this objectively and say that it can take place at an agreed period of time or if there is an agreed means of doing it. However, the principle of consultation must be enshrined as we go forward on this.

I do not have any objections to academies. I have come to the view, which I have expressed on two or three occasions, that I would rather see all secondary schools become academies than create a whole pattern of different types of schools. Therefore, I do not have any ideological view against academies. We should not be getting to the point where a school is failing and a pupil is languishing in it—we should be in there before that happens. I cannot understand why we get to a point where we suddenly say, “This school is failing, so let us close it down”, with all the trauma that the pupils face when that happens. We should be there before that happens. However, if a school is going to close, an academy is going to be established and an academy is going to be chosen for that school, we should consult with parents. I hope that the Minister will look creatively and objectively at how we might achieve that, with the minimum fuss and the minimum amount of time, but in the interests of that all-important partnership.

Once again, I apologise for getting the amendment wrong.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 25 in this group and to whether Clause 9 should stand part.

Amendment 24 aims to bring some much-needed transparency to the process of selecting academy sponsors. There is an unanswerable case in general terms for consultation but there is also a case for consultation on this very specific issue. Local communities should not have sponsors imposed on them without having some say in the matter. Sponsors are not just interchangeable. They have particular approaches to managing schools and to the curriculum. They have very different records, in terms of both their effectiveness and their record in managing public money. Again, I urge the Minister to acknowledge the essential fact that public money is involved here—which ought to mean that transparency and accountability are guaranteed. It is public money, yet the Minister wants to cancel the public’s right to have any say locally as to how it is used in educating their children. It is unacceptable that a Minister can come to Parliament, propose such a fundamentally undemocratic measure and hope to get away with it.

Currently, there is absolutely no public quality control of would-be sponsors. On academisation, we know that Ministers are determined to press ahead at full speed and are thus required to find sponsors at all costs. We also know that regional schools commissioners are paid by results—that is, how many academies they can bring into being—and so they need to find sponsors at all costs. That is surely not a healthy situation. Someone, somewhere, needs to have the responsibility to say, “Wait a minute—these people are just not up to the task”. If that means that some schools cannot be converted as quickly as had been intended, surely that is preferable to signing up sponsors who are inadequate. More needs to be done by government—in whose name we are told the regional schools commissioners act—to get the sponsors right, rather than to get them right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is a fairly minor point, but I heard the Hewett School in Norwich being mentioned, and I am one of its alumni. Possibly that explains quite a lot.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

It is no longer the Hewett School but the Hewett Academy.

[Lord Addington]

It is still a school or an academy, and if we remembered that it might help some of the progress on this Bill.

Regarding some of the points raised by the noble Lord, that school sits on sports grounds that have served half the sports clubs in the area. Indeed, the club where I started my career—I should declare—and finished, started on those grounds. These are the sorts of things that need to be worked into the system. We have to try to get them in somewhere along the line. On its use as a community asset, the noble Lord will not know the place but these are acres of prime playing fields in the heart of one of the fastest growing cities in the country. They are wonderful playing fields on flat, open ground that have been used as an asset by everything going on there. How we build on such a utility is something that should be taken into account. What are we doing on the broader picture? That has not been brought in here, and it should. The fact that the community and parents should be given that courtesy is self-evident. That greater asset to the local community is something we seem to have missed so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, in our endeavours to ensure that we have the highest standards in our schools, we look at three processes. One, of course, is testing and examinations. When schools are not achieving the level anticipated it is a sign that we need to take action. The second method is inspections when we inspect schools in, I hope, a supportive way, and when there are concerns we are able to act on them. The third area is the quality of the leadership and the teachers in those schools. The amendments in my name—Amendments 30, 31 and 32—are linked to those three areas.

I will deal first with Amendment 31 on teachers. You would not go to your local medical centre to see your doctor and be given an unqualified opinion. You would not go to the dentist and be seen by an unqualified dentist. It is hugely important, not just for the status of teachers and how they are valued by society, that we make it absolutely clear that in whatever type of school—local comprehensive, free school or academy—every pupil has the right to be taught by a qualified teacher. The notion of bringing unqualified people in to teach because they might be enthusiastic beggars belief. That is not to say that there will not be people who have a particular interest and enthusiasm but they will be part of an ongoing project and there would be a qualified teacher with them; nor is it to prevent those people who are aspiring to be teachers from teaching, again alongside a mentor who is a qualified teacher.

The previous Labour Government permitted non-teachers to teach by allowing classroom assistants to teach. I have real reservations about that, I have to say. We allowed NVQ level 3s to teach lessons but not to prepare, plan or mark, and NVQ level 4s to teach, plan and mark lessons. We almost passed the buck when we allowed that to happen. It was interesting when the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said at Second Reading that this present Government and the coalition Government had more unqualified teachers in schools. Actually, that was not correct. There were more unqualified teachers in schools under the previous Labour Government than currently.

I am not trying to score points here. We should not be trying to score points off each other, we should all—Government and Opposition—value the role of teachers, and we should say that every pupil should be taught by a qualified teacher and it is as simple as that. Linked to that should be the quality of the training of teachers, which is not covered by this amendment—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I am not going to gainsay what the noble Lord has said. I am sure he has done his homework. But will he accept that there are different categories of unqualified teachers? When Labour was in government, a lot of the teachers involved were from other countries so had gained their qualifications abroad and were in the process of bringing those up to standard here or did not have the appropriate qualifications at that time. Quite often, under the current academy status, we are seeing people move into jobs simply on the grounds of enthusiasm and the ability to communicate, and we need a bit more than that if we want to get people through GCSEs and higher exams.

[Lord Storey]

I agree with that. Of course, the other reason is, despite what the Minister constantly tells us, that there is a shortage of teachers and we are desperate to find people. Figures published last week suggested that one in six teachers comes from overseas. I do not have any problem with overseas teachers, provided that they are qualified. I come back to the issue that I want to see every pupil in every type of school having a qualified teacher. Linked to that would be the quality of the teacher training and of the professional development while that teacher is in post.

On inspection—and this goes back to the previous debate—it is interesting that some academy chains are now bigger than local authorities. My local authority had 50-odd schools. The Harris academy chain has more than 50 schools. We inspect local education authorities but we do not inspect academies. Amendment 30 suggests that if a school is coasting or failing or going to become an academy, do we not want to know the reasons why that is happening rather than just saying, “It has failed, let’s move on”? Do we not want to understand what has happened in that school so that we can put it right? Do we not also want, when we move that school into an academy, to be absolutely sure that the academy that is chosen is up to inspections and up to the mark, and that we do not move the pupils from one difficult situation to another? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

32ZA: Clause 13, page 8, line 25, after “authorities” insert “and voluntary adoption agencies operating in the area jointly”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 32ZA, I will speak also to Amendment 33. This group focuses on the voluntary adoption agencies, about which quite a bit was heard at Second Reading, but considerable difficulties remain as far as the agencies are concerned. We owe a duty to them to air those views and to seek the Government’s help in prioritising them.

The DfE’s Regionalising Adoption document, published in June this year, was interesting. It devoted two pages to the role of voluntary adoption agencies, beginning with this statement:

“We are particularly keen to consider models that have an element of cross-sector collaboration, bringing together the best of the voluntary and statutory sectors”.

If the DfE had finished the consultation document there, I am sure that the voluntary adoption agencies would have been perfectly happy because that is basically what they seek. The document then proceeds to list three options for local authorities,

“to acknowledge and use the potential of the voluntary sector to provide services at a regional level and have the confidence to take forward these partnerships”.

The first is:

“Involving a voluntary adoption agency in a regional partnership as a specialist adoption support provider”.

The second is:

“A voluntary adoption agency leading a regional partnership, providing adoption management services to a group of local authorities, and working with and through local authority staff in social work positions”.

The third is:

“A voluntary adoption agency providing specialist services to a number of local authorities as part of a formal partnership arrangement”.

I have perhaps been remiss in not welcoming the fact that we are on Clause 13 and now dealing with adoption. I have been slightly thrown because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped, with Amendment 32ZA at the beginning rather than Amendment 33, which I was going to speak to first. This is an important issue. I do not believe it is an afterthought in the Bill, as has been suggested. It is a relatively small but very important part of the Bill and will affect a great deal of people.

The voluntary adoption agencies play a very important role within that. I got the impression from reading the sections I have quoted from Regionalising Adoption that the Government value the role of voluntary adoption agencies. My question stemming from that is: why not formalise that role? Voluntary adoption agencies are seriously concerned at the possible dilution of their role and this would help to allay those fears.

Although the Minister had quite a bit to say about Clause 13 in his opening remarks at Second Reading, in summing up he had very little to say. In fairness, I should remind noble Lords that he revealed that he was extemporising on that occasion. That was perhaps somewhat ill advised because he devoted just five lines in Hansard to the question of voluntary adoption agencies, and what he did say betrayed a misunderstanding of the concerns expressed by the voluntary adoption agencies. When adoption agencies in Wales were reorganised into five regional groupings, smaller voluntary agencies were the casualties. What assurances can the Minister give that the same will not happen in England? That fear was expressed by several witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in another place. That view is also held by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and by its biggest member, Barnardo’s.

The key concern here is about accountability and ensuring that the new system results in meaningful improvements for vulnerable children, especially the hard-to-place ones—those in the categories of age four and over; children with a disability; sibling groups; and children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Voluntary adoption agencies have particular expertise in work with hard-to-place children and the danger is that local authorities may look to protect their own interests after the introduction of regional adoption agencies, leading to a squeeze on the smaller but still influential voluntary agencies. As I have said, that concern was raised by several witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in another place.

It was also said at Second Reading that voluntary adoption agencies play a key role and yet, despite government support over the past few years, they are struggling for survival. Many are reducing the size of their social work teams as the proportion of adoption work that was done by the agencies decreases. In some areas, local authorities—despite clear direction from government, which I acknowledge—exclude them from discussions. It is not clear how voluntary adoption agencies will play a part in the proposed new regional structures while retaining their individual independence, or how funding arrangements will support their activity.

Voluntary adoption agencies are concerned about transitional instability because some are losing their relationship with local authorities, which feel that they may not need the voluntary agencies when the local authorities become part of a regional adoption agency. As I have said, voluntary adoption agencies play a key role. However, it is not clear how they will play what they would regard as a meaningful part in the proposed new regional structures while retaining their individual independence. Equally, they are concerned as to how funding arrangements will support their activity.

Amendment 33 would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament containing information about how she has exercised the power given to her in Clause 13 and the safeguards she has put in place to protect the voluntary agencies, other models of care and the provision of post-adoption support. In referring to the power to direct local authorities to come together in regional adoption agencies, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said at Second Reading:

“I assure your Lordships that we expect to use this power rarely”.—[Official Report, 20/10/15; col. 586.]

That is as it should be. However, if that is the case, an annual report to Parliament would not involve many examples of their use and could hardly be regarded as onerous or particularly bureaucratic by the Government. I trust the Minister will not look for reasons to avoid meeting what I believe is a fairly modest requirement.

The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to intervene directly in adoption arrangements. That leads us to believe that in cases where she uses her powers of direction it will be because she has failed to achieve the hoped-for consensus and voluntary arrangements that are clearly the Government’s ambition. In such circumstances, is it not right that Parliament should be told what persuaded the Secretary of State of the need to exercise her powers? Meeting the requirements of Amendment 33 would make that information available to Members of both Houses of Parliament, allowing appropriate scrutiny to be undertaken.

There is clear need for the Secretary of State to report on the impact of voluntary adoption agencies, the whole area of children in care and the question of support for adopted children and their parents, especially concerning mental health issues. Why is it the case that children currently entering the care system are subject to a routine physical health check but, despite the often chaotic, sometimes traumatic lives that led to them being placed in care, they are not automatically given access to a mental health check? For those reasons, it is important that the Government are prepared to report on an annual basis to ensure that that information can be made available to Members of both Houses, and that progress relating to this part of the Bill can be tracked. We all wish it success but we also want to see that that is actually what is happening.

Returning to the question of voluntary adoption agencies, these organisations undertake only about 16% of adoption placements. There is therefore a real danger that they could get lost within the new system when the local authority with which they work becomes part of the regional adoption agency. It would be a great shame, and a real loss, to a sector that has recently seen the demise of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering if they fell by the wayside. I look to the Minister to reassure them that their vital and long-established role will be both recognised and protected. She can meet that hope by accepting our amendment and agreeing to report annually to Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey]

I will speak just to Amendment 34 in this group, which seeks to develop the work we did on the Children and Families Bill, where quite important progress was made on the whole issue of adoption. There was an important amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the increasing length of time that children stayed with foster parents.

Let us build on that: Amendment 34 seeks to support that progress by saying that children in the care of local authorities are perhaps the most vulnerable children. Many of them have mental health problems. In fact, the figures—I will not repeat them now—are really alarming. Many local authorities and agencies which carry out the role for local authorities make tremendous progress with those looked-after children. But there are real concerns, and this amendment suggests that we should always have those concerns in the front of our minds through having an annual report on the support we are giving those young people, so that we can adjust our provision and policies where we need to. I hope the Government might consider supporting this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We think that the VAAs should be involved in early conversations about regional adoption agency design. We will issue procurement guidance for projects shortly, so it is in our minds.

Finally, the noble Lords raise important points about the proportionate use of this power. It is important to emphasise that we are committed to supporting local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to move to regional adoption agencies voluntarily in the first instance. These powers are only backstop powers to be used for the reluctant few.

As I have already said, we are delighted that the sector has already seized the opportunity to be involved. We have announced 14 regional adoption agency projects that we are working with this year, which, as I said, will involve more than two-thirds of all voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities. In the rare cases where the power is needed, decisions will be made following extensive discussions with all those involved or affected, including voluntary agencies. Prior to making a final decision, we will write to any relevant local authority formally requesting its views on the matter. I therefore reassure noble Lords that all those involved will have the chance to comment on the proposal before a final decision is taken.

I take this opportunity to mention the role of the national Adoption Leadership Board, which meets quarterly and has a remit to drive significant improvements in the performance of the adoption system in England, and which will also have an important role to play in shaping decisions and overseeing service development. This board has already been paramount in driving forward our reform programme, and that role will continue. The board is made up of the most senior officials from key organisations in the system, including representatives both from local authorities and voluntary organisations. The Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, which represents all voluntary adoption agencies, is a key member. Board members have been appointed to represent their sector and to take responsibility for galvanising performance improvements within their respective areas. Involving the board in any decisions about regionalisation will therefore be vital. This is another indication of how we are trying to bring all parties together.

This is a practical and proportionate approach to ensuring that the powers are used appropriately and that all interested parties are involved in decision-making. In view of this, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured enough not to press their amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for that reply, which was to a large extent warm and, I am sure, encouraging to voluntary adoption agencies. She talked of them being involved in 14 of the regional adoption agencies that are in the process of being established—that is all very well and good—but that is the start. We look some way down the road and it may not happen. What if some local authorities or some regional adoption agencies decided not to involve voluntary adoption agencies? It is quite unlikely that none would be involved, but the agencies themselves remain concerned—it is not those of us on this side of the Committee who need to be reassured, it is the voluntary adoption agencies. For whatever reason—well, the reasons I have outlined, to be frank—they are not yet confident that that is how it is going to be into the future, and it is the future that concerns them rather than the present.

The Minister did not say specifically what was wrong with Amendment 32ZA. I do not see why it cannot be added to the Bill. It would simply add nine more words and ensure that voluntary adoption agencies were fully involved. If that is the Government’s intention—and I have no reason to doubt that it is—why not just write it into the Bill on that basis? It is disappointing that the Minister is not willing to do that, because I cannot see that it would have any real effect on any other part of the adoption system.

On the annual report, the Minister talked about transparency and about the agencies being fully informed, but transparency is also important as far as Parliament is concerned. You may say that Members of this House or another place can read the reports that are made available—no doubt, they will be put in the Library—but Parliament has a right to expect that such information be made available to it. If there was a need for a debate on these issues—it would not be every year, by any means—that could take place. If I noted the Minister correctly, she said that this would not work in practice. I may have missed it, but I did not hear from her why that would be the case. Yes, it would perhaps be a little bureaucratic, but only a little bit. I think that it would have a much wider benefit, not just for parliamentarians but for the agencies involved. The Minister’s response is therefore disappointing. Perhaps the Government could further clarify why they seem resistant, particularly in respect of including voluntary adoption agencies in the Bill. I know that that is what they want for reassurance and it is what we want with this amendment. But given what the Minister has had to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 32ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey]

I am so pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, managed to get this amendment down. I tried, and could only get the wording to say “report”; he actually got a lot more, and I am very grateful for that. He obviously has charm and persistence that we need to learn from. I very much want to support the amendment.

There are moments in our lives that obviously have a profound effect on us and our personal circumstances. Some of those can be life-changing. I can remember one such occasion when, after being a bit blasé, thinking, “Do I really have to go?”, I went to meet a group of looked-after children in Liverpool. This was about five or six years ago. Liverpool Education Authority was the guardian of these looked-after children, and it had formed a committee that invited me to tea. It was one of the most life-changing moments for me because these young people talked about their problems: how they had been pushed from pillar to post, and how nobody had understood their concerns or needs. It made me realise that looked-after children had so many problems and concerns on their shoulders that you would not expect people of that age to have. We have the duty and responsibility to make sure that we do everything possible to help and support them.

I am glad to say that the whole issue of mental health is now moving much further up the political agenda: that is a good thing. The previous coalition Government, for the first time, made resources available for mental health. The present Government are carrying on with that commitment. I noticed that the Labour Opposition have appointed a shadow Minister for mental health, Luciana Berger, which shows how important mental health is. That is to be praised. Certainly in schools, it goes back—dare I be so bold as to say—to this teacher with incisive knowledge of physics, where the issue with the student in front of him might be a mental health issue. Unless that teacher has that knowledge or understanding, or somebody else in the school is able to pick up on this, it is to nought. Just as my noble friend Lord Addington went on and on and on about dyslexia—and probably all of us were waving the white flag and saying, “We give in”—we need the same focus on issues of mental health. We should keep at it like a dog with a bone. We talked about bullying in schools and the issue shot up the agenda. Many of the bullies have mental health problems. If we were able to identify them and deal with them at an early stage, they would not be bullies and some of the problems and the suffering that they and the people they bully face would not happen.

We also need to learn from others. I read about an interesting mental health project in the United States of America for young children. That is why I was nervous when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was talking in a previous discussion about play—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly jumped up and asked about obese children—but this project looks at how you deal with mental health through role-playing. The results have been quite stunning. So we should be learning all the time from different projects as well.

Looked-after children need us to go the extra mile more than anyone else. I hope that we can all get behind and support this amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling Amendments 32A and 34A, for the eloquent manner in which he introduced them and for the eloquent examples he gave of some of the existing stresses relating to adoption.

However, I have a question for him. Given the wording of Amendment 32A, which calls on a local authority or an adoption agency designated by a local authority to act, it might be better to tie the National Health Service into this provision because I wonder whether local authorities have the authority or the power to undertake what he is seeking they should do. I would like to see it done but I am not clear in my mind whether this is the best way to do it.

The issue of support once a child is placed in adoption can be crucial as to whether or not that adoption becomes permanent. Often specialist support is needed to care for a child appropriately. This is because, having experienced abuse or neglect, 45% of children in care have a mental health disorder compared with only 10% of the general child population. However, the mental health needs of children in care often go unidentified and there is a subsequent lack of mental health support. The Government urgently need to provide specific measures and greater resources around mental health assessment and support for the tens of thousands of children entering care, whose welfare must remain a priority concern.

The Department for Education’s document Regionalising Adoption, which I referred to in the debate on the previous group of amendments, stated:

“We still have too few adopters willing and able to adopt harder to place children”.

Harder-to-place children are a particular concern and yet the document does not suggest any solutions for this serious gap in provision. I hope the Minister will be able to say what the Government propose to do in terms of increasing the number of harder-to-place children who find a permanent home. She may well say, “It is out for consultation; let us see”, but this is an urgent matter. The argument advanced by Ministers in terms of the academisation of schools with no day to be lost perhaps applies even more urgently in the case of harder-to-place children.

I am aware that it is only a consultation document but, worryingly, it does not make a single mention of children with mental health problems. In something like—I cannot remember offhand—20 pages there is no mention of that. I wonder whether the Government appreciate the need and fully understand the issue and how it impacts on so many children in care. That is often a significant factor in their being in care in the first place.

The document goes on to say:

“Currently, adoption support services are provided by a mix of local authority provision, the NHS and independent providers”.

But—it was perhaps inevitable that there would be a “but”—

“There are regional gaps, gaps in the types of services on offer, and little evidence of spare capacity”.

We had some gaps a minute ago and here are some more, which are highlighted in the Government’s own document. It is fine to flag them up but we need some suggestion from the Government—the Minister might tell me it is a bit early just now—as to how those gaps are going to be filled because they are pretty glaring and very serious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

On that Future In Mind document, the Minister said that the chapter on vulnerable children makes specific reference to proposals for looked-after children. I do not expect her to respond now, but could she write to me pointing it out? As I said, I could find the word “adoption” used only once in that chapter.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Clinical commissioning groups have been working with their local authority partners to develop local transformation plans to improve their local offer based on the recommendations. These plans, alongside additional government funding, will cover the full spectrum of mental health issues, including, crucially, addressing the needs of the most vulnerable children.

Improving assessment of and support for looked-after children will be a key priority in our programme of work. We welcome the recent report on this issue from the NSPCC, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and agree that getting assessment right when children enter care is critical. All looked-after children already have an annual health assessment, which must include an assessment of their emotional and mental as well as their physical health. That assessment, which informs the development of their health plan, should take account of the information provided from the strengths and difficulties questionnaire which is completed by their carer. The guidance also sets out clear expectations that all looked-after children should have targeted and dedicated support through child and adolescent mental health services and other services according to their need, arranged by CCGs, local authorities and NHS England. However, I accept the point made by the noble Earl that, for some young people with a range of problems, a follow-on referral to specialist health services is required.

The Department for Education hosted a round table last month, bringing together children’s social care and mental health stakeholders, to discuss how to improve mental health services for adopted children. As a result, we are considering how centres of excellence, possibly linked to regional adoption agencies, might enable the mental health needs of looked-after and adopted children to be better met.

At the moment, the specialist support that many adopted children need in order to address the effects of abuse and neglect in their early years is simply not available in their area, as the number of adopted children at local authority level is too low to ensure that the right provision is there. Assessment and commissioning of specialist support on a regional scale will allow providers to expand their services, provide better value for money for the taxpayer and help ensure that all adoptive families receive a consistently high quality of assessment and provision.

In addition, we are providing £4.5 million of funding this financial year to accelerate the development and implementation of regional adoption agencies. Adoption support, including mental health, is a key element of that. We are clear that regional adoption agencies must have a focus on improving the assessment of adopted children’s mental health needs and the provision of appropriate mental health support services.

Regional adoption agencies will be able to make use of the government-funded Adoption Support Fund, as the noble Earl mentioned. More than 2,000 families have already benefited from £7.5 million of therapeutic services provided by the fund for adopted children and their families. We know that getting a high-quality assessment of need is critical, and local authorities are increasingly using the fund to pay for specialist assessments and, where appropriate, specialist therapeutic support.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about harder-to-place children. We are providing £30 million to help pay the interagency fee to both local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies so that harder-to-place children might be adopted more quickly. More than 200 children have already been placed through this new scheme. On recruiting adopters for harder-to-place children, we believe that recruitment from a wider geographical base than simply a local authority, which takes into account the needs of children across a number of local authorities in a regional recruitment strategy and uses specialist techniques for recruiting adopters of harder-to-place children, will have an important effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, said that schools needed expertise in supporting looked-after children and children with mental health issues. We made changes in the Children and Families Act to introduce a virtual school head for looked-after children. This measure was designed specifically to ensure that looked-after children receive the support that they need at school.

I hope that noble Lords will see from this range of initiatives the importance that this Government and the previous Government have attached to ensuring that our most vulnerable children receive the support that they need, and that we are already committed to meeting the objectives of these amendments. I hope that the noble Earl will feel reassured enough not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

33A: Clause 13, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) In giving directions under subsection (1) regarding the provision of adoption support services, the Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that decisions as to whether a particular child should be placed for adoption with a particular prospective adopter are made in such a way as to be blind to whether the adopter was approved by the relevant local authority, an external local authority, a regional adoption agency, or a voluntary adoption agency.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I will also speak to the Clause 13 stand part. Amendment 33A would require the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that the process for making decisions about matching children with prospective adopters is conducted so that the decision-maker is blind as to which body—be that the local authority, the regional adoption agency, or a voluntary adoption agency—approved the prospective adopter. This would ensure that personal bias and other irrelevant factors are absent from decision-making and that instead, decisions are focused solely on considering the best match for the child. This would reduce unnecessary delays in the matching process by ensuring that a wider pool of prospective adopters are given full consideration from the earliest possible point, preventing the sequential decision-making that currently happens.

The Department for Education’s Regionalising Adoption consultation document—I am not sure whether it will be pleased that I am mentioning it for the third group in a row—contained some telling statistics, not least from Professor Elaine Farmer’s research. This found that some local authorities tended to seek to place their children with adopters approved “in-house” before considering adopters approved by other local authorities and then voluntary adoption agencies. This results in what is termed, as I mentioned earlier, sequential decision-making, which means that some children wait longer than they should to be adopted and the average is eight months between placement order and match. Professor Farmer’s investigation revealed that in 30% of cases delay was associated with an unwillingness to seek an adoptive family outwith a local authority’s own group of approved adopters. Clearly, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

The aim of Amendment 33A is to ensure that regional adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate in terms of financial considerations when deciding where to place an adoptive child. There should be an assumption of them being blind to provenance, otherwise the interests of the child are not being put first. Unfortunately, an assumption—even where given by a regional adoption agency to the Department for Education—will not be enough. It needs to be guaranteed by being on the face of the Bill.

Currently there is an interagency fee of £27,000 per child placed with adoptive parents and it is welcome that the Department for Education has given £30 million in one- off funding. I heard what the noble Baroness just said in reply to the previous group. I had understood that that was simply in general terms to enable local authorities for whom the interagency fee, or at least the extent of those fees, was preventing them matching children, and that the £30 million was to break the logjam. If it is specifically, as the Minister said, for harder to place children, that is interesting, but perhaps she can clarify that in her reply.

What happens in the future after that £30 million has been spent? If local authorities need to save costs—we know that they will—they may well cut the voluntary adoption agencies out of the process, as I suggested earlier, and place a child with another authority to which, by agreement, they do not need to pay each other the interagency fee? That situation must not be allowed to develop. The fact that the voluntary adoption agencies are already fearing that it might do so ought to provide the Minister with the confidence to accept this amendment.

Turning to the clause in general, I have to say that it is worthy of support, as far as it goes. The trouble is that it does not go far enough. Will the Minister say why this clause focuses only on adoption? Why did the Government not think more creatively, more substantially and bring forward something called, perhaps, an emerging from care Bill rather than just a clause, with all types of settlement included? The adoption reforms in the Bill relate only to the 5% of children in care who are placed for adoption. It is wrong for adoption to be singled out for preferential treatment in relation to other forms of permanence.

Of course, where adoption is in the child’s best interests, an adoption order must be made, and the placement commenced in a timely fashion. That said, for other children, adoption is not necessarily in their best interests. Foster care, kinship care or special guardianship may be more appropriate for a range of reasons, so care should be taken in advocating increasing the number of children to be adopted. What is clear is that the number of children being placed for adoption is falling, whereas the number of children going into care is rising. It stands to reason, therefore, that there is a hold-up in the system. Certainly—I think we all agree—the process needs to be made more efficient.

It is also not helpful, to put it mildly, when the Prime Minister uses language such as appeared in his press release of 2 November, when he said:

“It is a tragedy that there are still too many children waiting to be placed with a loving family—we have made real progress but it remains a problem”.

That comment is both inaccurate and misleading. Many children in excellent foster homes are not waiting to be placed with a loving family; they are with a loving family who are meeting their needs, caring for them, helping them recover from trauma and offering stability and continuity. The same is true for children placed with relatives. The Government’s suggestion that adoption is the primary focus and that other options are somehow lesser is at best unhelpful and at worst insulting to those who give so much for children in other forms of care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, Amendment 33A seeks to ensure that adoption agencies match children with the right parents for them, regardless of which agency recruited and approved those parents. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, also oppose the inclusion of this adoption clause within the Bill.

Clause 13 introduces powers to direct one or more local authorities in England to have certain adoption functions carried out on their behalf by another adoption agency in order to create regional adoption agencies. Regionalising adoption is necessary if we are to remove delay from the adoption system and ensure all adopted families have access to the support services they need wherever they may live.

We have already made significant improvements to the adoption system, with record numbers of children finding permanent loving homes, but there is still more to do. The system remains highly fragmented, with around 180 different adoption agencies currently recruiting and matching adopters. We do not think such a localised system can deliver the best service to some of our most vulnerable children. This is starkly illustrated by the almost 2,500 children who are still waiting for their forever families despite there being enough approved adopters across the country. Forty-five per cent of these children have been waiting longer than 18 months.

That is why we are proposing the measure in this Bill to increase the scale at which adoption services are delivered. Actively encouraging local authorities to join forces and work together will give regional agencies a greater pool of adopters, enabling them to match children more swiftly and successfully with their new families. It will also ensure vital support services are more widely available as these will be planned and commissioned at a more effective scale.

The noble Lords raised important issues about how decisions on matches between children and prospective adopters are made. The amendment seeks to remove the practice of sequential decision-making, where agencies seek first to place children with adopters they have recruited and approved before looking more widely. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and can reassure the Committee that one of the primary motivations in introducing regional adoption agencies is to prevent this sequential practice and to encourage agencies, both local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, to work much more closely together, always putting the interests of the children first.

The Government will also continue to invest in national infrastructure to enable matches to be made between children and adopters from different regions. We will also continue to use data to bear down hard on any delay so that regional adoption agencies are incentivised to find the right family for a child as quickly as possible, regardless of which agency recruited and approved the family in question. The proposals in the amendment would be difficult to make work in practice and could have unintended consequences.

Effective agencies will plan their pipeline of adopters so that they match well with the children coming through the system. This means links can be made early in the process to avoid any delay. This good practice would be difficult to maintain if the agency was discouraged from shaping its own recruitment to match the needs of the children it knows are coming through the system. If we break the link between the children waiting and the adults being recruited, the opportunity for strategic targeting of recruitment will be weakened.

Furthermore, if agencies have to consider all adopters available nationally in every single case, it is likely to increase delays as they try to filter and sort a large number of potential adopters. It could also impact negatively on adopters who are considered and rejected for a large number of potential matches.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I was not arguing that all national agencies should be considered in each case—it is more local to whatever the region happens to be—but the amendment would make sure that nobody was excluded. That may be the intention—I heard what the Minister said and, no doubt, reading that in Hansard tomorrow, a number of agencies will be encouraged—but what about the future? That cannot be guaranteed. The purpose behind putting it into the Bill is to make sure that all local options are considered—not nationally. It need not slow the process down if that is kept within the region in which the agencies operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I was particularly interested to hear what the Minister said about Martin Narey and his work around children’s homes, which is very welcome. I endorse what he said about the quality standards for children’s homes, which are a step forward. If there is one thing that I might ask him to bring up with his colleague, Edward Timpson MP, it would be with regard to residential childcare. It is a matter of great regret that mental health and social care in children’s homes have not been embedded together from the word go. I was talking to a psychiatrist about the history of residential care in this country. We have some excellent residential care, but I am afraid that in general the quality is pretty variable in my experience.

The continentals were interested in our approach. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, published his report on staff in children’s homes, Choosing with Care, which I think came out in 1993. In the witness evidence to that inquiry the psychiatrist said that on the continent staff in children’s homes have an ongoing relationship with mental health professionals. I discovered later that they learned that from us. If we only had that ongoing partnership in all our children’s homes, we would see better outcomes and better protection for children in those homes. I am asking for a model where a clinical psychologist, who is appropriately trained, a child psychotherapist or some other mental health professional goes into children’s homes regularly—maybe once a fortnight—and speaks with the manager and staff, providing an opportunity for them to talk about their relationships with young people and how they are managing them.

In my experience that has such an effective input. This kind of work is emotionally exhausting. People talk about the turnover of staff and how they just burn out after a few years. However, if there was that kind of support, staff would be far more likely to stay. There would be a continuity of relationship, which is so important, and experience would be built over time. Staff members would have years of experience of children with complex needs and they would know the right things to do. We should make sure that all children’s homes have that close support from CAMHS which would make all the difference in this area. I am glad to hear from the Minister of Martin Narey’s review.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the Minister for their replies to the debate. I very much share the comments of the noble Earl relating to the importance of role models, particularly for boys. Having a father figure or male in the household is important for many reasons.

I note that the noble Earl picked up the point I made about resources for local authorities. The Minister did not, but in fairness to him that is not his remit. It is important if we are looking at the broader context. The £30 million that has been made available will be welcome and well used. There will still be people in the hard-to-place groups that the Minister highlighted, as well as those who have been waiting for some time in the logjam. They will need specific assistance. At a time when local authority budgets are shrinking, it would be helpful if the Minister had something to say about the clause being robust enough to withstand the stresses and strains that will inevitably come in the years immediately ahead of us.

I note what the Minister said about the Narey review. I await that with interest as it will cover important issues. I hope that it will provide some positive ways forward. In terms of the overall structure, we can exchange a bit of political knockabout across this Committee Room but the professionals who are doing the job daily—I mentioned the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the voluntary adoption agencies—would not have been speaking to members of the opposition parties had they not been sufficiently concerned that the proposals as they stand, and how they are likely to play out, would create further difficulties in the future. As I said earlier, it is not me or my colleagues that the Minister has to reassure but those at the sharp end. It appears, so far at least, that they are not reassured.

I was disappointed that the Minister made a rather dismissive remark about my comment on the Prime Minister. I note that in his earlier remarks, the Minister himself talked about loving families. He must realise that the point I was making was that the Prime Minister’s statement seemed to suggest that other forms of care were of a lesser value, or were not providing enough loving homes, whereas adoption did. That was the point I was trying to make. Adoption seems to be a buzzword within the department and the Prime Minister has used it in this context. I think that is unhelpful and, again, the professionals in the field think it is unhelpful. There are many loving homes that are not the subject of adoption orders. That was the point I was trying to make. It just so happened that the Prime Minister had made the remark. I want to see children secure in whatever form of care is best for them. If it is adoption, fine; if it is any of the other forms of care, so be it. I want to see the resources available to make sure that permanence is the watchword for those children.

It has been a lively and, I think, helpful debate. A lot of the points have been highlighted and we will return to them in other forums. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33A withdrawn.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 15A and I agree with the sentiments espoused by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is surely sensible that a school should not be the subject of an academy order until or unless a sponsor has been identified as appropriate for that school as an academy. The alternative is for the school to be placed in a form of limbo, which as I see it cannot possibly be of any benefit to the children, parents or teachers or anyone else associated with the school. Can the Minister say, concerning the Bill, how many schools have already been designated as ready to be academised but have not yet been moved to that sector because for whatever reason it has been impossible to find an appropriate sponsor?

It is not clear what the DfE or perhaps the regional schools commissioner would do in such situations. Do they seek a local maintained school to take the failing school under its wing? Does the Minister anticipate that the suggestion made in the amendment relating to a local authority should apply in those situations? It would seem that there are good reasons why it should. I imagine that he will reject the amendment, however, so can he tell us what would happen if in these circumstances a sponsor cannot be found? I will have more to say on the question of sponsors in the sixth group, but for the moment I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I would like to respond to Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Sharp. This amendment concerns whether and how a regional schools commissioner would identify the most suitable sponsor for a maintained school that had failed.

Clause 7 makes it clear, as did our manifesto, that for any school judged inadequate by Ofsted an academy order must be made. The RSC will take responsibility for this, identifying the most suitable sponsor and brokering the new relationship between that sponsor and the school. RSCs are already responsible for approval of sponsors, subjecting prospective sponsors and their trusts to thorough scrutiny before they can be approved to take on sponsored academies. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that they consider all new sponsor applications in their region against robust and uniform criteria which are available, and they approve those which can demonstrate that they have the capacity and expertise to turn underperforming schools around. Through this rigorous assessment process, supported by the advice and challenge of their head teacher boards, RSCs ensure that prospective sponsors have a strong track record in educational improvement and financial management and that their proposed trust has high-quality leadership and appropriate governance.

RSCs are also responsible for monitoring and holding academy trusts and sponsors to account for their educational performance. They do this robustly through Ofsted inspection reports on the schools within a trust and published performance data. Trusts are also held to account for their financial management, governance and compliance by the Education Funding Agency. Information about MATs in these areas is transparent, with academy trust accounts audited and made publicly available. Where it is clear that a trust is not improving a school, the RSC will not hesitate to take action and re-broker it to a stronger trust.

As I have described, RSCs take a wealth of data and intelligence into account when identifying which sponsor should take responsibility for turning around a failed school. The tabled amendment requiring RSCs to take account of value-added performance and progress measures when identifying a sponsor for a failing maintained school is unnecessary. RSCs already look at a sponsoring school’s performance and, of course, in the future our new Progress 8 measure, by which secondary schools will be held to account, is a value-added methodology. In fact, the department has led the way in using added value to assess performance, publishing proposals on using such measures for chains and local authorities back in March.

The amendment also proposes that where there is not a sponsor of a high enough quality available, a failing school should be sponsored by a local authority maintained school or, indeed, directly by a local authority. This amendment is unnecessary because RSCs will ensure that a failing school is matched with an academy sponsor. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, RSCs have a wealth of good sponsors available already. There are 778 approved sponsors, all of have been subjected to the rigor described and the criteria I have outlined. RSCs are continually identifying and supporting additional outstanding schools in their area to become new sponsors. That is one of the benefits that RSCs have already brought to the programme.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for the figures she has just given us but is she saying that there have not been cases where a school has been designated to be an academy but has not been able to continue because there is no sponsor? She mentioned some 700 sponsors. Are these organisations just waiting in the wings for a letter saying, “Will you take over this school?” or is this a plan for if and when this Bill is implemented? It is not clear what the figure of 700 involves.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

There are 778 approved sponsors and about 20% are waiting to be matched with schools. The noble Lord asked which schools may need sponsoring. The precise number will vary from year to year and will depend on Ofsted inspections and test and examination results. We anticipate that as many as 1,000 failing maintained schools could potentially become sponsored academies under the new measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 17, 21 and 26 to 29 in this group. Amendments 21 and 26 to 29 are identical, straightforward and, I believe, not in need of explanation because they are consequential on Amendment 17. Clause 7(2) inserts a new subsection in the 2010 Act which states that:

“The Secretary of State must make an Academy order”.

The amendments seek to reinstate Section 4(1) in the 2010 Act which states that:

“The Secretary of State may make an Academy order”,

for a school that is “eligible for intervention”. These amendments address various parts of the Bill where reference is made to the “must convert” duty. They are the removal of the duty to consult in Clause 8, the “Duty to facilitate conversion” in Clause 10, the:

“Power to give directions to do with conversion”,

in Clause 11 and the:

“Power to revoke Academy orders”,

in Clause 12.

The point about these amendments is that, rather than there being a presumption that the solution for one school is a solution for all schools, they propose that each school should be considered on its merits. Ministers say that they want to help all schools improve. If they are sincere in that aim, we believe that options other than forced academy status should be available to the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

That is an interesting comment by the noble Earl. Flexibility is what I am looking for in this amendment because this part of the Bill contains none. It is interesting that the noble Earl referred to housing. A word which he did not use but was, I think, suggesting is nimbyism, where people say, “It is admirable that there should be such a structure or facility, but just not right next to my house”. I am always dubious in such situations. If the Minister has not looked at it already, he should look at the Housing and Planning Bill, which was launched in another place a few weeks ago, which seeks to close down a lot of people’s ability to object to those sorts of developments as well. That is something that I will say more about on another amendment. There is a pattern with this Government closing down discussion and dissent and getting their own way regardless of what people think. I think that that is undemocratic, and it is important that we should speak out against it wherever we encounter it, in legislation or in any other setting.

In this regard, the Minister and the Secretary of State are just plain wrong. No one is infallible. The Secretary of State needs to accept that and, for goodness’ sake, give herself some flexibility. I hope that the Minister will now realise that in 2015 you cannot just gag people who care passionately about the education of their children and tell them, as you might say to one of their children, to sit down and shut up as if they were of no importance at all. That is what is effectively being said to parents in the Bill. That cannot be right, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have made in this amendment.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17 onwards. I was sorry to miss such a lot of last Thursday’s consideration of the Bill. I had to leave, as those present on Thursday will know, in order to get home before the bonfire celebrations in Lewes. That I did, just, dodging flaming torches, effigies and the burning of David Cameron, Sepp Blatter and Jeremy Clarkson among others. However, I have caught up by reading Hansard. As an antidote to fireworks and bonfires, I dipped into some of the former education Bills, such as the Education and Inspections Act and the Academies Act, as well as other Acts going through Parliament at the moment, such as the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.

Two things strike me about that reading. One is that we must have the most complex, baroque and byzantine education system in the world, and it does not seem to be getting us very far. The other is that education cannot exist in a vacuum. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Hunt, are right to have pointed out on several occasions the connections between government policies—for example, the involvement of communities in sport and, as I have said, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which emphasises devolution. That leads me to believe that there cannot be only one form of governance that is suitable for a school, and that local communities and institutions must have a say. We all know that parental involvement in a child’s education is a very good predictor of success for that child or those children. So local structures are important.

Amendment 17 raises several interesting issues and questions for the Minister regarding special measures for improvement and consultation. I repeat that not just one system for anything will work. My noble friend has pointed out the investigations and action by the Catholic Education Service.

The Minister may well say that the amendment would make things too complex and too long. The Bill of course gives all power to the Secretary of State for Education, and we are suggesting here that that power should be devolved and broadened. We have heard a great deal in Committee and at Second Reading about how a single day at a failing school is too long for a child. I agree that poor education is a terrible thing, but it is worth looking more closely at what that poor education means. I myself do not think that one day at a failing school will do all that much damage. Poor education might of course be happening in just one subject at the school, or it may be inherent in the school system, which is what we are concerned about. A change of staff may be required, but the amendment suggests taking care to get good governance arrangements to avoid it. I agree that sometimes the speed of change is of the essence, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, that does not necessarily mean lack of consultation.

We have heard about the possibility of delays in sponsorships. Speaking of speed and change, I remember being a parent governor and the chair of the governors of a primary school in Wandsworth. We had—if I dare use the term—a coasting head teacher. We, the governors, persuaded him to leave. I will not go into the methods used. We then appointed a dynamic, ambitious head and within months the school became a dynamic, ambitious school. Parents and governors knew what had to be done and did it. I am not advocating that as a general theory for change, but there is more than one way of doing things and parents should be listened to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

The consultation will close on 18 December and we will announce the findings in the spring. Unlike in failing schools—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

In looking at the document, that is indeed what it says. The Minister, I am sure, would expect the Bill long before then. Would he not?

[Lord Nash]

We will, of course, take into account the responses to the consultation before finalising the regulations.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

If that is the case, if the Bill did not become law, what would apply with regard to “coasting” in the interim?

[Lord Nash]

The definition is in the regulations, not in the Bill. That is what we are talking about in the consultation.

Unlike failing schools, intervention on coasting schools will not be automatic, as I have said. Schools will be given time to demonstrate their capacity to improve sufficiently, either on their own or with assistance. There will already have been a dialogue, likely over quite a long period of time, about a school’s plans to bring about improvements and an opportunity to share views with parents and others. I think that I have finished. In view of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Before my noble friend Lord Watson speaks, perhaps I may ask a question. This is an important amendment and it made me realise that I did not know terribly much about what academies have to do in relation to children with special educational needs and disabilities. Can the Minister tell us—if not today then in writing after the Committee—what information schools have to provide, when they are to become academies, about the arrangements that they will make for children with special educational needs and disabilities? Secondly, what statistics does the department have on the numbers of children with SEND who are currently in academies, compared with those elsewhere in the education system?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I am not sure which Minister will respond to this debate—I see it will be the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will tell us that the amendment is not necessary, but I hope she will say that that is because the two requirements in it are already in place. She is nodding—and if that is the case, it is most welcome.

The issue of special educational needs is much underestimated and is not fully appreciated by many people. Like other noble Lords, I have been in contact with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which provided an interesting briefing with some rather worrying statistics. Two in particular stood out for me. First, one in five of all pupils has a special educational need of some sort; that represents about 1.6 million people in England. Secondly, 50% of children in areas of social deprivation have significant language delays, which of course have all sorts of other spin-off effects, not least the fact that children with vocabulary difficulties at five are significantly associated with poor literacy, mental health and employment outcomes in adult life. So it is important that schools deal with those issues as far as possible.

While the noble Baroness’s initial response is encouraging, we need to be clear whether there is any tendency—I am not aware that there is one and perhaps I could ask whether figures are available—by academies to exclude more children with special educational needs, like for like, than maintained schools. I would be concerned if that were the case. Certainly, the last part of the amendment, proposed new paragraph (b)(ii), which talks about,

“children with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan”,

is the most important because those children are most at risk. The school itself has to decide, in place of the plan that exists for other children, what it will do and how it will care for those children. I suppose it is self-evident that some schools do it better than others. This is not a division between maintained schools and academies. It is obviously more challenging to deal with children with special educational needs if there are only a few of them than if there is a significant group of them within the class and perhaps teachers can specifically be there full time to care for their needs.

With those points and the particular question about the comparison between academies and maintained schools, I await the Minister’s response with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and his Benches to make the case for their amendments but, at this juncture, I would like to record that we on these Benches are very much offended by those words of the Minister. We agree that it is good for these processes to move as quickly as possible, for the sake of the children, but we are also of the view that the right to consultation and discussion is one of the vital safeguards of democracy. It is appropriate that the procedures here are open and clear to those who are stakeholders within the school itself. For that reason, we very much support the general tenor of Amendment 22 and the ancillary amendments which go with it. With that, I beg to move Amendment 19.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 20 and 22 as well as to Clause 8 stand part. We are quite happy with Amendment 19, which has been moved by the Liberal Democrats, but to some extent it misses the bigger picture. Clause 8, as the noble Baroness has just said, is the Government’s attempt to enshrine in law the fact that our public education system is to become two tier—not so much the haves and have-nots as the haves and those who have much less. On the one hand, we have the maintained sector: under-resourced, tarnished by having its every fault highlighted, it seems, and on many occasions characterised as not fit for purpose. On the other, we have the academy sector: shiny, polished and well-resourced. It is the brave new world where failure does not exist or is at least not publicised.

I have to echo a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Hunt in response to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I would direct this equally at the noble Baroness, Lady Evans. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that the Bill is about academies—I get that. But, at the same time, when the Minister gives out all the good news about academies, by not mentioning the maintained sector it seems that there is virtually nothing of value or merit in it. Today was one of the rare occasions when he talked about what is good in the maintained sector. I say to the Ministers in an open spirit that it would do them and their case some good if they were to highlight the fact that parts of the maintained sector are doing very well. I have no objection to them highlighting when academies are doing well, too, but there should be a little balance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, that is what is missing: there is no balance. There is really no attempt to give credit where credit is very often due.

Section 5 of the Academies Act 2010 is quite clear. It allows for consultation to take place before a maintained school is converted into an academy, and that is the way it should be. I would argue that that is basic democracy: putting a proposal in front of people, asking “What do you think about this?”, and then listening to their considered response. I say to the Ministers: yes, that takes time, and it may not elicit the hoped-for response, but that is life, or at least it is life in a democracy. Ultimately, while the parents do not have an inalienable right to carry the day, they have an inalienable right to have their say. That is the kind of open and accessible process that we have known in this country for longer than anyone can remember. We probably take it for granted, as surely we are entitled to do. However, the Government now want to shut that down, stifling opinion and, it has to be said, not for the first time.

That wording was added to the 2010 Bill following a wall of protest, including many Conservatives, after the original draft of that Bill excluded consultation. Five years on, we have gone back to the future, but it is not a future that any of us should anticipate with anything other than trepidation because it represents this Government saying, “We’re not going to ask your opinion because even if you agree with us it will take time, and that’s a price we’re not prepared to pay”. That is not to rubbish the suggestion that one day of a child’s education lost can never be regained; of course that is the case. However, it is not appropriate to say that because of that, there can never be consultation.

I have referred on numerous occasions, both last week and today, to the Government’s authoritarian approach. The Minister has made it clear that he disagrees but the evidence is clear, and I am not talking simply about the Bill. The Bill seeks to disfranchise and keep in the dark local authorities, governing bodies and parents. Millions of parents are apparently unaware that they are about to lose any say as to the kind of school in which their children receive their education. How, in 2015, did we arrive at a place where neither democracy nor transparency has any place in a Bill in your Lordships’ House?

There are other examples of what I would call attacks on our human rights. The Trade Union Bill currently winding its way through another place is even more shocking, making strike action virtually impossible. Then there is the Housing and Planning Bill, published last month, to which I made reference earlier in response to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. That is one of the most centralising and anti-local-authority pieces of legislation that we have seen, effectively ending a local authority’s ability to secure a mix of new homes in its local area. It has been dubbed “the end of localism”, and one can understand why; it gives the Secretary of State 32 new powers, almost all of them wide open, with detail to be decided by Ministers with little public scrutiny after the Bill is through Parliament. That touches on the point that we made earlier about the definition of “coasting”. The Minister said in his response that it would be dealt with through regulation. The Delegated Powers Committee said in its report that it was unhappy with that, but it appears that the Government are going to carry on regardless.

The Housing and Planning Bill also includes the enforced sale of affordable homes, often against the charitable functions of charities, which has echoes in the Bill that we are discussing, regarding the sale of church land and property following an academy order. Another example of the Government’s heavy-handed approach came just three days ago when information emerged of their plans to restrict human rights further by telling our judges that they are not obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister may sigh, and I am sorry to detain him if he feels there is somewhere more important that he should be, but this is part of a pattern and I am entitled to make that argument because this Bill is not seen in isolation. The draconian measures in the Bill chime with a lot of other pieces of legislation that are going through, and if the Minister is not willing to listen to that then I would ask that he at least not listen to it in silence. It is not difficult to detect a distinct pattern here of intolerance of those who disagree with or threaten the more extreme plans of this Government, whose answer is to lash out and use all their power to silence and cow their critics. Added together, the measures undoubtedly amount to a display of authoritarianism that I believe we have a moral obligation to stand against.

The key part of the clause is the addition of subsection (2) to the existing Section 5 of the Academies Act 2010. That has the effect of saying that academies are to be taken out of consultation and placed on a higher plain where only the Government, their business friends or other supporters are permitted to tread. Everything associated with academies is to become almost a gated community, with entry denied to lesser mortals. For “lesser mortals” read “parents”, who—the Government seem to have some difficulty in coming to terms with this—have more than a passing interest in the status of their child’s school. In the eyes of this Government, though, parents are regarded as worthless, or at least their opinions are. It is a shocking indictment that this sort of proposal can come forward in a Bill and the Government expect it to be greeted with equanimity.

Amendments 19, 21 and 22 are aimed at writing academies into the whole process of intervention by including them in the process that exists under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. By amending Section 59 of that Act, Amendment 22 would specify that all the provisions on schools being eligible for intervention, and the kind of intervention that would be possible, would apply equally to academies. It would also mean that local authorities would have the same power in relation to academies as they have in relation to their own schools. It is about treating academies in the same way as maintained schools in an intervention aimed at raising standards. I say: why not? Surely the aim of improving schools is one that we and all schools share, irrespective of the categorisation.

I have referred in the past to the Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister himself, describing the reasons for not allowing consultation. I have a quotation here from a recent press release from the Secretary of State, in which she said that,

“campaigners could delay or overrule failing schools being improved by education experts by obstructing the process by which academy sponsors take over running schools”.

That, in itself, is no reason for denying everybody the opportunity to speak out. She is saying that some people may delay the process, so nobody will have the opportunity to say anything. Surely that amounts to a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Clause 8 represents what I believe to be an extraordinary departure from the normal processes of governmental decision-making. Under the clause, the Minister is empowered to make a decision without reference to—far less without making any attempt whatever to listen to—parents, pupils, teachers, governors, local authorities or anyone who might be thought to have some local knowledge of the situation on the ground relating to a school. It was suggested earlier that the regional schools commissioners would have that knowledge. Where would they get that sort of local information from? Surely they would have to go to the sort of people whom I have just mentioned, so why not involve them in the process right from the start?

There are certainly several reasons why Clause 8 should not form part of the Bill, but a powerful one is that it runs completely counter to the Government’s stated belief in devolution, or what they themselves have termed their “localism agenda”. In Committee last week, I quoted from a letter to the Minister from the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. I return to it now. Referring to the Bill augmenting the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene in matters which have previously been the responsibility of local authorities, the committee said:

“These provisions appear to be at odds with the Government’s localism agenda, which emphasises the importance of local communities running their own affairs”.

And it gets better—although perhaps that is a view exclusive to this side of the Room—because the committee even quotes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as recently as 14 May this year, saying that,

“we all know that the old model of trying to run everything in our country from the centre of London is broken”.

There is an element of left hand/right hand in that. We have already heard that the Constitution Committee was pretty unequivocal in its comments to the Minister. The members of the committee said that they would be interested in understanding the reason for this decision to shift power away from local communities. They were not alone.

We have today received from the Minister a copy of the letter that he sent to the committee in reply. It is slightly disappointing that we were given the letter only a couple of hours before the start of this Committee, given that it was dated 5 November—five days ago. The Minister’s only response to questions raised by the Constitution Committee about the localism agenda is that the Secretary of State has devolved power to regional schools commissioners to act on her behalf. I am sorry but that is not what devolution means; it means handing power to people locally—people who are elected by their peers, wherever possible—to engage in the process and act on their behalf. Simply giving regional schools commissioners a remit and saying, “Go out and do this or that on my behalf”, certainly is not devolution and it has next to nothing to do with localism. I believe that the Minister needs to revisit these issues to get a firmer grasp of what they really involve, because they are important to people at a local level. People want to be involved in decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I fully accept that on both sides of the House we want to put the interests of children first. Maybe we have a different approach to doing that. I have already described to the House that once a sponsor has been identified for a failing school, sponsors will be keen to engage with parents about their plans for the school, ensuring that parents understand what will happen next and have the opportunity to share their views on the sponsor’s approach. Widnes Academy is just such an example. The performance of the predecessor maintained school, West Bank Primary School, had declined and in May 2013 it was put into special measures by Ofsted. The Innovation Enterprise Academy, a high-performing local secondary academy, was named as the sponsor for the school, and its first action was to engage with parents, pupils and staff to seek their views about how the new academy should operate.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

But all this is after the event. He says that sponsors will be keen to engage with parents; yes, I would think they should be, but it is then too late for parents who disagreed with the decision in the first place. Why not do it the other way round?

[Lord Nash]

As it said in our manifesto, a school will become an academy in these circumstances.

I go back to the excellent work that the Innovation Enterprise Academy did in the case of West Bank Primary School. It had drop-in sessions at the school for parents and appointed a parent champion to the interim executive board. Parents and pupils were invited to name the new academy and design the new uniform and logo. As a result, parents were much more supportive of the school becoming an academy.

Noble Lords who attended last week’s meeting heard from Martyn Oliver, chief executive of one of our most successfully performing academy trusts, Outwood Grange. He said:

“A prospective trust does not just ride roughshod over a school and its community. Outwood Grange has a clear vision and we are passionate about engaging staff and parents on that vision. The advantage of our model is that alongside the clear vision of the trust, local governing bodies are left with more space to focus on things like engaging with the local community. Ultimately parents are happy, especially when they start to see the dramatic improvements in results for their children”.

Examples such as this show that parents will still have opportunities to have a say in the future of their children’s school if it has failed, even if there is no longer a question of whether or not a failing school should convert.

Looking at coasting schools, we debated at length last week the importance of parents being aware when their child’s school is identified as coasting so that they can then understand and challenge how the governing body and leadership team intend to improve sufficiently. As I said earlier, unlike in failing schools, intervention in coasting schools will not be automatic, and schools will be given time to demonstrate their capacity to improve sufficiently. There will therefore already have been a dialogue, likely to have taken place over a long period of time, about a school’s plans to bring about improvement and an opportunity to share views with RSCs, the community and parents before any decision for the school to become a sponsored academy is made.

As discussed, we already expect that governing bodies in schools identified as coasting would share relevant information with parents, but we have committed to consider whether there is anything further that can be included in the statutory Schools Causing Concern guidance to ensure that such engagement with parents consistently takes place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about the circumstances in which governing bodies were obliged to notify parents. The legislation in this area is quite complex, depending on the status of the individual school. I am happy to write to her to explain that in some detail.

We feel confident that what parents want most is for their child to attend a school that is performing well. The Bill is all about ensuring that we have robust powers to challenge underperformance wherever it occurs, enabling us to tackle not just failing schools but now also coasting schools.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, again referred to my tendency to talk about only academies and not schools in the maintained sector. There is an excellent example of cross-academy and local authority maintained work in the Birmingham Education Partnership, which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, chairs. Of course we recognise that there are many excellent schools in the maintained sector, but this Bill is about failing schools. We are not here to talk about excellent maintained schools.

As for the local knowledge that regional schools commissioners have, it is excellent. I look forward to introducing the noble Lord, Lord Watson, as part of his essential due diligence on this Bill, to some of the regional schools commissioners. He can discuss with them how close they are to the coal face. I hope that he will engage with them and be very impressed. As he said, a list of RSC decisions is already published on the GOV.UK website and we are making the decision-making of RHCs and HTBs more transparent. From December, a fuller note of head teacher board meetings will be published to cover all meetings from October this year, and will contain information on the particular criteria that were considered for each decision.

I turn to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which relates to where a governing body is proposing that a school should convert to an academy voluntarily where it is a school that is performing well and is not eligible for intervention. The amendment proposes that rather than consulting whoever it deems appropriate, the governing body should specifically be required to consult certain persons, including parents and guardians, teaching and support staff at the school, the local authority and also itself.

The purpose of Clause 8 is to ensure that we have robust powers to take action in schools that are failing, coasting or otherwise underperforming. I want to ensure we remain focused on that very important issue. The Bill does not have any impact on schools that are performing well, but I will gladly address the amendment. As I have set out, that is why Clause 8 removes the requirement for the governing body to consult on whether a school should become an academy. It is crucial to remember that we are talking about removing consultation only in the most serious cases.

The amendment proposes that, rather than the governing body having the flexibility to consult such persons as they think appropriate in cases where they convert voluntarily, it should be specified that the governing body must consult certain people. This very matter was discussed in detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, when the Academies Act 2010 was a Bill under consideration by this House, where we first introduced the prospect of schools that were performing well voluntarily converting to academy status.

Where schools are performing well, we must trust professionals to do their jobs without the unnecessary interference of central government—a fundamental principle underpinning the academies programme—and therefore it is right, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, that we leave it to those professionals to decide exactly who should be consulted on the matter of whether a good school should convert to an academy. In our view, it would not be right for us to dictate an inflexible checklist in legislation, which would not in itself ensure that consultation was any more thorough or meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it might essentially consign some people to being second-class consultees. Having said that, we have very clear guidance to prospective converters, available on GOV.UK, setting out expectations that the consultation will include staff members and parents and should also include pupils and the wider community, but anyone with an interest can share their views.

I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The process for good schools converting to academy status is working well. In practice as opposed to theory, we have had no significant challenge or any real pressure to change the current requirements. Interest in conversion remains high: since 1 September 2014 we have received over 500 applications to become a converter academy. Converter academies continue to perform well: 2015 results show that the key stage 2 results of primary converter academies open for two or more years have improved by four percentage points since opening. Secondary converter academies continue to perform well above average, with 63.3% of pupils achieving five good GCSEs in 2015, 7.2 percentage points above the state-funded average.

While we have made the case for the need for a swifter academisation process in the case of underperforming schools, the Bill does not intend to change anything about the very successful process of converting strong schools. I hope, however, that this debate has clarified just why Clause 8 is so integral to the Bill. We still believe that sponsors and governing bodies should engage with parents about plans affecting their child’s school, and of course they do, but to mandate through legislation such consultation and what form it should take would be disproportionate and would only lead to delays in schools whose performance requires quick redress. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments and to let Clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “coasting schools” and insert “schools in which pupils do not fulfil their potential”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to address the first group of amendments on the Marshalled List. In moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 7 and 9 and make reference to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Amendments 1 and 2 would replace the term “coasting schools” with “schools in which pupils do not fulfil their potential”. We believe that that is essential, because coasting can be, and often is, seen as a pejorative term. There can be many reasons why pupils are not fulfilling their potential and it is wrong to start from a presumption that this is the result of a lack of effort on the part of the school. Currently the Bill provides for the definition of coasting to be set out in regulations. The draft is based entirely on performance data, a combination of pupil attendance data and pupil progress data. It allows for no other factors to be considered, but I am hopeful that that might change after the consultation.

At Second Reading the Minister mentioned—rather casually, it has to be said—that the Government will be launching a public consultation. Of course, that is to be welcomed; but he neglected to mention that the consultation was going to be launched the very next day. I heard about it only a few days later, by chance. It would have been helpful if the Minister had used the opportunity to fully inform all noble Lords, so that we could have been up to speed when the consultation was launched.

From Labour’s point of view, we will be contributing to that consultation, and I am sure that many noble Lords here today will also wish to do so. However, we await the outcome of the consultation, which it is said will be in the spring of next year. It should be drawn to the Committee’s attention that comment on the concept of coasting has already been made by both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. Both have been clear in their criticism of these aspects of the Bill.

Having considered the fact that the definition of coasting is left to regulations, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says:

“We consider such a wide and open-ended delegation to be inappropriate given the fundamental importance of the definition to the operation of the new section, and the significant powers which become exercisable in relation to a school once it becomes eligible for intervention”.

The committee goes on to say that it finds the department’s explanation of why the definition is left to regulations unconvincing, and makes a distinction between the criteria and other factors that should apply in determining whether a school is coasting and the detailed data that are used to decide whether the criteria have been met.

The committee argues that if the data are more appropriate for regulations, this does not mean the criteria and other factors should not be included on the face of the Bill. It concluded with a stark warning that,

“there is nothing to prevent regulations being made in the future which completely change the basis for defining what constitutes a coasting school”.

That worry is felt rather more widely than the committee, which is non-partisan. If the Minister was less than happy with that, I imagine that he would have been no more so when he received a letter from the Constitution Committee dated 26 October. That letter pointed out that the committee had previously expressed its concern at the introduction of what it termed “vaguely worded legislation” that leaves much to the discretion of Ministers. The Committee said:

“We wish to put on the record once again our view that Bills should contain an appropriate level of detail and provide a suitable degree of legal certainty”.

I apologise to noble Lords for the extent of those quotes, but I believe that they are important, because the question of how schools are defined is fundamental to the Bill and the manner in which the Government are proposing to act has become the focus for stringent reprimand by two of the most powerful committees in your Lordships’ House.

We welcome statements in the illustrative regulations to the effect that where a coasting school can demonstrate that it can improve sufficiently it should be allowed to do so. This suggests that there may not be a default presumption of academisation—a word I seem to have difficulty in articulating. This point was reinforced by the consultation document. None the less, the judgment is at the discretion of the regional schools commissioner, who will decide on the sponsor where he or she determines that the school should become an academy and can make the decisions with no reference to governors, parents or other stakeholders.

The first two amendments in this group would ensure that the manner in which schools in which pupils do not fulfil their potential are identified and subsequently treated should be no different irrespective of whether they are in the maintained sector or the academy sector. That is why we argue that the provisions of the Act should take precedence over private contracts with academy sponsors. All schools should be treated equally; there should be no place for deals between Ministers and sponsors that are not open to scrutiny. No doubt the Minister will say that issues of confidentiality are involved, but that does not wash, because this is public money that we are talking about—and hefty chunks of it. The public have a right to know how their money is spent, and how both transparency and accountability are to be demanded of those in receipt of those funds.

Amendment 9 states:

“An Academy may be defined as coasting if it falls within the definition made by the Secretary of State by regulations”.

This is one amendment that the Minister must surely find acceptable because it has emerged that an academy can indeed be defined as coasting. This is something else that my team and I have learned by chance, because no announcement that we were aware of was made. It so happens that one of my colleagues came across the latest revision of the model funding agreement, published on 10 September. That document provides for an academy to be designated as a coasting school using the definition which will appear in the legislation when enacted. The wording in the agreement states:

“‘Coasting’ has the meaning given in regulations made under section 60B of the Education and Inspections Act 2006”.

That may not sound important, but it is—although I have to say that, following the Government’s stonewalling on more than 80 amendments in the other place, I believe that we can now claim that this is a government concession. It may not be the way that the Minister sees it, but it is a factor that there has been movement there.

However, if that is the upside, there is a downside to this as well, in that it begs the question as to whether this method is an appropriate use of parliamentary process. Section 60B of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 will not exist in law until and unless the Education and Adoption Act receives Royal Assent. Is it to become the normal practice for DfE officials to publish model legal documents which assume that Parliament will enact legislation before it actually does so? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the reference to Section 60B will now have a health warning attached to it just in case Parliament should decide not to pass the legislation, or if the provision becomes, for the sake of argument, Section 60C or Section 60D or whatever when the Bill eventually receives Royal Assent? As an aside, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell noble Lords when he expects all academies to have this provision inserted into their funding agreements.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government’s decision to leave academies outwith the Bill was at least in part designed to avoid some embarrassment to Ministers if those schools do not perform as it had been hoped that they would. If that is the case, it is hardly a sound basis on which to make law. The amendments also place the assessment of whether a school is in this category in the hands of Ofsted. This is to avoid the confusion of having both Ofsted and regional schools commissioners making judgments about a school. It would be entirely possible as the Bill and the regulations are drafted for Ofsted to find a school good or outstanding and the regional schools commissioner to find it coasting and therefore eligible for intervention. That is a recipe for confusion and not a situation that is in anyone’s interest.

Amendment 2 sets out a broader range of criteria to be considered by Ofsted rather than simply relying on performance data. It recognises that there are factors that will affect outcomes that do not relate to how hard the school is working. For example, it is known that pupils from deprived backgrounds on average make slower progress than others. Pupils with special needs often make slower progress than others. Being located in an area where teacher supply is difficult will affect how well pupils do. Data from small schools are much less reliable than those from larger schools. Surely all these factors need to be taken into account when making a judgment about a school. For that reason, Amendment 2 would require Ofsted to consult local authorities and academy sponsors before reaching a decision. It surely makes sense to get the views of those who know a school best and have the ability to explain whether particular circumstances have affected it.

Being designated as a coasting school—or, more accurately, a school in which pupils do not fulfil their potential—should not lead to an academy order. There is one good reason for that. As will arise in discussing various amendments, there is no evidence that academisation leads to greater improvement than remaining in maintained status. The most important factor is to begin the process of bringing about improvement in a school, not concentrating on legal structures.

The Bill rests on the assumption that school improvement can be achieved only by turning a school into a sponsored academy, but there is no evidence that academisation alone improves educational standards. Last year, the National Foundation for Educational Research published research that concluded that the amount of attainment progress made by pupils in sponsored and converted academies is not greater than in maintained schools with similar characteristics.

It is wrong to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach when the evidence that academies are automatically high performing does not stand up to scrutiny and when other options are available. Schools in which pupils are not fulfilling their potential deserve the opportunity to improve without being told that they have no choice in the matter. The same applies to staff, parents and governors. That last issue is for another day; I hope that the Minister will take on board the arguments advanced in support of this group of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to the amendments, I must apologise to the Committee because I have to leave early this afternoon—for a rather strange reason. I live in a small town in East Sussex called Lewes, where there are bonfire celebrations. There are six bonfire societies, six guys, six processions and general mayhem and chaos in the town. The town will therefore be closed down any minute now and I have to get back. I do apologise.

Now to be serious. All of us in this room and in the House generally are concerned about the welfare and education of our children. We are all concerned about having good schools, of whatever type. We are all concerned about pupils reaching their full potential. I want to talk mainly about the issue of coasting, which I would define as not reaching potential, but coasting is the word in the Bill. Much of the Bill is about coasting: who is responsible for the schools, who consults whom, what collaboration takes place, and so on.

First, I thank the Minister for his letter of 21 October, and for calling a meeting the other day which, unfortunately, I could not go to. In the letter, the Minister talks about the Bill making important changes to deliver social justice—I shall come back to that—and to ensure that every child deserves an excellent education. He goes on to say that the Bill provides measures to tackle coasting schools and that illustrative coasting regulations, including a proposed definition of coasting, were published on 30 June. But, to my disappointment, the letter goes no further with defining what we might mean by coasting.

The definition given is fixed on achievement at GCSE. This is a very dangerous definition for schools, teachers and young people, and for school ethos and performance. I will say why, and why I hope that the definition is broadened substantially and put in the Bill, not just in regulations.

We have heard about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s criticism of the substance of the Bill being in regulations. This is what happened in the Childcare Bill and it was criticised then. The Government produced regulations that were far longer than the Bill, which is not good enough.

I am surprised that the Minister seems content with a purely academic definition of coasting, because he and I have had several interesting and very valuable conversations about the importance of personal and social skills in education and the importance of school policies which support those skills. Those skills include communication, teamwork, citizenship, knowledge of health matters and school policies about issues such as bullying and behaviour. I believe that the Minister supports all this and I hope he will exercise his influence to redefine with the Department for Education what we mean by a good school where pupils reach their potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an excellent and very informed debate. At Second Reading, two weeks ago, I commented on the fact that sitting behind me were two Secretaries of State for Education and a former Minister for Schools. Today we have had another former Minister for Schools and a head of Ofsted, so we have had impressive depth in our debate, which has shown in the contributions of those noble Lords and of others who have participated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made the point that there needs to be a more rounded definition of what should contribute to how a school may be categorised as coasting. I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who had to leave for very sound reasons. It is not the first time that he has been involved in a debate looking at sport and education. The last Bill in which I was involved was the Charities Bill. He got involved in that, to some effect, to ensure that independent schools are obliged as charities to make available their sporting and arts facilities, as well as their teaching resources, to maintained schools. He was very effective in that, and I am sure that what he says on any aspect of sport, particularly with regard to education, is listened to with great interest. As he was until quite recently the head of the British Olympic Association, I wonder whether he has enough time on his hands now to cast his eyes rather more widely and, perhaps, look at the job that has become available at the head of the international football organisation, FIFA. I would certainly like to see him enter those portals—it would shake up quite a few people and I am sure he would quickly sort it out. But that is something for the future, and I hope that he will participate in another sitting of the Committee.

The more rounded definition is important. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked quite tellingly about outcomes. We hear a lot about inputs and outputs, but it is outcomes that really matter, particularly in schools but also in sporting terms. I liked the noble Lord’s mention of the fact that, ultimately, it is not trophies that count but participation levels. That is a point that I subscribe to very strongly. It seems odd that the Minister said, if I quote him correctly, that he was not in favour of broadening the concept of coasting because it would remove certainty and transparency about what constitutes coasting. I do not see why that should be the case. Surely, it is about setting down criteria clearly, and making it known and making it clear that not every school can be measured against the same criteria at the same time. There are some schools that excel in different subjects—that is natural—and I do not see how broadening it necessarily has to weaken any kind of definition.

My noble friend Lady Morgan talked about schools that were floating along despite good SATs and exam results. I am sure that there are quite a few of those, and floating might be a better term than coasting, although there is not that much difference. But the quick progress that schools make is the key here. I do not want anybody to get the impression that Labour is in any way opposed to the concept of coasting: it is not the concept but the term that we have objected to. That may seem perverse in some circles given that I think the Labour Government were the first to use the term, in 2009, although it had a slightly different meaning. It is about the concept rather than the terminology.

A number of noble Lords mentioned resources. The question of whether additional pressure is put on head teachers, as my noble friend Lady Morgan said, is an important one. The vast majority of head teachers work very hard for very long hours, and the inspiration that they provide for their teachers and indeed their pupils is almost always a deciding factor in how successful a school is. However, I have to say that I disagree with my noble friend when she says she does not want to put extra pressure on head teachers, because if a school is in a position where it is not progressing, I would have thought that a head teacher who knows that that is the case would not be satisfied. Otherwise, that should set lights flashing not only at Ofsted but among parents and indeed school governors. So to some extent we have to balance the pressure that we expect head teachers to be under against the point at which that crosses a line and the first thought in the head teacher’s mind is, “I just can’t go on like this; it’s just too much”, whether as a result of pressure from the bureaucracy, as we hear has been an issue, or whatever. If the pressure becomes too much, you can understand that head teachers have a limit. We have to bear that in mind when it comes to using the word coasting because, as I said, it has a pejorative sound to it that does not necessarily suggest to teachers or head teachers that what they have done has been adequately recognised.

I also noted the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that coasting is a relative measure. Of course it is, but whether we should cast the net wider in trying to find a proper definition for coasting and a proper way to measure it effectively, while bringing schools into a position where they can improve, is difficult to say at this stage. Perhaps the consultation that is under way will provide some clarity on this. I certainly hope so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about a cadre of heads, which is interesting. The pressure that I just referred to on some head teachers and indeed on classroom teachers, because of the amount of bureaucracy that they are obliged to deal with these days, is not necessarily something that will encourage people either to go into teaching or to stay there for too long. That is something that we have to look at. Of course it comes back to resources, but it is also an issue that we have to address in terms of the overall performance of the school.

In response to the Minister, I have to start off with two apologies. The first is that if indeed he did write to all Peers on 21 October with the consultation document, I apologise; for some reason it did not reach me. I would not have made that comment if it had. The second is that last Monday I was in transit from Scotland and could not come to the meeting with the regional schools commissioners. I would have liked to have been there because I would have liked to have had a much greater understanding of just what it is that they do, so perhaps we can look at that at some time in the future.

[Lord Nash]

I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for that. I referred earlier to the fact that he talked about the need for certainty and transparency, which is why he is minded to reject these amendments. At a stage like this, when we are dealing with a dearth of teachers coming into the profession or indeed staying in it, there has to be some feeling that teachers themselves are valued more than they appear to be at the moment. This kind of legislation, in which, as I said at Second Reading, there is no mention of teachers, is not designed to show that they are valued in that way. That is unfortunate.

The Minister talked about the Constitution Committee and his reply to its suggestion that the term coasting was vaguely defined. Will the Minister furnish the Committee with his response to the Constitution Committee? That would be very valuable when it comes to increasing our understanding of how he sees the comments of that important committee.

The main issue here is that schools that for whatever reason are not doing as well as they might should improve. I cannot imagine that anyone does not want to see that happen. I certainly want to see it happen, but it is a question of how we do it. I am a firm believer in carrying people with you, which is why I am opposed to the nature of this and other aspects of the Bill where the Government are determined to have their way without consultation or taking people with them. Saying, “We know best—this is what must happen”, is not a means by which you improve anything. You have to win people to your arguments and make them part of the solution. These particular aspects of the Bill are not designed to do that. We will be looking at other aspects of the Bill later today and indeed on Tuesday, which I look forward to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(3) The governing body must inform the parents of registered pupils that the school has been notified that it is coasting.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendment 4 touches on an issue that I dare say will be explored in greater depth when we come to consider amendments to Clause 8. For the moment, this is an appropriate place to highlight the fact that the Bill removes parental rights in almost every clause. Schools are deeply rooted in their communities. Parents and other stakeholders need to be—and, I would argue, have a fundamental right to be—fully engaged in decisions that affect their children’s education. Fast-tracking the process of academisation and removing any discussion with head teachers, teachers, support staff or parents about any of the classification as coasting or the decision to become an academy are short-sighted moves that are likely to breed mistrust and resentment. I cannot understand why the Minister thinks it appropriate to disfranchise parents in this way.

I was going to put a question directly to the Minister. I do not normally regard it appropriate to indulge in questions of a personal nature, and it is not my habit to do so, but the Minister personalised the debate on Second Reading to some extent when he referred more than once to his involvement with Pimlico School. I have no problem with that; it is perfectly legitimate in illustrating his point, so I trust that he will allow me to do the same on this occasion. My son attends a maintained school in London. Why does the Minister think that I, as a parent, should have absolutely no right to even as much as comment, far less express an opinion, should a proposal be made to classify my son’s school—I trust there is no sign of that happening—as “coasting”, or worse, to take steps to remove the school from maintained status to become an academy? I am more than willing to sit down and enable the Minister to answer that specific question as to why he feels that it is appropriate to disenfranchise me, my wife, and, indeed, millions of parents throughout the country on the rather important question of the type of school that my son should attend.

[Lord Nash]

We had some banter on the floor of the House on the question of democracy. The democracy in this is that it was clearly in our manifesto and in the Queen’s Speech, when a school reaches a certain point it is not in the interests of the pupils in that school. I said in my opening remarks that we must put children first. The democracy is that we have been elected to enact this legislation—but, of course, as we have discussed, coasting will take place over a long period of time. It is not a sudden event. Schools commissioners will give coasting schools time to uncoast, if that is a word. There will be plenty of time for parents to be fully aware and informed of what is going on. I do not think that it is quite the dramatic event that it might sometimes be portrayed as.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I have to say that a number of people I have spoken to were concerned by the Minister’s comment on Second Reading that,

“democracy can be suspended where it is in the interests of the children”.—[Official Report, 20/10/15; col. 634.]

In what other situations can it perhaps be suspended? The fact that it was a general commitment in a manifesto does not mean that parents should be disenfranchised in this way. It is indicative of a frankly rather authoritarian approach that the Government have begun to exhibit in not just this Bill but others currently going through Parliament. That is a worrying trend.

Amendments such as this should not be necessary in an education Bill in an advanced democracy, yet we find that they are. I warrant that the Minister will say again why he is unable to accept it. It is not a good enough reason to give that some people, in exercising their democratic rights, may slow down the process. We are dealing with a very important issue. Yes, of course, the education of children is important, and any day lost cannot be regained, to echo the Minister’s remarks on the previous group of amendments. Yes, that is true, but at the same time wider issues have to be considered on the behalf of children themselves. They cannot speak for themselves. Parents, governors and local authorities have views that should be fully taken into account. As the Bill stands, that will not happen. I believe that the Minister’s argument lacks any form of intellectual rigour because it undermines the hard-won and long-held democratic traditions of this country.

I have very real concerns about the curtailment of rights and responsibilities of governors in respect of the schools for which they have legal responsibility. Consultation with local stakeholders before a school is classified as coasting or becomes an academy is an essential part of community engagement—a concept that I believe the Government should embrace, not repel. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, the amendment asks that the governing body informs the parents that the school has been notified that it is coasting. It is not asking for consultation, although, in effect, it probably presages or precedes a period when there will be consultation. That came out of our lengthy discussion on precisely what coasting means.

The Minister made it clear that there are different options when a school is told that it is under surveillance, in effect, as a possible coasting school. The regulations make it clear that there are various options at this point. One is that the school might be asked to academise, but it might also be asked to link up with a local school to get help from a successful head. The regional schools commissioner has a lot of discretion about what to do and he may send one of the platoon of head teachers on his advisory board to advise the school about what to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that I was going to go on to say that, in view of the concerns that have been expressed, we will consider how we can ensure, through the Schools Causing Concern guidance, that parents are sufficiently aware that their child’s school has been identified as coasting. We absolutely agree that that is important. Of course parents need to know. Our feeling is that governing bodies will provide such information but, in the light of the concerns raised, we are happy to consider being a bit more explicit. I hope on that basis that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I am delighted to hear what the noble Baroness has said. She couched it in terms of “considering” but I await the schools guidance with interest. She said that governing bodies regularly notify parents of a number of issues. That is so but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, some do not, and our proposal would make the notification mandatory. If it is going to be mandatory in terms of guidance, why not put it in the Bill? I do not see any reason not to tie it down in that way.

There is the further question of what happens after the parents have been told. I was rather surprised by some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I accept that the needs of children have to come first but most parents are very concerned about how their children are doing at school and they want education to be as beneficial to their children as possible. I do not see that the needs of the parents and the needs of the children necessarily diverge. If we could make the assumption that they were absolutely the same, that would be very positive. I accept that we cannot; none the less, we have to trust parents to some extent as well, and surely they have the right to make representations about something with which they are unhappy.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

I absolutely agree, and I said in my speech that I expected parents to be given the information and thought that they would be. We have been assured that they will be. I simply made the point that we must always put the children’s needs before other needs and that we have seen, down the generations, children who have not received the education they might have received, not only because of the system but because their parents have been comfortable where they are. I am sure they are very good parents and that they want the best for their children—most parents do. They do not necessarily know what that best is, though, and that is what I think this Bill is seeking to press forward.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I take on board that point and, yes, there will be various levels of knowledge of education, or indeed of the benefit of education. I do not doubt that. But it does not seem right that because there may be a small group of people who have an agenda whereby they want to prolong the process, or be seen to be doing so, you shut everyone else out. Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in my view, is not the way to move forward. As I said when speaking to the previous amendment, you need to carry people with you. I put it to the Government that this is not the way to carry people with you. However, I have noted what the Minister said. I hope that on Report she will come back with the outcome of her considerations, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(3) Prior to defining a school as coasting, the Secretary of State must undertake an investigation and report on the current level of teacher recruitment and retention in that particular school.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I move Amendment 6, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. If this amendment were to be accepted, it would make a radical change to the Bill, because it would introduce teachers. Some would regard it as odd, given the Bill’s title, that we should need to do that; but the Bill contains just a single mention of the word teacher, and even that is merely in the context of a pay and conditions warning notice.

The amendment is necessary because it highlights the fact that a number of factors need to be taken into account when pupils are not fulfilling their potential in a school—beyond, that is, a metric based on pupils’ attainment and progress for three consecutive years. That is currently the bald performance data on which the Government propose to designate a school as coasting. I have read about the interim measures and I take that on board, but none the less, there is good reason to have broader consideration.

Even allowing for a more flexible definition of coasting schools than just Ofsted grades or exam results, there will always be a spread of schools performing at different levels. Not every child can get A*s and inevitably some will be comparatively coasting, compared to others. With effective quotas on grades, to stop grade inflation, gains by one school will inevitably mean that others will do comparatively worse. Thus, as more schools become academies there is more chance that they will end up as coasting schools.

Furthermore, as both Education Datalab and Henry Stewart of Local Schools Network have shown, the measures chosen will disproportionately impact upon schools with disadvantaged pupils, not those in affluent areas. Dr Rebecca Allen, of Datalab, in evidence to the Bill Committee in another place, said,

“if a school serves an affluent community then it will not be judged to be coasting using these metrics”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Adoption Bill Committee, 30/6/15; col. 7.]

Laura McInerney of Schools Week has pointed out that:

“Wealthy kids don’t just achieve more than poorer kids, they also progress quicker”.

The factor that most affects a school’s performance is of course its teaching staff. All high-performing schools have inspirational, driven head teachers who are able to translate their ethos throughout the school. But without a stable teaching staff, with all subjects capable of being delivered in a sustainable way, the head teacher alone cannot bridge the gap between performing and underperforming. That is the reason that the question of teacher supply is the most urgent one facing education in England today.

Perhaps not unnaturally, the Government are attempting to put a positive gloss on teacher supply, often by cherry-picking particular bits of information or research. But the essential facts are these. The number of entrants into teacher training has fallen steadily, from 39,000 in 2009-10 to 32,000 in 2014-15. In that year, only 93% of the target for recruitment into teacher training was achieved, compared to 108,000 in 2009-10. I am not making political points here; I am not going to highlight the fact that we have a different Government. It is too important for that, but the figures are there. We are where we are and we should be concerned about it. The Government’s favoured School Direct route is much less successful in recruiting than universities. We find ourselves in a period of rapidly growing pupil numbers because of the rising birth rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right that the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers is crucial to achieving our goal of educational excellence everywhere. As I explained at Questions yesterday—the noble Lord may dispute the figures—the number of teachers in post is at an all-time high and the number of teachers leaving the profession remains low, with around three-quarters still in the profession after five years’ service.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, rightly said, there is an overall challenge, but in some areas of the country there is a struggle to attract, recruit and retain high-quality teachers. That is why we are actively supporting schools to take a leading role in the training of new teachers and have given schools greater flexibility to attract and retain good teachers through the pay system. It is also why the Secretary of State on Tuesday announced the creation of the National Teaching Service with the aim that by 2020 it will deploy 1,500 high-performing teachers and middle leaders into underperforming schools in areas that struggle to recruit. There are already many outstanding teachers and leaders working in challenging areas, but we know that more needs to be done to help them and we are committed to giving them support.

My noble friend was clear that when we are discussing coasting schools, regional schools commissioners will consider whether the school has the capacity to secure sufficient improvement without formal intervention. In some cases, a school which falls within the coasting definition may have a new head teacher, governor or leadership team who can demonstrate that they have an effective plan to raise standards sufficiently. In these cases, the school will be left to improve.

This amendment suggests that where a school fails to ensure that pupils reach their potential because there are retention and recruitment issues at the school it should not become eligible for intervention. We feel this is counterintuitive. These are the very schools that require additional support to address those problems in order to improve outcomes for their pupils. This Bill will provide that support. We have made clear in the Schools Causing Concern guidance, on which we are currently consulting, that RSCs will take a range of contextual factors into account when looking at coasting schools. They could include looking at teacher recruitment and retention. Where this is identified as an issue, the RSC will be able to work with the new National Teaching Service to bring teachers into the school to work alongside the existing teachers to make the improvements needed. Other measures, such as encouraging schools to participate in School Direct partnerships, which allow them to train and employ high-quality new teachers, might also be appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised several issues around School Direct, so I will cover some of them briefly. Completion and employment rates from teacher-led teacher training are higher than from university-led provision, but we agree that universities remain an important part. In fact, the move to school-led teacher training is helping to encourage collaboration because 70% of School Direct places are delivered by universities. As I said yesterday, a school-led system is not a university-excluded system. We want to see collaboration.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I welcome what the Minister has said. I am not suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive, but figures show that universities are now less certain about the number of students they will get. They are also less certain of the relationships they will have with schools. School Direct seems to be the preferred choice of the DfE. That may or may not be the right way to go, but universities need some reassurance. Why are university departments closing? Why are education student numbers at universities falling if there is not a problem as I outlined? It is not a question of either/or. Surely the two should be working together.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Absolutely. We are seeing growing collaboration. The noble Lord is right that we are looking at teacher training on a year-by-year basis because we believe that schools should be at the heart of thinking about where they want to get their best training. The best universities will be extremely attractive. They are still the only organisations that can award PGCEs, which remain extremely popular. While we think that the school-led system is the way we want to go, we see that the collaboration is working within the system.

This year we hit our primary recruitment targets. We made good progress on secondary and are ahead of last year in some key subjects, such as English, maths and physics. The noble Lord also mentioned STEM subjects. Again, we want to attract the best graduates into teacher training, which is why we are looking at generous bursaries from next year, up to £30,000. We are also looking at some of the issues that teachers tell us worry them most once they are in a job, such as unnecessary work-flow and poor pupil performance, so that we can help to ensure that when teachers are in the profession, they stay in it. Again, teacher retention remains good and has remained pretty stable for the past two decades.

I hope that the House realises that we take the issue of recruitment and retention very seriously. As the Minister has already said, high-quality teachers are absolutely crucial, and the impact that they can make on young people is huge—so we take this seriously, and we believe that we are already taking steps to support schools when this impacts on the progress that pupils make. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. I certainly welcome the fact that she has acknowledged the importance of teachers and underlined that they are key to future development of education and to raising standards. There is no point in bandying figures back and forth, because I suppose that she will cherry pick figures that suit her. I hope that I am not doing the same, but it has been quite widely reported that 50,000 teachers left the profession in the last year, which is the highest ever level. She said that the figures were down, so there is something not right there. To me, that is the most worrying statistic, because it means not that all teachers are reaching 60, or whatever age at which they choose to retire, but that they are leaving the profession because, for some reason or other, it is not giving them what they want, or they feel that they cannot put in what they want to improve children’s education. That is a very worrying statistic. The Minister said that primary recruitment targets have been met this year. That is obviously to be welcomed but there are, understandably, greater challenges in secondary schools, which must be pursued.

If I caught the Minister’s remarks correctly, she said that the amendment suggested that schools should not be eligible for coasting until teacher recruitment and retention was a problem. That is not what I said and it is not what the amendment said, and I certainly did not mean to say it, if I did. Attention should be given to the whole teacher recruitment question, and that was the whole point of the amendment. She will understand that, as with most amendments in Grand Committee, it is a probing amendment, and I wanted to get these issues discussed and on the record. I am pleased that we have been able to do that.

The Minister said that the regional schools commissioner would take into account contextual factors when considering whether schools should be designated as coasting. She said that that could include teacher recruitment and retention—but why would that not automatically include those things?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Through the metric that we have discussed, when a school would be considered to be coasting, teacher recruitment and retention would be taken into account—it is about what intervention may be needed in terms of what support the schools may need when they have been identified as coasting through the measures that we have discussed. It may well mean additional support—and we have talked about the National Teaching Service coming in and helping with high-quality teachers. So it is about bringing that to bear, as to how best to help the school improve.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I think that we have covered the issues that I hoped we would cover. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

10: Clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) After section 60 (performance standards and safety warning notice) insert—
“60ZA Performance standards and safety warning notices: Academy schools
(1) A local authority may, pursuant to its duty under section 13A of the Education Act 1996 (duty to promote high standards and fulfilment of potential), give a performance standards and safety warning notice to the proprietor of an Academy school situated in the area of the local authority.
(2) Before giving a warning notice, the authority must be satisfied that—
(a) the standards of performance of pupils at the school are unacceptably low, and are likely to remain so unless the proprietor requires an improvement in standards,(b) there has been a serious breakdown in the way the school is managed or governed which is prejudicing, or likely to prejudice, such standards or performance, or(c) the safety of pupils or staff of the school is threatened (whether by a breakdown of discipline or otherwise).(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the standards of performance of pupils at a school are low if they are low by reference to any one or more of the following—
(a) the standards that the pupils might in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to attain;(b) where relevant, the standards previously attained by them;(c) the standards attained by pupils at comparable schools. (4) For the purposes of this section, a “warning notice” is a notice in writing by the local authority setting out—
(a) the matters on which the decision to give a warning notice under subsection (2) is based,(b) the action which the proprietor is required to take in order to remedy those matters,(c) the period within which the actions must be taken by the proprietor, and(d) the action which the local authority are minded to ask the Secretary of State to take if the proprietor fails to take the required action.(5) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy school must include provision imposing obligations on the proprietor to comply with actions set out in a warning notice issued under this section.
(6) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy (other than a 16 to 19 Academy or an Alternative Provision Academy) that are entered into before the date on which this section comes into force are to be treated as if they included the provision required by subsection (5), to the extent that they do not otherwise include such provision.””

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, we now move on to the question of performance standards and safety warning notices—in this case, specifically with reference to academy schools. The amendment would extend the power of local authorities to allow them the right—albeit one challenged under the clause—to issue performance standards and safety warning notices to an academy that they consider is underperforming.

The wording is drawn from existing provisions for giving warning notices to maintained schools. The only difference is that the local authority would need to ask the Secretary of State to intervene if the warning notice did not have the desired effect of bringing about improvement, but the academy would be required to comply and the power would apply to both existing and new academies.

The argument in the amendment turns on local versus national—or local versus regional, in the case of the regional schools commissioner, although she or he acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, of course. A local authority is much better placed to identify problems than a distant Minister or even a regional commissioner. Not only can it scrutinise data but it gets all the soft intelligence that comes through the local community, in whatever form that may take. Specifically, I would imagine that it would be from other schools, issues raised in MPs’ or councillors’ surgeries, the local media, information from social services, and health services, as well as issues with admissions or exclusions.

It is apparent that the Department for Education has huge difficulty in keeping tabs on the growing number of academies. The Public Accounts Committee laid that out very clearly in the previous Parliament, and I suggest that eight regional schools commissioners cannot properly scrutinise several hundred academies each as well as getting involved with maintained schools and promoting new conversions. It is reasonable to assume that any regional schools commissioner worth her or his salt will seek informally to source local intelligence, but that will be limited, and the amendment would allow such activity to be formalised. The key to the benefit of handing this task to local authorities lies simply in the first word of their title, because local knowledge is essential to enable intervention when necessary.

In addition, it would restore proper accountability to local communities. It would mean that the concerns of parents and residents could be taken up locally by a local authority that has the right to take the action necessary. It should be noted that this would not reduce the autonomy of academies. All the freedoms they currently have would continue to be in place, but this would provide a much more robust accountability system. Centralising accountability in the hands of the Secretary of State and her appointees is both undemocratic and ineffective, and the poor outcomes from many academies that have already been referred to demonstrate that.

At Second Reading, I invited the Minister to comment on the Ofsted inspection results up to June 2015. They demonstrated that of all schools inspected, the percentage of academies classified as inadequate was 3.4%, with the percentage of maintained schools classified as inadequate less than half that figure at 1.6%. I do not welcome any school, whether maintained school or academy, being classified as inadequate, but those are the figures produced by Ofsted. The evidence is clear: despite the fact that there are more pupils in the maintained sector, there are now more pupils in inadequate academies than there are in inadequate maintained schools. That surely should give the Minister pause for thought. I understand why the Minister would not like to deal with those facts, but having declined the opportunity to tell me and other noble Lords what that says about the panacea that academies are supposed to be, will he use his closing speech today to do so? Clearly, something is not working.

In the same way that we have argued for maintained schools and academies to be treated equally when it comes to coasting—or, indeed, outright failure—we believe that parity in respect of performance standards and warning notices is entirely appropriate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, this amendment picks up an issue which we Liberal Democrats have been worried about for some time: accountability for academy trusts and academy chains, and what happens when an academy is put into special measures or, as in this case, fails to make the progress that one would expect over the three-year period.

I know that the Minister will reel off statistics and examples of how good academies are and how much they achieve, but he must admit that, looking at the picture overall, now that we have academies of 10 years’ standing and many of four to five years’ standing, the record is that the probability of an academy not performing as well as we might expect is just as high as for local authority schools, and that the record of local authority intervention in turning around failing schools is just as good as academisation. In its statistics report, his own department shows the same range of performance across academy chains as with local authorities.

I know that the Minister will protest that local authorities do not intervene when they should and that this legislation is a necessary wake-up call to them. But if he is maintaining, as he does, that no child should have to put up with less than a good education for a year or so, it is only right that the principle should apply to academies as much as to local authority schools.

This clause is the mirror image of the one applying to maintained schools at the beginning of this Bill, explaining how the local authority, now the Secretary of State, can give a warning notice to an academy and requires, under new subsection (4B), those in charge of academies to take remedial action, and the local authority or the Secretary of State to do so if the academy fails to take that action. It also requires that the funding agreement should be amended appropriately.

I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on this issue. Now that we have got such a large number of academies, it seems extraordinary that we have to negotiate separate funding agreements with every single one. One of the reasons why we have education Bills and Acts is in order that all schools should obey the same set of regulations. It seems extraordinary that when you have thousands of schools having to obey the same set of regulations, you have to negotiate separate funding agreements. It is about time that the Government made up their mind on what they want to do. We have quite a lot of sympathy with the general principle of this amendment, which is that academies should be treated on a par with maintained schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

We may bring this up again in Amendment 16, but I cannot really say more than I have already. I was about to give an example of a very successful academy. I shall move on but will address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about Ofsted results for academies and local authority maintained schools. As I tried to explain at Second Reading in relation to Ofsted ratings, over the last five years—or less than that—we have taken more than 1,300 failing schools off local authorities and turned them into academies. That is clearly why there are many more schools rated as failing among the more limited number of academies than there are among local authority schools, because we have dealt with the matter in that way. I am sure we will return to this, but I reiterate our belief that regional schools commissioners are driving up standards and issuing warning notices much more stringently than many local authorities. Following this discussion, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The first thing that I have to say to the Minister is that I am amazed at his comment about the Ofsted figures. He says they have turned 1,300 schools that were deemed to be failing in the maintained sector into academies and a large number of them are still failing. That seems to be what he is saying, and, in a sense, that was my point. I do not take any pleasure in saying that, but the figures do not lie.

[Lord Nash]

They are failing because we took them over only very recently. As we have already discussed, you do not turn around a school that has been languishing in failure for years overnight.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I cannot imagine that they would be inspected that soon. If they have been moved into, effectively, special measures—special measures in this case meaning becoming an academy—of course it is going to take time. However, if that is included in the Ofsted figures—I would like to see the figures in more detail—that gives a distorted picture. The idea is that schools improve with academy status, but that is not the pattern to anything like the extent that the Government like to suggest.

In response to the Minister’s comments, I note what he says about 58 formal notices being issued to academies in the past year since the regional schools commissioners took up their posts. My question on how those decisions are arrived at returns to the point I made in introducing this amendment. Where does the local intel come from that informs those kinds of decisions? A lot of local issues are going on that are defined as regional, but regional schools commissioners cannot have their ear close to the ground in the way that a local authority would have.

[Lord Nash]

If the noble Lord had come on Monday and met the regional schools commissioners, he might have been better informed about how they will gather their soft intelligence. I suggest that I set up a meeting with some regional schools commissioners and they can tell him for themselves. Having sat on every single head teacher board while they have deliberated over the last year and heard the level of soft local intelligence that they are receiving, it is absolutely clear that they have their ears extremely close to the ground.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I look forward to getting that briefing when I am able to attend. That would be helpful. But that sort of impression—that the local information required in situations like this is being made available—is not out and about at the moment. Perhaps that will change when we meet the regional schools commissioners.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I have the Ofsted figures here, which show that for all the maintained mainstream schools the percentage that was judged inadequate by Ofsted was 1.8%. Of the academy schools—the converters—which are on the whole the outstanding schools, the figure is 1.9%. For the sponsor-led academies, it is 12.1% and for free schools it is 5.8%. As I think I said in my Second Reading speech, that indicates that it was quite a high figure for the converter academy schools but, of course, they were being converted from being inadequate. That again holds up my argument that it takes time for any school to be turned around.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Baroness for those remarks. The Minister referred to the contractual relationship. This comes up continually and is a reason for the lack of transparency in academy trusts. Part of this is that if you try to look at the minutes of academy trust boards, often they do no more than list the decisions that were reached. There is no detail given to that or background information or dissent, if, indeed, there was any—simply the decisions that were reached. They are not particularly illuminating. I think the whole question of the contractual relationship between academy trusts and the department gives a sense that there is something to hide. I do not believe there should be anything to hide and there may not be but we do not know that because there is a lack of transparency. Part of the purpose of this amendment is to open up the way in which academies operate, particularly with regard to local issues and links with local authorities, which I think would be mutually beneficial. I hear what the Minister says. I am disappointed that we have not made some progress on this. But having had the issues aired, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

13: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Governing body appeal against warning notice
(1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 60A insert—
“60AA Governing body appeal against warning notice
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for reviews of, or appeals to the First-tier Tribunal about, decisions relating to warning notices by the relevant authority under section 60 or the local authority under section 60A.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must enable the First-tier Tribunal to revoke a warning notice.
(3) The revocation of a warning notice under subsection (2) does not prevent the relevant authority or local authority giving a revised warning notice.””

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the Bill removes the right of the school to make any representations against the issuing of a warning notice. The consequences of a warning notice are now much more significant than they have been, because they open the door to possible—perhaps that should be likely—academisation.

To deny school governors the right to make any kind of appeal against such a semi-judicial decision is, I suggest, nothing less than a denial of natural justice. The amendment provides a procedure for a school to appeal against a warning notice.

I must say that I chuckled at the Minister’s reference to devolution, not least devolution max, which in Scotland of course means something slightly different. The Bill is about centralisation. It is about the Government taking a grip. Whether it is really central—in London—or in the regions, it is government control. It tells anybody who does not happen to share that vision—some might say, political philosophy—to shut up and go away, because the Government have made their decision and that is that. That is very much the impression that was given about the Bill when it was in another place—when all those amendments were submitted and discussed and none was successful. This afternoon, apart from one small, but very welcome, concession by the Minister, we are doing the same here. I hope that that is not going to be how we will proceed in the remaining two days in Committee, because noble Lords are putting forward serious points to try to improve the Bill, which some of them have grave concerns about. I hope that they will be taken seriously and that the Minister will at least agree to think about some of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13 and warning notice appeals. The Bill proposes that the governing body of an underperforming school should no longer be able to make representations to Ofsted about being given a warning notice. The amendment would restore an appeal route, although not the same route. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow a school to have a warning notice reviewed, or allow it to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, which could then revoke the notice.

The amendment would not preclude the local authority or regional schools commissioner from issuing a revised notice to that school, but we believe that it oversteps the mark and builds into the process delays and arguments that are a distraction from the important business of getting the school to improve. Indeed, appeals to the First-tier Tribunal would lead to the clock stopping and months of delay ensuing while all avenues for appeal are exhausted. During this time, children will be in a school that is causing serious concern and they will not be given the education that they deserve.

To clarify, any complaints about the decision made by a regional schools commissioner may be directed to the schools commissioner. If a formal complaint is lodged, it will be dealt with in accordance with the department’s formal complaints procedure, which involves an independent officer, an official, investigating the complaint and making a recommendation. One formal complaint about a regional schools commissioner’s decision has been made so far and has been considered but no evidence was found to uphold it. Ultimately, the process for appealing a decision made by a regional schools commissioner is to apply for judicial review via the courts.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to warning notices. Our figures indicate that we have issued 112 formal notices to underperforming institutions. Ninety- eight of these were issued to academies associated with 53 individual sponsors. We have also changed sponsor arrangements for 100 academies and free schools where there has been underperformance.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

What period does that cover? Is it just since the regional schools commissioners were established or does it go back to 2010?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

It is since the academies came in, so it applies to a wider period than since the regional schools commissioners have been in place. I reassure the House that we believe the process as set out in the Bill is fair and reasonable and that there are appropriate safeguards built in where schools have concerns. Regional schools commissioners and local authorities already have to act reasonably in carrying out their functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. The revised Schools Causing Concern guidance, on which we are currently consulting and seeking views, also sets out clear processes and expectations for the giving of warning notices. This is guidance which local authorities and regional schools commissioners will follow. The Bill requires the local authority to notify the regional schools commissioner if it issues a warning notice and vice versa. Regional Schools Commissioners can therefore already review a local authority’s warning notice and, if they believe that it is not appropriate, they can issue their own that would render the local authority’s notice redundant.

Although I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, it builds in additional process in primary legislation which is unnecessary and time-consuming and is not helpful in supporting schools to improve in the best interests of children. In the light of this, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

If this is all just a distraction, will the Minister tell me what she thinks the role of school governors is?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Obviously, the role of school governors is to hold head teachers to account to ensure that the school is providing the high-quality education that they are looking for. They have an oversight role and have to be involved in the school by going to visit and making sure that they know what is going on.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

But do they have no right to comment in situations where warning notices are being issued? This seems to me to be saying that they have no meaningful role, as it is being taken away from them. Surely that cannot be a positive step.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No, as I said, any complaints about a decision made by the regional schools commissioner can be directed to the schools commissioner. If a formal complaint is lodged, it will be dealt with through the process that is in place. Ultimately, the end process is judicial review.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I noted the noble Baroness’s remarks that delays and arguments are a distraction to the process of bringing about change in a school. The whole underlying ethos of the Government’s approach to the Bill is that people who might not agree with the proposal are simply to be sidelined. They are to be silenced—gagged—and to have no input, because they might delay the process. I do not think anybody has said anything other than that change needs to be brought about as quickly as possible. But at the same time the Government must consider the fact that some people have different views from those they may have. Those views should be considered.

The Government do not have, despite their victory on 7 May, the right to ride roughshod over people’s views, particularly those of local people, on such important issues. It does not serve the Government’s case to suggest simply that complaints can be made to the regional schools commissioner or the schools commissioner, or through judicial review. Yes, of course judicial review is open to anyone anyway in any situation, but that is not the point. This is a specific proposal that relates to the role of a school’s governing body, which is being taken away from that body. As I said earlier, it is difficult to see why anybody would want to be a school governor, because they are being disfranchised and disempowered, and basically being told that what they say does not matter. I am disappointed that neither Minister is willing to consider this. We may return to this issue on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I support Amendment 14. We recognise that church schools have an integral role in the education system, comprising, as they do, around one-third of all maintained schools.

One of the reasons the church academy model has been a success is because dioceses are at the forefront of decisions concerning these schools, which means that decisions are made at a local level after consultation with communities. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, mentioned, the Bill is at risk of cutting across this local decision-making, and this amendment addresses one of the areas where changes are necessary to ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place.

If decisions about the people who are nominated to interim executive boards are not acceptable to a local bishop, they do not carry his support. Therefore, that could undermine the whole raison d’être of the school. It would also, I suggest, undermine the whole raison d’être of an interim executive board, which is to prevent the closure of the school as well as to bring about necessary improvement. The amendment ensures that the appointment of an interim executive board does not undermine the faith character of a school. Surely the Government do not intend to affect faith schools in any way that would be seen as damaging and I hope the Minister will be prepared to recognise this in the Bill.

We believe the amendment provides the safeguards that the churches are seeking, without detracting from the process of school improvement that everyone wants to see.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Sharp, concerns where the Secretary of State makes directions about an interim executive board in respect of a school with a religious character. I believe I will be able to offer considerable reassurance on this point. The churches and other faith bodies are important partners in our education system but sometimes schools with a religious character fail, so we must be able to respond decisively and robustly in such cases.

Proposed new Section 5B(1)(a) and (b) propose a duty for IEBs in schools with a religious designation to ensure that the religious character of that school is preserved and developed. They would also be placed under a duty to ensure that the school is conducted in compliance with the school’s instrument of government and the foundation’s governing documents, including any trust deed.

First, I offer reassurance that while we are committed to tackling failure swiftly and robustly wherever it occurs, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the ethos of schools with a religious designation is preserved. I really think that the Catholic Church’s concerns on this are unfounded. I look forward to being able to reassure it on this point. I believe that I have already reassured the Church of England on this point, and I look forward to engaging further with both churches as we develop our memoranda of understanding, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we have no intention of damaging or affecting church schools in any way. To support that commitment, as I said, we have already begun discussions with the churches about reviewing and updating the memoranda of understanding that set out the roles of dioceses and government as they relate to the academy programme, in order to reflect the changes in the Bill and the wider evolving policy landscape.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The Minister says he has had discussions with the Roman Catholic Church. Does he recognise that it is not satisfied with the outcome of those discussions? Certainly, the Catholic Education Service is making it quite clear that it supports this amendment because it is not satisfied with where the discussions with the Minister have led.

[Lord Nash]

If the noble Lord would let me finish, he would understand that these discussions are at a very early stage. We have just issued a draft of the memoranda of understanding and I believe that the churches are considering the detail. I will refer to this in more detail in a minute.

Under paragraphs 3(3), 10(2) and 13(2) of Schedule 6 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, IEBs are already required to comply with the same duties that applied to the previous governing body, which includes any duty to comply with a trust deed. Members of a church or faith school’s IEB are therefore already bound to preserve and develop the school’s religious character. This is the case even where the new powers under Clause 5 of the Bill have been used to direct the local authority to appoint specific IEB members. The first part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary because it is simply restating a requirement that already exists in law.

Additionally, we are currently consulting on the revised Schools Causing Concern guidance, which describes how we propose that the new and strengthened powers in the Bill will work in practice. This includes how we propose IEBs will operate in practice, and it sets out the role and duties of an IEB. To avoid any further doubt on the matter raised in this amendment, we have specified in the guidance:

“Any obligations on the governing body in relation to maintaining the religious ethos of a school will also apply to the IEB”.

The second part of the amendment proposes that RSCs, where they are exercising the Clause 5 power to direct the local authority to alter the make-up of an IEB in a church or faith school, would be required to protect the continued involvement of the relevant diocese or faith body. That would mean that they would have to comply with an existing agreement between the local authority and the diocese about the membership and operation of the IEB. Such agreements between local authorities and dioceses about the membership and operation of IEBs are not required by legislation, nor are they legally binding. It would therefore be inappropriate to require RSCs to comply with such agreements through this amendment.

However, we are currently working with the churches to agree a memorandum of understanding. We are fully committed to agreeing these MoUs; it will enable dioceses and RSCs to work together for the benefit of pupils in church schools. In particular, we want to make sure that, as the draft MoU states:

“Where RSCs wish to exercise their power to establish an IEB to a church school, they must consult the diocese”.

We would expect the consultation to provide an opportunity for the diocese to nominate one or more IEB members and for RSCs to accept the diocese’s nomination, providing they agree that the proposed member has the capacity and skills required to fulfil their role on the IEB.

Where any IEB established by either the local authority or the RSC is established in a church school and the RSC has concerns about the capability of an IEB member to fulfil the role, the diocese will be asked if it wishes to nominate a replacement IEB member. Our expectation is that RSCs will accept such a nomination, provided they agree with the diocese’s assessment that the individual has the capacity and skills required to fulfil their role on the IEB.

Furthermore, the purpose of the power in Clause 5 is to enable the RSCs to intervene swiftly where they are not convinced that the IEB constituted by the local authority will secure necessary improvements in the school. Accepting the amendment proposed here would require RSCs to endorse an IEB whether they had confidence in it or not. That would undermine the purpose of the clause and may prevent RSCs from acting decisively to address underperformance.

In view of what I have said about making sure that we preserve the faith status of any church schools—which we are absolutely determined to ensure, and I am sure that we will be able to satisfy the churches on this—I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Schools: Free Schools

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I assure the noble Lord that we are very focused on value for money. Those figures are very deceptive because quite a few pupils in alternative provision are on the register of the school, so it appears as though there are fewer pupils in the alternative provision school. Pupils in alternative provision get much higher funding, as they do in pupil referral units run by local authorities, so the figures are quite confusing.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been decided that new free schools will now be inspected in their third year of operation rather than in their second, although it is not clear whether that is due to funding cuts to Ofsted or perhaps, given that around 25% of them are deemed to be underperforming, it is to save the DfE from further embarrassment. Will the Minister explain how this new decision will help to ensure that underperforming free schools are identified and their failings addressed as soon as possible?

[Lord Nash]

This is to bring free schools in line with all other new schools, which are inspected in their third year in the same way. Of course, free schools are monitored closely by education advisers in their early years and, as I already said, by the regional schools commissioners.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to welcome to these Benches my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I await with great interest his maiden speech. It is also slightly unnerving to have behind me two former Secretaries of State for Education as well as a recent education Front-Bench spokesperson from my party, so, if nothing else, that will keep me on my toes.

It is widely acknowledged that today fundamental problems face our schools in particular and the education system in general. In making the Education and Adoption Bill one of the first to be introduced in this parliamentary Session, the Government had an opportunity to address these issues and begin to remove them as problems. It is a matter of huge regret that they have singularly failed to grasp that opportunity.

The issue that overarches everything else in education is the ongoing problem of recruitment and retention of teachers because, without teachers, what is education? Yet that issue is the dog that does not bark in this Bill because, incredibly, eight pages and 12 clauses relating to education contain just a single mention of the word “teacher”. Even that is merely a reference to a pay and conditions warning notice. Very nearly 50,000 teachers left the profession between November 2013 and November 2014, the highest number on record. In 2009-10, under Labour, recruitment into teacher training was about 3,000 above target. In 2013-14 it was 2,300 below target. Why has that not set alarm bells ringing at the DfE? Nor does the Bill acknowledge, far less address, the question of providing a place at school for every child who requires it, following the increase in birth rates, or how the DfE is going to find many more academy sponsors, or how more good head teachers are to be recruited to take on underperforming schools.

The Government have set their face against each and all of these urgent matters, preferring instead to use this Bill as a vehicle to pursue their apparent obsession with removing schools from the local democratic framework and handing them to sponsors. All too often their suggested friends are supporters of the Conservative Party—some, it appears, even go on to become Ministers. This is legislation driven not by education considerations but by ideology, and it is interesting that the Minister mentioned ideology in his opening remarks. Our children deserve better—much better.

The main thrust of the Bill as regards state schools is as mistaken as it is simplistic: maintained, bad; academy, good. Simply turning a school into a sponsored academy does not bring about change for the better. Where schools improve their performance it is almost always because of the hard work and commitment of the head teacher, the teaching and support staff and the pupils themselves, with the support of their families. There is now a strong evidence base to show that there is no academy effect—no silver bullet in terms of academy status and school improvement. On the contrary, although the Minister has referred to examples in statistics that he regards as favourable, I would be very interested to hear his response to the Ofsted inspection results up to June this year. Of all schools inspected, the percentage of academies classified as inadequate was 3.4%, covering 3.9% of all pupils. The percentage of maintained schools classified as inadequate was 1.6%, covering 2% of pupils. So there we have it—there are now more pupils in inadequate academies, some 102,847, than in inadequate maintained schools, where there are 98,185. Perhaps the Minister could say when he expects to halve the rate of inadequate academies?

Surely schools should be given the opportunity and time to improve with appropriate support. When a school is issued with a warning notice by a local authority, or is eligible for intervention, the local authority can deploy additional and targeted resources to support the school and improve the education that it provides to its pupils. I agree with the Minister that not enough local authorities have issued warnings; that much we agree on. However, Clause 7 provides no such opportunity before a school is forced into academy status. Under the new system of comparative results, schools can be left in a position whereby, no matter how hard they work and how high the standard of their teaching, their results can fall as grade boundaries change. Grade boundaries are constantly changing and this system can lead to an excellent school being labelled as “coasting”. Has the Minister considered the consequences of this? Will he clarify how the definition of “coasting”, which we now hear will go out to consultation, will work alongside this new system of comparative results?

In practice, the Bill will simply fast-track many more so-called underachieving schools into academy chains and create a new label to stigmatise them and their staff and pupils with the toxic notion of coasting schools. There is a grave danger that this Bill will create a situation in disadvantaged areas where schools are simply unable to attract head teachers and teachers, because the chances of these schools being found wanting and forced into an academy chain are so great, with the implicit stigmatisation of their staff. Why are this Government so ready to demonise teachers and teaching staff? Many work long hours with insufficient resources yet feel they receive scant recognition of this when they have to suffer attacks on their profession.

The coalition Government opened the door to academies and free schools employing unqualified teaching staff. Yes, there are teacher shortages, but there are doctor shortages, too. Can we anticipate this Government introducing the concept of well-meaning amateurs being allowed to “give it a go” in our hospitals? Obviously not—but the analogy is not as facetious as it may appear. Doctors save lives, and while teachers do not give life, they provide the tools to young people to make the most of their own lives—a priceless gift that every single one has a right to expect. Any Government serious about school improvement would reverse the foolhardy decision to invite unqualified staff to teach, virtually without restriction. Every child and young person deserves, and every parent has the right to expect, nothing less than that teaching should be delivered by a qualified teacher at all times. The most successful countries, from the Far East to Scandinavia, are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession. These countries have demanding initial teacher education programmes which require successful completion in order to enter into the profession. They also generally have Governments who demonstrate that they value, rather than denigrate, the profession.

The Bill is a backward step for democracy in education and in society as a whole. Parents, governors and local authorities are all to be stripped of long-established roles and responsibilities. As things stand, the Academies Act 2010 requires the governing body of a school to consult parents before the school is converted into an academy. The Education and Adoption Bill would remove these requirements when a school is told that it must become an academy because it has been deemed failing or coasting. This denies parents and staff their only reasonable opportunity to be involved in what can be a fundamental change to the ethos of their school. That attack on basic parental rights has no place in a democracy, and these clauses should be removed.

Currently when a school is issued with a warning notice, the school’s governing body has an opportunity to respond. The Bill seeks to remove that right. Too often, schools struggle to attract sufficient governors. What sort of incentive is it to those considering serving their community to be told that, should a warning notice about their school’s performance be issued, the governors will be denied even the opportunity to respond by outlining their plans for improvement?

There is no signal from the Government that the Bill will include provision for academy chains to be inspected by Ofsted in the same way as local authorities are inspected, something that the Education Select Committee, many unions and Ofsted have called for. When Ofsted has inspected groups of schools in individual chains, it has made serious criticisms of a number of high-profile chains.

Clauses 8 and 9 must be struck from the Bill, so that parents, governors and school staff can remain included in the process of improving their school. But we have been here before. Consultation was missing from the original draft of the Academies Bill in 2010. The strength of feeling in both Houses and across the parties saw the Government bow to common sense and insert clauses on consultation. What has changed in five years? I hope the Minister is not going to seek refuge by telling us that that was during a coalition Government and the Liberal Democrats forced his party to concede the point. We shall see.

These clauses signify throwing into reverse previous statements made by major government players. In a debate on the Localism Bill in January 2011, Nicky Morgan, now Secretary of State for Education, said:

“I particularly welcome clause 102, which requires developers to consult local communities before submitting planning application for certain developments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/11; col. 642.]

So in the eyes of the Secretary of State it is appropriate to consult communities on planning issues, but not on major changes to their schools.

Even more tellingly, in light of the centralisation inherent in this Bill, in an article on shifting power to local people and local institutions in February 2009 a leading Tory wrote this:

“When one-size-fits-all solutions are dispensed from the centre, it’s not surprising they so often fail local communities. When people experience a yawning gap between the changes they want to see and those they can directly affect, it is inevitable that demoralisation and democratic disengagement follow.

The Conservative party wants nothing less than radical decentralisation … There are plans to give people a much greater say over issues that affect their daily lives”.

Those were the words of the then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron.

Collective amnesia seems to have afflicted the current Cabinet, with state education and its stakeholders paying the price. The Bill’s major measures can lead only to the powers and voices of local communities—governing bodies, democratically accountable local authorities, parents or school staff—being diminished.

We shall deal in detail in Committee with the question of so-called coasting schools. The Government did not even have a definition of coasting schools when the Bill was published. Now, as we heard, it is going out to consultation, but we know that it relies solely on performance data, taking no account of individual circumstances. Of course, no two schools are the same. Without doubt, this categorisation will impact disproportionately on schools with more socially disadvantaged pupils, perversely those in most need of assistance.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the coasting label would apply only to maintained schools, although many academies are likely to fulfil the criteria that have now been laid down. What plans do the Government have to deal with academies that are coasting? The term “coasting” cannot apply; academy chains cannot be inspected by Ofsted and successful local authorities are not allowed to oversee failing academies in their area. That raises the question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If we are told that academy status is all that is required to turn around a coasting school, what if that does not succeed? Is a new sponsor sought? We look to the Minister to provide the answer to that conundrum.

Unfortunately, adoption is the poor relation in this Bill, but we welcome the measures to increase the supply of adoptive parents and prevent children remaining longer than necessary in the care system. We are, however, concerned that superregional consortiums may limit the role of small specialised voluntary adoption agencies, which often cater for mixed race and special needs groups.

We do not believe that adoption should be elevated above long-term fostering, special guardianship or other models of care. What matters most is what is in the best interests of the individual child. Adoption brings many positive outcomes to the lives of children, but it should be borne in mind that adoption is the right outcome for only a minority who end up in care. For many of those children, fostering or residential care may be more appropriate, and the full range of options should always be considered.

There are also concerns about the current state of the adoption system. There has been a substantial decline in the number of adoption decisions and placement orders, with a drop of more than 50% on both measures in the past year. That will take some time to have an impact on the number of children who actually end up being adopted, but that impact is clearly going to be considerable, and not in a positive way.

Voluntary adoption agencies play a key role, yet despite government support over the past few years they are struggling for survival. Many are reducing the size of their social work teams as the proportion of adoption work that was done by voluntary agencies decreases. In some areas, local authorities, despite clear direction from government, exclude them from discussions. It is not clear how voluntary adoption agencies will play a part in the proposed new regional structures while retaining their individual independence and how funding arrangements will support their activity.

I hope the Minister will find time in his closing remarks to demonstrate that some consideration will be given to those important issues, on which it is our intention to submit amendments in Committee; appropriately, it will commence during National Adoption Week.

Labour is opposed to this Bill because it takes school oversight, parental involvement and support for head teachers backwards. The Government are determined to restrict the measures in the Bill to local authority schools instead of addressing inadequacy wherever it is identified across the system. We will work with Peers on all sides of the House to amend and improve the Bill so that it focuses on the real challenges facing our education system, rather than fixating on a mistaken headlong rush to academisation as the only route to raising standards in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this evening; it has been incredibly valuable. It is very clear that the House is immensely passionate and knowledgeable about education and adoption.

I have heard many helpful points this evening—so many that I have, in fact, entirely rewritten my closing speech in an attempt to answer all the points made. I am sure that I will not manage that—I apologise if I do not—and I hope people understand that, as a result of my rewriting, there may be a certain amount of paper shuffling during my closing remarks.

Most of the opening remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, were nothing to do with the Bill so I will not waste noble Lords’ time by rising to all his comments. However, I will refer to a few. He made a point about the Ofsted ratings for academies versus those for local authority schools, and a similar point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Touhig. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was very quick to point out that many academies were failing schools that were then taken off local authorities. Academies have a far higher proportion of children receiving free school meals than other schools and, of course, many of these schools are in those sad, sad areas—of which we have too many in this country—of intergenerational unemployment, such as some coastal towns. In such areas, the statistics cannot take account of the drip-drip of negativity that these pupils experience when going home to a household where nobody works and where they know very few people who are in work.

Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was the question of teacher recruitment. The Labour Party does like to make a crisis out of the perennial challenge of recruiting teachers. The reality is that the teacher vacancy rate has remained stable at about 1% or below for the past 15 years and, on several occasions during the last Labour Government, was higher than it is now. However, I will write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about our teacher recruitment strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, had certain concerns about voluntary adoption agencies. Personally, I think the fact that 140 of 152 local authorities have bid for the regional support fund shows the enthusiasm with which local authorities are embracing this approach.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that the interests of all children will be critical to what lies behind the regional adoption agencies. Concerning her more general remarks about children in care, I reply that under the last Parliament we took many steps to improve the support for looked-after children. This included £99 million in funding through the Pupil Premium Plus grant, a new duty on local authorities to appoint a virtual school head, strengthening quality standards for residential settings and launching a cross-government strategy for care leavers. At the moment, we are looking at how we might build on this and do more to support care leavers, particularly those not in education.

The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about the democratic deficit caused by removing consultation when a school becomes an academy. What we on this side of the House are concerned about is the education deficit that takes place in failing schools by the frequent exploitation of the democratic process and the fact that it takes, on average, a year for a failing school to become a sponsored academy. This is often because of roadblocks put in the way by dogmatic influences and people putting the interests of adults ahead of those of children.

We heard from my noble friend Lord Harris, whose academy group is one of our top-performing sponsors. I pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of his group and the thousands of children’s lives that he has improved as a result. When the Harris Federation took over the failing school Downhills, opponents tried to block the change through judicial reviews and various other tactics—they even made a film about their opposition. However, their attempts failed. Members of the Harris Federation did not let this deter them. This was not a popularity contest but something that was absolutely needed to help the children of Downhills.

In my experience, it took almost two years for the Pimlico Academy to open as a sponsored academy from the point at which it was judged to have special measures. The transformation was delayed by various objectors. People resorted to tactics that included consistently lying about us in the press, lying to pupils about our plans, breaking into my office, finding someone who had no real interest in the project but who qualified for legal aid to front up a judicial review application all the way to the Court of Appeal—all the applications along the way were thrown out fairly quickly by judges at huge cost to the public purse—and even resorting to having Pimlico pupils lying in coffins on the pavement so that my wife and I had to step over them on the way to a meeting. This was all done to further the interests of adults and for petty dogmatic principles rather than worrying about the education of pupils. These delays cost hundreds of children lost educational opportunities, yet when after just two years, which was a record time, the school was transformed from special measures to outstanding, many of the same people asked to become the friends of Pimlico Academy. Also, while many of the original teachers had left, many others stayed. Others who had objected to the original proposals were lifted by the oxygen of success and have now transformed their own performance.

I am big enough and ugly enough to put up with the kind of nonsense we experienced at Pimlico, but I do not see why other sponsors should. More importantly, as the Secretary of State for Education has said on a number of occasions, a day spent in a special measures school is a day too long for the pupils in that school. Parents do not want their children in a failing school, and that is why we are bringing in proposals to speed up the process by which failing schools become sponsored academies.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, it is all very well for the Minister to blow his own trumpet, and I am glad that he has had success in Pimlico. But he is using that and other arguments to say that, if democracy is too much of an inconvenience, we can just set it aside. Is that what this country is really about?

[Lord Nash]

Consistent with our manifesto pledge and the Queen’s Speech, we are bringing forward proposals in this Bill, if it is passed, whereby in certain circumstances a school will become an academy, and we feel that there should be no delays in that. All too frequently there are delays.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Yes—

[Lord Nash]

Yes to what?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

So democracy can be suspended when it is an inconvenience.

[Lord Nash]

No, democracy can be suspended where it is in the interests of the children. Rather than us proposing a democratic deficit, we are seeking to stop the abuse of the democratic process that takes place by vested interests. In addition to Downhills and Pimlico causing vast loss of educational opportunities, delays happened in the cases of The Warren, Camden Juniors, Twydall Primary, Roke, Bydales, Eton Porny, Manor Primary and many, many others.

The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, expressed their views about the inspection of academy chains. I agree that it is critical that multi-academy trusts are held to account for their performance. At his most recent appearance before the Education Select Committee, the Chief Inspector of Education, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was clear that the current arrangements, whereby Ofsted can inspect batches of schools within an academy trust at the same time, are appropriate. The Government do not consider that Ofsted should have an additional role in judging a trust’s central functions or operating model. As part of its assurance role, the Education Funding Agency already assesses the financial and governance arrangements of academy trusts to ensure that they are operating in line with the Academies Financial Handbook and the terms of their funding agreement. A point was made about parents. Through our free schools programme, parents are driving this and free schools are more accountable to parents than any other kind of school. Parents have often fought for the development of a school of a certain type or with a certain ethos.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who cut swiftly to the chase in his speech. I was impressed with his concept of pace and impatience because it is the feeling of pace and impatience which characterises our most successful sponsors. Regional schools commissioners will identify as soon as possible those schools which are coasting, seeking to bring about change for the better as quickly as possible. The five years he referred to of course include two years of history which have already passed, and sadly we cannot put the clock back. As far as his comments about IT are concerned, I wholly agree with the importance of this area in helping to assess the progress and attainment of pupils, and in identifying those pupils who are not being properly served.

I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely for his work in the Diocese of Ely Multi-Academy Trust; he knows that I share his interest in the importance of character development. I also share his concerns about consistency of practice, and I hope that the Schools Causing Concern guidance will provide considerable clarity on this. I also look forward to working with him on refreshing the memorandum of understanding that we have with church schools. We had a helpful meeting this morning and I will work with him to ensure that we achieve the consistency that he desires. The right reverend Prelate succinctly summarised the importance of school-to-school support, as did the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made an extremely eloquent maiden speech and I welcome him to your Lordships’ House. I had the very great pleasure of meeting him for the first time this morning and sharing some thoughts. I am delighted that he has become the chair of the David Ross Education Trust, which sponsors more than 30 academies. I am sure that the trust will benefit greatly from his involvement.

During the last Parliament we created hundreds of local multi-academy trusts based around one local outstanding school and we focused national chains on local hubs. It is acknowledged that the best way to improve failing schools is through local school-to-school support. The Government believe that the evidence is clear that the best way to provide such support—the most rigorous, the most permanent, the most efficient and the most accountable support—is through a multi-academy trust. People who run multi-academy trusts, some of whom were very against academies in the first place, talk glowingly about their advantages: a sense of being in control of their own destiny; the ability to retain staff they know they would have lost if they were running only one school; the career development opportunities through the ability to move staff around schools; the enhanced CPD opportunities; the ability to finance far higher-quality people; the economies of scale achieved through purchasing efficiencies, standardisation of assessment, and many more.

We now have enough multi-academy trusts performing really well to know that there is a gold standard out there to which all can aspire. This has been recognised by many commentators, including the Sutton Trust. People such as Outwood Grange, REAch2, Harris, the Inspiration Trust and smaller groups such as WISE and Tudhoe are setting the bar really high. With strong oversight from the RSCs, we will ensure that poor performing groups up their game, and the RSCs are holding many events where strongly performing groups such as Outwood Grange share their experiences and methodology. Outwood Grange’s record is superb. It has been holding a series of roadshows around the country and it has put its entire school improvement methodology on to a memory stick. We want to do far more of this kind of development. The Sutton Trust has said that the best academy chains are outperforming and some are substantially outperforming. The job of the regional schools commissioners and my job is to spread good practice and intervene in failure so that all groups raise their game towards the standards of the very good, and this Bill is about helping them to do that.

I was very interested to hear that my noble friend Lady Eaton is a trustee of the Sir Simon Milton Foundation because Sir Simon was a truly great man whose ambitions for the academy programme and for the children of Westminster were enormous. He was also extremely courageous. I am grateful for her words of support in relation to our adoption proposals because I know that she is extremely experienced in that field.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, spoke eloquently on a number of points. I am always very interested to hear her remarks because she is always worth listening to. We had many constructive discussions during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, and this is our first discussion since then. I have to say that I have missed her. I agree entirely that structure is not the be-all and end-all. What really matters is what is taught in the classroom and how. She also talked about the advantages of collaboration. We believe that the freedoms provided by academy status in a MAT structure as I have just outlined are the best way to ensure such collaboration. Why do we need a power to issue our own warning notices when we can direct local authorities to do so? Unless a school is in category 4, it is because the regime that follows the warning notice is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. As Ofsted has reported, there are many examples where local authorities’ use of warning notices has been found wanting.

On the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Morris, about the only route out of failure being academies, I must respond by saying no. As I said in my opening remarks, we may well encourage many schools to stop coasting by using NLEs and seeking support from other schools which may not be academies, and as far as devolution is concerned, we see the regional schools commissioners and their elected head teacher boards as giving control over the school system to school leaders. On co-operating with other areas of the school system, we have a very good model in Birmingham through the Birmingham Education Partnership under Sir Mike Tomlinson, which is across all sectors.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about the capacity of regional schools commissioners. I can assure her that we will be very focused on the capacity that they have and on the capacity of sponsors. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Northbourne, talked about the coasting definition. On 30 June, the Government published illustrative regulations setting out how we propose to define coasting. This sets out the database definition which will be used to identify coasting schools. As I have said previously, this is focused particularly on secondaries and will be increasingly focused on Progress 8. I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about that, as we move away from what Tristram Hunt called the “great crime” of the C/D borderline. Shortly, we will launch a consultation on this definition and the Schools Causing Concern guidance, setting out how we propose that RSCs will tackle failing coasting schools. I reassure the House that this document and the consultation will be available for Peers to scrutinise during Committee stage.

This Bill is about schools causing concern but a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Morris, raised points about the performance of converter academies; that is, schools which are approved to become academies without a sponsor. The latest data from Ofsted show that almost 90% of converter academies are good or outstanding, which is a greater percentage than local authority maintained schools. The latest primary and secondary school results also show that the performance of converter academies is continuing to rise. In particular, secondary converter academies have improved their performance by double the rate seen in maintained schools.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about teacher retention. Almost 90% of teachers continue in the profession following their first year of teaching. This rate has remained stable since 2006. Recent reports suggesting a 40% leave ratio are completely inaccurate. Almost 75% of new teachers are still in the profession after five years. More than half of teachers who qualified in 1996 were still teaching 18 years later. The proportion of the teacher workforce that leaves each year has remained low over recent years. Just 10% of those teaching in 2013 were no longer in the workforce in 2014. Teacher retention has remained stable over time with very little variation over 10 years. I am delighted to arrange for the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to visit a sponsored academy soon.

As regards governing bodies and parents, all academies and multi-academy trust boards must have two parents on them. My noble friend Lady Perry talked about leadership, which is incredibly important. We have developed the future leaders MAT CEO course, which the department sponsored across 24 CEOs. This is being rolled out with 30 more going on the course this month and 30 next month. I am delighted that the Church of England is developing its own leadership development programme, which is so important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, talked about mental health support for children in care. All children and young people deserve to grow up feeling safe and supported, and the Government are committed to improving the mental health of the most vulnerable. I assure noble Lords that the Government are determined to deliver the transformation we need to see if we are genuinely to improve children’s mental health. We are working across government departments to respond to the challenges set out in the Future in Mind report. The Department of Health has identified £1.25 billion to improve mental health services for children, young people and new mothers over the next five years.

It is vital that we provide the best possible start in life for every child. That is why we are here today and why we need these reforms. The measures in this Bill are essential to ensuring high standards of education across the country and permanent loving homes for some of our most vulnerable children. I know that Members of this House have considerable expertise and have passionate views on how we should tackle these issues, which has been shown by tonight’s debate. I also know we agree on the objective that lies at the heart of the Bill and that every Member of this House has high expectations for our children.

The Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to real social justice and making a real difference to giving children the chance to aim for a brighter future. We have heard so many noble Lords speaking passionately about their own journey. This is an ambition which I am sure is shared by all who are here tonight. I look forward to debating this Bill further and I hope that all noble Lords who are interested will accept my invitation, which I will issue shortly, to attend a meeting on 2 November at 3 pm to meet with some regional schools commissioners and chief executives of academy trusts. Some noble Lords in particular might find that helpful.

I commend this Bill and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Education: British Values

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. Following the so-called Trojan horse scandal in Birmingham and the subsequent Ofsted inspection and reports, our Education Secretary of State commanded that every primary and secondary school should promote British values. The Prime Minister went on to say that we should be “more muscular” and less “bashful” about asserting our national identity. The Prime Minister said that every child in Britain should be taught about Magna Carta, the foundation of all our laws and liberties. I hope the teaching of Magna Carta will be better than that which the Prime Minister himself received. Noble Lords will recall that he had a bit of difficulty recalling Magna Carta on American television. I am sure an understanding of baronial rights and regulation of fish weirs and moneylenders can be made as relevant today as it was then.

As a direct result of the Ofsted reports into Birmingham, new clauses have been added to the model funding agreement for academies. It now stipulates that governors should demonstrate “fundamental British values” and gives the Secretary of State powers to close schools if they do not comply. These British values include respect for the law, for democracy and for equality, and tolerance of different beliefs. Of course, we have to be a little bit careful and not think we are the best in the world in our values. We have only to look through our own history to see recently how discrimination ripped through our country, how it affected gay people, how there was slavery and even the burning of people for their religious belief. Values are not set in concrete or stone; they change.

Both the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and religion, and today in Great Britain these liberal principles have never been in doubt. British individuals may identify themselves in different ways, but the notion of British identity is multifaceted and inclusive. British values reflect the pride we feel as a nation when we see a multicultural and ethnically diverse population working together to protect our democratic ideals and ensure that every child has access to the best possible education, regardless of their background. We cannot deny that the elements of Britishness stated by the Secretary of State are complex and open to interpretation. However, these intentions should not be written off as a pipe dream. We must not assume that such values lie out of our reach.

My previous experience as a teacher in a large inner-city primary school has highlighted to me the importance of citizenship education and its role in helping to shape future generations of young people and young adults. Citizenship education and improved political and social awareness are crucial to help youngsters understand one another. Education should be about not prescribing values or abiding by arbitrary morals and customs but being part of a respectful community of discourse on topics that affect us all. It is my firm belief that citizenship education is no different.

The Prime Minister expressed his desire for the Government to start inculcating British values in the curriculum. Having considered that, I find myself slightly bemused to see that academies and free schools—roughly half our secondary schools—can choose not to teach the subject at all and that routine Ofsted inspections do not review it. As a consequence, its omission goes overlooked in a majority of our schools. That needs to be reconsidered urgently. Our schools need clarity that citizenship must be delivered effectively under the national curriculum and will be inspected routinely—perhaps even with no notice, if that proves an effective tool to ensuring accountability—as part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every child deserves.

What happened among a few Birmingham schools does indeed raise a number of educational issues, which we have debated on many occasions in your Lordships’ House. Does it really make sense for some schools to be given the power to choose what they teach? Is not the curriculum too important to be solely in the hands of individual schools? Our inspection regimes must be universal and up to the mark. The Office for Standards in Education has to be the guarantor of quality; Ofsted’s reports must be the key to understanding how schools have performed. The suggestion that grade 1 schools might be exempt from inspection is dangerous. No school, however good, comes with a guarantee of permanent success. Standards can and do slip. Some 31% of schools graded “outstanding” in an inspection do not maintain that standard in the next inspection. Indeed, as we know, one of the Birmingham schools received an “outstanding” Ofsted inspection.

I was interested to read in an article written by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, in the Guardian:

“In truth, both the old model of local authority control and the new model of autonomy are flawed – and events in Birmingham should make us face up to it. Three organisations had the responsibility to spot and prevent failure in the Trojan horse schools – the Department for Education, the local authority and Ofsted. They all failed”.

I do not feel that being British or respecting British values is something that can be prescribed. The best way to unite Britons is to gain a mutual understanding and respect for each other.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

On that point of the people of Britain’s mutual understanding and respect, can the noble Lord explain why the wording of the Motion calls on Her Majesty’s Government to promote British values in all education institutions—presumably including colleges and universities—throughout the country, when Her Majesty’s Government have no control over education in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, as a result of devolution?

[Lord Storey]

I am glad the noble Lord raised that point, because it is something I have said on a number of occasions. In actuality, when we debate education issues in this House, we talk only of the education service in England; we do not talk about Wales or Scotland. It would be nice to have a debate where we learn from some of the examples of the Scottish and Welsh education systems. For example, Wales, which is often derided in this House for some of its failings in education, is up to the mark on careers education and counselling. I am sure there are such issues in Scotland. I very much support and agree with what the noble Lord has said.

As I was saying, children should at a young age achieve an understanding of each other through citizenship lessons. The idea of citizenship is based on mutual respect, which the Government have vehemently championed in recent weeks. These sentiments are based on tolerant, helpful and liberal values. In your Lordships’ House we engage in respectful and meaningful discussions. That is why we must encourage our young scholars, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, to do exactly the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I fear that the attempts to define and perhaps codify British values will be as difficult, and ultimately as successful, as trying to nail jelly to a wall. If we are looking for a definition of values, it is important that it is inclusive and cohesive. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, did not seem to quite get the point that I was making earlier about the very title of this debate, which suggests that due consideration has not been given to the various constituent parts of what is currently the United Kingdom, and which I fervently hope will remain the United Kingdom on 19 September this year. I refer to the casual approach, which almost says that England is Britain and Britain is England, that antagonises a lot of people in other parts of the UK.

I will give an example that will perhaps seem rather trite to noble Lords: the World Cup. I am a Scot domiciled in England, married to an Englishwoman, with a son who is therefore half-English. I bear the English football team absolutely no ill will and indeed I hoped that they would do well in the World Cup. But then I sit down and watch the game. Just before the game, the players line up and what happens? I hear “God Save the Queen”. I am sorry, but “God Save the Queen” is not the national anthem of England. It is the national anthem of the UK—play it at a ceremony at the Olympic Games. But at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next month, English athletes, who will probably win more medals than anybody else, will have their medals put round their necks after “Land of Hope and Glory” has been played, not “God Save the Queen”. There is an English national anthem. Whatever the English people want as a national anthem is up to them but I am sorry, it is not “God Save the Queen”, and that shows that greater thought has to be given, in this example and indeed others, to the inclusivity of the United Kingdom if we are really going to put together British values.

[Baroness Flather]

I am very interested in the national anthem. I am not sure that it relates exactly to the values in schools. If Scotland wants its own national anthem to be played on Scottish occasions, it is for Scotland to work for that, but it is not about values. Values in schools concern all of us, not just this country or that country.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I always listen to the noble Baroness very carefully and I enjoyed her recent contribution but I am not talking particularly about schools. We are talking about British values; it does not relate just to what is or is not said in schools. The point I am making is that, if we are going to have British values, it has to be much wider than that.

In closing, I will comment about Magna Carta apparently being mentioned as the centrepiece of any attempt to put together British values. I think that is strange, not least because, to come back to my original point, Magna Carta was a very English—not British—document. I will simply quote from the commentator Owen Jones, who wrote very recently about Magna Carta, highlighting the fact that the values of many people in Britain are diverse, quite apart from whichever part of the country they originate from. Mr Jones said:

“Here was a charter imposed by powerful barons—hardly nascent democrats—on the weak King John to prevent him trampling on their rights: it didn't satisfy them, and they rose in revolt anyway. It meant diddly squat to average English subjects, most of whom were serfs”.

Yet this is on what we are proposing to base a discussion around fundamental British values. I end where I began: I think it will prove to be a fool’s errand.

Education: 16 to 18 Year-olds

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, on securing this debate, not least because it took him nine months and I admire his perseverance. I also join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fink, on an admirable maiden speech. I am sure that he will make a considerable contribution to the workings of this House and I look forward to witnessing it.

The Government tell us that the EMA has to go because it has not proved its worth. Yet research by the 157 Group has shown that, in some colleges, the EMA has boosted attendance and course completion to more than 90 per cent. Students at Lambeth College in south London who receive the EMA are 13 per cent more likely to pass their courses than those who do not.

In its report assessing the success of the EMA, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that it resulted in a 20 per cent increase in participation among females and 14 per cent among males. A DfES survey found that the figure was, across the board, some 12 per cent. Surely a policy that increases participation among those groups most prone to chronic underachievement by somewhere in the 12 to 20 per cent range is a successful one, and should be built upon and not destroyed.

Further, given already or soon-to-be implemented cuts to benefits elsewhere, not least in housing benefit, the impact of EMA would increase if it remained in place. Families are surely far more likely to be comfortable about a 16 to 18 year-old staying in full-time education with EMA.

As other noble Lords have said, Mr Gove says that EMA has too much “dead weight” and points to a lack of firm evidence that it makes pupils stay on. However, official government figures estimate that an extra 10 to 12 per cent of pupils stay on. Surely that is a significant number. We are talking about some 60,000 young people who would in the main be unqualified, unemployed and educational drop-outs otherwise. How can something that benefits at least 60,000 youngsters be worth doing away with? I am well aware of the counter-argument, that there are those who benefit from it who do not really need it. But it is a universal benefit like many others. It is a safety net for the less well-off and should not be done away with simply because there are some people who receive it who do not benefit from it. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, highlighted the winter fuel allowance which, like him, I have received. I frankly question its value in the grander scheme of things.

The Government seem to have reacted in some small measure to the widespread criticism of this savage cut by announcing last week an additional £180 million to help students from the poorest families continue with their education. That is to be welcomed because it is being targeted at those students most in need, including those in care and those with disabilities. Yet it means simply that the Government are cutting the resources associated with the EMA by 60 per cent rather than 90 per cent, leaving the support to enable young people to stay on at school or college still far short of the £575 million provided through EMA.

We hear that of the £180 million, £110 million is to come from what is described as a contingency fund within the DfES while the source of the remaining £70 million is not clear. It is simply entitled Treasury funds. I am sure that I would not be alone in welcoming clarification of where that additional funding will come from. I would particularly like confirmation that it will not come from other 16 to 19 budgets within the DfES. Now we learn that replacing the scheme will actually cost far more than the additional £180 million announced. Information received by the Opposition from the House of Commons Library reveals that the Government may have to find up to £130 million more to fund a promise to maintain EMA for students who started two-year college courses last autumn and who will receive weekly payments of at least £20 until the end of the next academic year. Because Mr Gove has promised to protect only those on the top rate of £30 a week—a payment that will be cut to £20—it is expected to cost around £130 million on top of the £180 million bursary fund that he announced.

As has also been mentioned, the Secretary of State can apparently anticipate a robust knock on his door from none other than his friend, London’s mayor, who is concerned about a disproportionate impact of withdrawing EMA on young people in the capital. “I don't think we have seen the end of this story”, Mr Johnson told the BBC “Question Time” audience last week. On this point, if on no other, we can only hope that the mayor is correct.

Colleges have welcomed the Secretary of State’s intention to entrust them with maximum discretion to determine how the additional resources are to be spent, as there will be freedom to use them to fund transport, food and learning materials. Following the Secretary of State’s original announcement of the ending of EMA, colleges and students expressed great concern about transport costs, which an Association of Colleges survey had identified as a key barrier to students continuing with their courses. Ninety four per cent of colleges have stated that abolishing the EMA will affect students’ ability to travel to and from college.

Since 2000, colleges and schools have been able to claim so-called entitlement funding, specifically for activities which support a broad education for young people, resources that they use to pay for tutorials, additional courses and so-called enrichment activities such as sport and the creative arts. Colleges use the entitlement funding to directly support student achievement in their chosen courses and qualifications and to help them progress into higher education or employment. The Government’s 16 to 19 funding statement announced a massive cut in entitlement funding from 114 hours to 30 hours, as well as cutting the maximum funding for each student by 10 per cent.

A number of colleges use their entitlement funding to assist students with their applications to university, particularly those groups who are less well represented in higher education. Many activities supported by enrichment funding provide students with additional information for UCAS personal statements which, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, are becoming increasingly important for acceptance into Russell group universities. Some colleges use the funding to provide additional one-to-one coaching for students to prepare them for Oxbridge interviews—the kind of support that students at private schools receive as a matter of course, with long-established outcomes. The Government should reconsider this cut, given the impact it will have on disadvantaged young people in preparing them for an enriching life of post-school education or employment.

One major benefit to flow from devolved government to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is of course that young people in those parts of the UK will continue to receive EMA. That means that, unlike their counterparts in England, those school pupils and college students most in need will not be forced to leave education earlier than they or their parents would wish. Another factor affecting young people in education, along with those who are older, in one part of the UK differently from those in others is the so-called 16-hour rule. Officially, the rule applies across the UK. In response to a parliamentary Question which I submitted last year, Lord Freud replied:

“All Jobcentre … staff are given the same appropriate advice and guidance relating to full-time and part-time study to ensure that the rules are followed consistently”.—[Official Report, 9/12/10; col. WA 80.]

That may be the theory but it is not the practice. What is required most of all on the 16-hour rule is flexibility in the benefits system and the relaxation of its strict application. The previous Government had announced their intention to trial a relaxation of the 16-hour rule in certain areas. This Government have chosen not to do so.

Last year, Scotland’s Colleges—the equivalent of the Association of Colleges north of the border—published a report entitled Back to Work, which concluded that where the 16-hour rule is implemented strictly it acts as a clear disincentive to study and therefore to make a meaningful return to the job market. Students forced to go part time rather than full time are delaying their potential entry into the workforce. Many students want to take up a full-time college place but cannot do so because if they do they will lose their benefits. Colleges would not advise students to come off benefits just to study full time if that meant they would be worse off. As a result, they study part time and claim benefits for longer.

It is not the actual government regulations but the interpretation of full-time education that are the problem. The deciding factor appears to be whether or not a course or qualification has been designated full time or part time by the learning provider. However, there can be flexibility as shown in the way that the regulations are interpreted in Northern Ireland, but a willingness to interpret the rule more sensibly is unfortunately lacking in other parts of the UK.

The benefits system in Northern Ireland is different, although the 16-hour rule still applies there, but education opportunities have been adapted to make studying on benefits possible. A student is classed as full-time for further education purposes if they attend a minimum of 15 hours a week for seven sessions over a 30-week period. This allows the college to receive funding to provide the learning, but students can still collect benefits, as they are available for work and the course is less than 16 hours a week. Why cannot this flexibility be extended across the UK so that all can benefit from it? A blanket lifting of the rule would be preferable but, if that is deemed unacceptable by the Government, I very much hope that there might be, at the very least, selective relaxation to cover areas of high unemployment.