HL Deb 28 May 2002 vol 635 cc1322-8

(1) The governors of every maintained and independent school shall determine the drugs and alcohol policy for that school. (2) A school's drugs and alcohol provision shall provide that where a head teacher takes disciplinary action against a pupil under the terms of his school's drugs and alcohol policy, the parent of the pupil concerned may appeal to that school's governing body. (3) No appeal shall lie under subsection (3) save on procedural grounds. (4) On such an appeal, the governing body may—

  1. (a) confirm the head teacher's action, or
  2. (b) direct the head teacher to take such other action as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.
(5) The head teacher shall comply with any directions of the governing body given under subsection (4)(b). (6) The governing body shall notify the appellant and the head teacher in writing of their decision on such an appeal. The noble Baroness said: These days schools are receiving mixed messages from the Government about drugs and alcohol abuse. There is a relaxation of some drugs laws, relaxation of enforcement in some areas and downgrading of some drugs, but at the same time there is a wringing of hands over the incidence of drug taking and alcohol abuse among young people. It is a fact that drugs are now much cheaper and increasingly within the financial reach of many young people. My amendment seeks to support schools that in concert with parents determine policies on drugs and alcohol abuse, and where action is taken against a pupil who is in breach of the school's policy.

All too often, the head teacher is undermined by an appeals panel which reinstates an excluded pupil by second guessing the merits of the decision and not confining itself to procedural matters. Procedural matters are important, and I believe that the case should be reconsidered on that basis if necessary. When a case is found wanting on procedural grounds, rather than exonerating a pupil, the head teacher must reconsider the case properly using the procedural rules that apply.

I hope that the Minister will agree that nothing is more dispiriting for a head teacher who is fighting, with parents, against drug and alcohol abuse among school pupils than for his decision to be undermined by an appeals panel which requires reinstatement when there has simply been a technical hitch in reaching the decision. I think that this issue should be addressed, and I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

I support the amendment because there is such a problem with discipline in schools and it is often so difficult to identify the pupil who is supplying drugs to other pupils. Although the exclusion of such pupils is often based on a high index of suspicion, it is extremely hard to produce definitive proof. I feel quite strongly that the headmistress or headmaster deserves support.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

I think that all noble Lords agree on a desire to support head teachers who are dealing with these very difficult problems. I therefore agree with the intentions behind Amendment No. 361A. I believe, however, that drug and alcohol issues can be, and are best dealt with under the existing legal principles plus specialist guidance. Section 61 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that there are policies to promote good behaviour and discipline, of which drug and alcohol policies are clearly a part. Existing departmental guidance—"Drug Prevention and Schools"—already advises that all schools should have drug and alcohol policies, and evidence from Ofsted confirms that schools are complying. Beyond that, the standard of discipline and disciplinary measures are otherwise determined by the head teacher acting in accordance with the governing body's policies. We believe that this is the right approach.

The existing provisions for exclusion and exclusions appeals panels are also perfectly satisfactory to address these issues. However, I shall, of course, pick up the noble Baroness's point in a moment.

The noble Baroness's amendment, were it carried, would place additional burdens on schools' governing bodies by insisting that they review all disciplinary cases involving drugs and alcohol. As the Committee will be aware, currently discipline committees should review the use of exclusions within school, and decide whether or not to confirm exclusions of more than five school days or where a pupil would miss an opportunity to take a public examination. Under proposals elsewhere in Clause 49 of the Bill it is proposed to extend this five day period to 15 to cut the burden on governing bodies.

The noble Baroness's amendment would create enhanced rights of appeal to particular categories of pupils in breach of a school's behaviour and discipline policies. I do not support that. I do not think that pupils disciplined for drugs and alcohol offences should have greater rights than those disciplined for other reasons; for example, for violent behaviour.

I should though like to assure the Committee that we are taking a hard line on the issue of drugs dealing in school. Decisions on whether to exclude pupils are the responsibility of head teachers. Where a child is permanently excluded for dealing in drugs, for example, we fully support that head teacher's decision and would not expect an independent appeals panel to reinstate that child. That is what our revised guidance on exclusions says.

In addition, we are making sure that an appeals panel cannot reinstate on technical grounds. Within our guidance we look to ensure that the appeals panel would rehear the case and would not look at the issues in terms of a technical difficulty as regards the way in which the school handled it. We believe that those two measures of being supportive of head teachers on the basis of exclusion for drug dealing and making sure that technical hitches are not the reason for it are important.

We have also wanted to take a number of other steps. We are providing training for all new teachers in drugs education by September 2002. We are introducing new powers for Ofsted which will be tasked formally to assess the standard of drugs education in secondary schools. We are providing support for teachers with practical guidance and a new website for teachers to be launched in the summer. We are taking a new look at how different tactics, including shock tactics, on drugs can be effectively used when targeting certain age groups and within the wider educational framework. We are discussing with the Home Office new measures to tackle drug dealing in the vicinity of schools and which is targeted at young people of school age. We are producing new guidance for parents with emphasis on supporting head teachers in behaviour and drugs policies for young people of school age. Alcohol education will be given a higher priority, tackling the issue of under-age drinking which can often contribute to anti-social behaviour.

I hope that on the basis of all that I have said and the assurances I have given the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

1.30 a.m.

Baroness Blatch

The noble Baroness started by saying that she was concerned about additional burdens on appeals panels as they would have to reconsider so many cases. However, the only cases that I envisage they would have to reconsider under my amendment would be those where a decision was taken that was contrary to that taken by the head teacher. The noble Baroness was concerned about a level playing field and thought that somehow or other I had singled out drugs and alcohol abuse and ignored violence. I should like to include violence. Teachers are battling against all the odds. Head teachers are fighting in concert with parents against drugs, alcohol abuse, violence among pupils and even violence among parents. I should be happy to include the full range of abuses that can take place. I refer to a situation where all the action that a head teacher has to take preceding an exclusion has failed, he or she takes a decision to exclude and that decision is reversed by an appeals panel.

The noble Baroness made a further point which, frankly, I do not accept. She said that the Government would not expect an appeals panel to take a contrary view. I am sorry but appeals panels do take contrary views. Often a head teacher is undermined and his or her authority is damaged by that. Such a head teacher feels that he or she is trying to fight against the odds but some streetwise young people are returned to the school and make life absolute hell.

We shall have to return to this matter. The noble Baroness's response missed the point that I made. I shall withdraw the amendment now but I shall return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 195 agreed to.

Clause 196 agreed to.

Clause 197 [Baseline assessments]:

On Question, Whether Clause 197 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas

Why?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

That is a very straightforward question at this hour. We are removing the statutory duty on schools to carry out baseline assessments of children. Baseline assessment will be replaced with the foundation stage profile in the academic year 2002–03. Members of the Committee will be aware that we introduced the foundation stage in September 2000. It defines centrally for the first time that critical period of a child's development from the time when they enter education at three-plus until the end of the reception year.

Under the current system, 90 separate baseline assessment schemes are used in schools. The QCA consulted early years practitioners and experts between November 2000 and January 2001 on replacement arrangements for baseline assessment. That consultation showed strong support for the introduction of a single national scheme to sum up progress at the end of the foundation stage, which is the point at which children are expected to achieve early learning goals.

It is because the purpose and the timing of the assessment will shift from a diagnostic "on entry" assessment to an "end of foundation stage" assessment that the name of the assessment has been changed to "foundation stage profile". That provides a fixed reference point for all children at the relevant stage of their education whether in maintained primary schools or other settings. I assure noble Lords that it will be completed over a period during day-to-day classroom activity and it will involve the observation of teachers and practitioners. It will not therefore be a test that children pass or fail. Because the profile will be completed at the end of the foundation stage, children will be assessed by someone who has got to know them well and in a variety of circumstances, thus providing a truer picture of what they can do.

Also, because the assessment will be based on observations accumulated over a period of time, it should be less burdensome than the administration of baseline assessment, which has to be completed within seven weeks of a child starting school. After completion of the first trial of the foundation stage, involving 500 children in November 2001, 103 reception teachers returned completed questionnaires in which they recorded timings and rated various aspects of the profile. That showed that 94 per cent of teachers rated manageability as "satisfactory" or better. The majority of the teachers also considered that the proposed scheme would be an effective summary of their children's achievements at the end of the foundation stage.

The foundation stage profile will provide substantial evaluative information about each child that will be passed on to year one teachers and parents. Ninety per cent of teachers rated the scheme as either "helpful" or "very helpful" in providing information on a child to other members of staff, parents and year one teachers. The signs are that the profile will be warmly received by the early years sector and I therefore recommend that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Lucas

I am very grateful for that explanation. Am I right in thinking that the assessments will not be published but that they will form the basis for the key stage one "value added" in the primary schools to which children go on? Am I also right in thinking that they will not pay any particular attention to looking for the first signs of special educational needs, such as dyslexia, which, in severe cases, may be showing at that age? If I am right, why not?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

The information will be collected but not published. The value of it is to allow year one teachers to look at where children will go. It will play its part, I trust, in the early identification of children who have difficulties. As the noble Lord will I am sure agree, it is very important that children who have special educational needs are identified as early as possible. I hope that the profile will play its part in that.

Lord Lucas

I have had good answers to two of the three questions I asked. The third was: will the assessment form the baseline for "value added" in key stage one in primary schools, or will there have to be another measure for that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

I am sorry if I was not clear. Yes, it will indeed form that.

Clause 197 agreed to.

Clauses 198 and 199 agreed to.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 200 agreed to.

Clause 201 [Recoupment: special cases]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

moved Amendment No. 362: Page 122, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert— (3) The function mentioned in subsection (2) is to be treated as having been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38); and, accordingly, the transfer may be revoked or varied by an Order in Council under that section. The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 362, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 366. For the benefit of the Committee, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 367, 367A and 367B.

Government Amendment No. 362 concerns Clause 201. Section 494 of the Education Act 1996 enables regulations to be made to govern the transfer of funding where an excluded pupil moves to a new local education authority. Clause 201(2) transfers the regulation-making powers to the National Assembly for Wales where they relate to Wales. This amendment seeks to ensure that the making of such regulations is governed by the procedures of the National Assembly for Wales.

Government Amendment No. 366 is a technical amendment to a technical clause. It deals with the powers of the National Assembly for Wales to make subordinate legislation and provides that the new powers conferred by the Bill will be exercised in accordance with National Assembly procedures and will not be subject to UK parliamentary procedures. With those explanations, I trust that the Committee will agree to accept the amendments.

Amendment No. 267 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, proposes to leave out subsection (4)—

Baroness Blatch

Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness in relation to this amendment. Had he been here, my noble friend would have said that he would not press this amendment or even speak to it because it has been subsumed in other amendments. Therefore, the noble Baroness is relieved from the fag of having to address it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

Perhaps I may pass on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am grateful to her for raising this very important issue. I wrote to the noble Baroness on the matter and sent a copy of my letter to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford. In the letter, I indicated that I could happily give her my assurance, in the same way as I did during debate on a similar concern that she raised during the Committee stage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, that we intend to amend the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, subject to the approval of Parliament, to include a table setting out the effects of the Bill in relation to Wales on a part-by-part basis.

I completely accept, as I did on a former occasion in relation to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, that the noble Baroness has raised an extremely important point. I am happy to reassure her that the Government will be able to meet her concerns in the way that I have explained. I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for having written to me and for her kind words at this late hour. I am also extremely grateful that my suggestion has been taken up by the Government. I have already received feedback that that has caused delight to people in Wales. Therefore, I shall not be moving my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 201, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 202 agreed to.

Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 363: After Clause 202, insert the following new clause—