PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

EDUCATION BILL

Twelfth Sitting Thursday 17 March 2011 (Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 5 to 7 agreed to. CLAUSE 8 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till Tuesday 22 March at half-past Ten o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 137) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 21 March 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 443 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 444

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MR CHARLES WALKER,†HYWEL WILLIAMS

† Boles, Nick (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) † Hendrick, Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) † Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) † Hilling, Julie (Bolton West) (Lab) † Creasy, Stella (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) † McPartland, Stephen (Stevenage) (Con) † Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her † Munn, Meg (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op) Majesty’s Treasury) † Munt, Tessa (Wells) (LD) Durkan, Mark (Foyle) (SDLP) † Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD) Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con) † Stuart, Mr Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) † Gibb, Mr Nick (Minister of State, Department for † Wright, Mr Iain (Hartlepool) (Lab) Education) † Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab) Sarah Thatcher, Richard Ward, Committee Clerks † Gyimah, Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con) †Hayes,MrJohn(Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning) † attended the Committee 445 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 446

of their education, including arranging any disciplinary Public Bill Committee penalties in a way that does not undermine their caring responsibilities. Thursday 17 March 2011 Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): I accept that a responsible teacher would act in that way, but does the (Afternoon) Minister agree that there is strong evidence that teachers in schools are not always fully aware of the home [HYWEL WILLIAMS in the Chair] situation of young carers, and that at least if there were 24 hours’ notice, there would be a chance for the young Education Bill carer to try to make some alternative arrangements with relatives and so on? Clause 5

REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO GIVE NOTICE OF Mr Gibb: I understand that point, but we have to go DETENTION TO PARENT:ENGLAND further than that and ensure that we put in place Amendment proposed (this day): 40, in clause 5, strategies to enable schools to identify who the young page 10, line 11, after ‘Wales’ insert carers are. It was only on Wednesday last week that ‘or a pupil at a school in England who has responsibility for caring Moira Fraser from the Princess Royal Trust for Carers for family members’.—(Kevin Brennan.) said to me that until we know who the young carers are, we cannot do much to support them, which reflects the 1pm hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Question again proposed, That the amendment be Legislation is not the answer in this case. I urge those made. Members who raised the issue to look at the work that The Chair: I remind the Committee that with this we the Government have done and are doing on issues are discussing the following: amendment 41, in clause 5, affecting young carers. The Government’s carers strategy, page 10, line 11, after ‘Wales’ insert “Recognised, valued and supported: Next steps for the ‘or pupils in England under the age of 14’. Carers Strategy”, encourages local authorities to consider Amendment 42, in clause 5, page 10, line 11, at end adopting the memorandum of understanding, “Working insert— together to support young carers”, which states that no care package should rely on a young person taking on ‘(2) Where a school in England requires a pupil to be detained outside school hours with no notice, the school must have given inappropriate caring roles. full consideration on the implications for the parent or carer of The Department for Education is working closely the pupil.’. with the Department of Health to provide the National Amendment 43, in clause 5, page 10, line 11, at end YoungCarers Coalition with a healthy schools e-learning insert— module that will help schools to identify and support ‘(2) Where a school in England requires a pupil to be detained young carers. The Government are also working closely outside school hours, the school must give reasonable notice to with voluntary organisations such as the Princess Royal the parent or carer of the pupil and before the detention occurs Trust for Carers and the Children’s Society which will the school must have received from the parent or carer receive funding over the next two years through my confirmation that the parent or carer is aware of the detention.’. Department’s new voluntary and community sector Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 10, line 11, at end grant programme. insert— ‘(2) Where a school in England requires a pupil to be detained I hope that hon. Members will agree, given the safeguards outside school hours, the school has a duty to establish the child that are in place, that we should trust head teachers to has a safe and suitable means of getting home after the make appropriate and reasonable decisions about notice detention.’. to parents of a detention, taking account of all the When the Committee adjourned this morning, the relevant local circumstances. I therefore urge the hon. Minister was responding to the debate on the amendments. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Given the scope of the debate that we have already had, I am not minded to allow a debate on clause stand part. Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for his response. It is only fair that I should say at the outset that when a The Minister of State, Department for Education little piece of detailed policy suffers a little under intense (Mr Nick Gibb): Thank you, Mr Williams, and welcome scrutiny, there is often a temptation for a Minister to back. We have had an extensive debate on the amendments. move into an unfocused, existential, generalist rant I wish to return to Members’ concerns about young about something. I may have ranted at the beginning of carers in relation to the clause. I agree with them that this morning’s debate— support for young carers is crucial. As I said this morning, there is already a legal requirement in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that disciplinary Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): penalties must be reasonable in all circumstances, and Hansard will show it. additional legislation would do little to help such children. The current requirement for 24 hours’ written notice Kevin Brennan: I fully accept that Hansard will show does not guarantee that alternative arrangements can whether that is true, but the Minister may have responded be made to cover their caring responsibilities. The key in kind with his implicit accusation that people on this issue, as hon. Members have said, is that teachers are side of the House do not care about behaviour and able to recognise which children are carers and make discipline in schools. Of course we do. In fact, the the necessary arrangements to support them in all aspects record shows quite clearly the measures that were taken 447 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 448 by the previous Government to strengthen this, as we The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss will see once we get out of the party rhetoric and return the following: to the measure we are talking about—the clause, the Amendment 46, in clause 6, page 10, line 14, at end amendments and the detail of it—and away from the insert— existential crisis, the idea that the country is going to hell in a handcart, that seems to emerge whenever we ‘(2) Subsection (1) shall not come into force before 1 September 2013, and only after Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, probe the detail of the Government’s behaviour proposals. Children’s Services and Skills has reported that voluntary partnerships We have had a good debate, as you have said, for behaviour and attendance partnerships are working in all local Mr Williams. We are not convinced that the Government’s authorities.’. case is proven for the necessity of this measure, which Amendment 69, in clause 6, page 10, line 14, at end repeals something introduced by a previous Conservative insert— Government—not even a coalition Government. ‘(2) The Secretary of State must commission a report within 24 months to evaluate the impact of eliminating the duty to Mr Stuart: We are more liberal now. provide Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships.’.

Kevin Brennan: It is surprising that the Chair of the Select Committee says that we are more liberal now. I Kevin Brennan: Clause 6 repeals the duty to enter into am not sure that this really qualifies as a liberal measure; behaviour and attendance partnerships. If I were being I suppose it depends on which flexible definition of that unkind to the Minister, which I do not want to be—I term one chooses in order to define one’s philosophy. assume that he is replying to this—I would launch into Not to prolong matters any further, I will not press an existential rant at this point about the world going to amendments 40, 41, 42 and 44 to a vote, but I ask the hell in a handcart because of the way he is diluting the Committee to join me in voting for amendment 43. I previous Government’s commitment to behaviour. The beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 40. previous Government created a duty, as recommended Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. by Sir Alan Steer in his independent report to the Government on behaviour, to enter into behaviour and Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 5, page 10, line 11, at attendance partnerships. I could also go down the route end insert— of accusing the Minister of being weak on behaviour, ‘(2) Where a school in England requires a pupil to be detained but he will be relieved to know that I shall not do so. outside school hours, the school must give reasonable notice to Instead, I will focus on the detail of the proposal and the parent or carer of the pupil and before the detention occurs the school must have received from the parent or carer our amendments. confirmation that the parent or carer is aware of the The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the detention.’.—(Kevin Brennan.) abolition and repeal taking effect—if the Government Question put, That the amendment be made. are absolutely intent on ramming the measure through using their majority in both Houses—until behaviour The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. and attendance partnerships have had a chance to get Division No. 6] up and running fully across the country. I recognise that partnership working by its very nature requires co-operation, AYES but I also recognise that in order to kick-start productive Brennan, Kevin Hilling, Julie partnership working a bit of stick is required. Sometimes Creasy, Stella Munn, Meg a duty needs to be created to get something embedded Glass, Pat thoroughly into the culture of a system. The amendment Hendrick, Mark Wright, Mr Iain would ensure that behaviour and attendance partnerships become thoroughly embedded across the country and NOES aims to avoid the risk of issues arising in areas without Boles, Nick McPartland, Stephen behaviour and attendance partnerships. Duddridge, James Munt, Tessa I recall the creation of grant-maintained schools Gibb, Mr Nick back in the 1980s and 1990s, when a culture was created Rogerson, Dan Gyimah, Mr Sam that meant schools were deeply in competition with Hayes, Mr John Stuart, Mr Graham each other, rather than being part of a family of schools, serving the children, young people and families of those Question accordingly negatived. communities. Often, that led to some extremely unhealthy Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), outcomes in terms of behaviour policies, exclusions and That the clause stand part of the Bill. so on. The advantage of behaviour and attendance partnerships is that there is a commitment on the part Question agreed to. of all schools in an area to work together to tackle some Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. of these issues. When that happens, schools become more empowered to deal with the issues. Unlike the Clause 6 Minister, I feel that a concern about making sure that we have good standards of behaviour and attendance in REPEAL OF DUTY TO ENTER INTO BEHAVIOUR AND our schools is shared across the House. Instead of ATTENDANCE PARTNERSHIP creating a fragmented system, the Government should be working hard to make sure that schools are working Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 45, in in partnership with each other and with other bodies clause 6, page 10, line 13, at beginning insert ‘Subject to best to meet the needs of local students, their families subsection (2)’. and the local community. 449 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 450

[Kevin Brennan] be context to that freedom and autonomy. Even the Government would accept that there have to be guidelines Partnerships create capacity by enabling groups of to ensure that that exists. The duty is important and the schools to employ specialist staff—whether that relates Government should think very carefully before they to the psychiatric support that might be required or to withdraw it. Children and their families are entitled to a social workers, parent support workers and so on. Individual good quality service from the local schools, wherever schools can struggle to do that on their own often they are. Collaboration is so important that it should because there is a lack of economy of scale—or, indeed, not be left to the whim of one particular local head, financial economies of scale—in the expertise that is who may have a problem with that. required. That position is certainly supported by the The NASUWT told us that the clause will reduce National Union of Teachers, which told us that provision and reduce parents’ ability to have their voices “Behaviour partnerships have worked well in most heard. It stated: areas…Partnership working between schools and alternative provision “Combined with the removal of the independent appeals panels, including short stay schools and special schools is a positive way this is likely to reduce the provision parents may be able to access in which staff can work more effectively together to support to support a child with behavioural problems.” pupils in managing their own behaviour without recourse to exclusion…behaviour partnerships can enable schools to facilitate It felt that the provision would ‘managed moves’ with the least disruption to the pupil.” “limit the opportunities to support excluded or marginalised For all those reasons, this kind of partnership is very children, often from minority groups or subjected to bullying”— important, particularly for small schools and primary an issue that both sides have raised during the debate— schools. The clause exposes the fact that, in thinking “cutting them adrift from local support and provision.” about the matter, the Government have not given deep It went on: enough thought to the needs of the small primary “The behaviour and attendance partnerships provided an schools for which this kind of partnership can be extremely opportunity for stakeholder groups including parents and their important. representatives to be involved with these initiatives. This provision in the Bill reduces the opportunities for parents to be actively The clause exposes a lack of coherence in the involved.” Government’s thinking. On the one hand, for example, The NASUWT was backed up by the NUT, which they say that they are trying to create academy chains of said that the requirement that maintained schools and schools, which is to be welcomed. On the other hand, academies must co-operate with each other—with at they are effectively downgrading—watering down and least one partner, anyway—for the purpose of promoting sending out a signal—about the concept of school good behaviour and discipline among pupils was an partnerships. We need schools to be able to deal with important one. their own problems, wherever that is humanly possible, but they should also ensure that structures are in place The NAS was worried that the removal of the duty to get the support of other schools, should they need for a school to be involved in a behaviour and attendance that. partnership constituted a retrograde step and undermined a cohesive and co-operative approach to sharing responsibility for pupil behaviour. Its fear was that 1.15 pm schools that acted in isolation from other schools to The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong tackle issues of pupil indiscipline could adversely impact Learning (Mr John Hayes): The hon. Gentleman is on local communities, because it would mean that there rightly making a case for small schools, which many was not a joined-up approach to antisocial behaviour or members of the Committee and I would support. The to truancy. For that reason, it felt that the clause that incoherence he describes surely lies at the heart of the the Government have introduced was not in the public Opposition perspective, which celebrates freedoms over interest. matters such as governance. He will know that the Schools have a responsibility to the community. Most former Secretaries of State, the right hon. Member for accept that and most behave well in trying to discharge Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that responsibility.However, sometimes it is not discharged and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood well. I have certainly seen that happen in my professional (Ed Balls) have talked about academies having imaginative career. Such a duty is important because, without it, the and innovative approaches to management, governance, impact on schools, communities and pupils can be teaching and curriculum. In all kinds of ways, previous severe. Partnerships lead to schools establishing and Labour Secretaries of State have advocated that freedom following a code of conduct in the interests of all, and and those differences. With respect, the incoherence is the amendment would ensure that those partnerships in not understanding that, with proper collaboration, are well in place and working properly before the such freedoms can be reconciled with the community, Government abolish the duty if they are intent on doing which the hon. Gentleman describes, and the relationships so. I commend it to the Committee. with other institutions. I do not understand why that is Amendment 69 was tabled by the Chair of the Select such a problem for him. Committee. It asks for the Secretary of State to commission a report within 24 months to evaluate the impact of Kevin Brennan: I do not think that it is a problem. I eliminating the duty. It is a welcome proposal. If the do not have a problem with the freedoms that academies Government remove the duty, it is important that we have, and that schools should have to manage their own see the impact on behaviour. affairs. But I know from experience that creating partnerships is important. Making sure that they are in Mr Stuart: I sympathise with some of the points place across the country is important in the interests of made by the shadow Minister. Evidence to the Select the school, the students and their families. There has to Committee was mixed, with some saying that making it 451 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 452 compulsory that people enter such partnerships did fashion to deliver exactly the kind of outcomes that all not necessarily make them work and that voluntary parts of the Committee would wish to see. So that is the participation was needed. However, everyone agreed on position. the importance of co-ordination and working together. The Education Committee’s “Behaviour and Discipline Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as long as the in Schools” report took evidence from various witnesses message goes out that such co-operation is to be encouraged, who, backing up what I have just said, confirmed that the removal of compulsion might not lead to a drop in “working in partnership with other schools, local services the quality of co-ordination and partnership between and the wider community to draw on local expertise schools? and resources”— is— Kevin Brennan: We do not know the answer to what is “of critical importance in addressing challenging behaviour, including a fair question. We must remember that the duty was exclusions.” not something that the previous Government introduced However, one head teacher said to our inquiry that lightly. I understand the concern of the Minister not to introduce over-bureaucratic burdens on schools and “even if you require people to participate in partnerships, they can be there in spirit but not in body and vice versa, so required head teachers. It was a duty recommended by Sir Alan partnership working tends to produce no better effects than Steer as part of his work on behaviour and attendance. I voluntary…partnership working.” visited his school while he was still a head teacher and [Interruption.] The shadow Minister suggests that some saw his work on behaviour and attendance, and I must people who are press-ganged into attendance at Bill say how impressive it was. He certainly never gave up on Committees do not always attend—they may be here in anyone despite their difficult backgrounds and problems body, but they may not always be here in spirit. There that they had experienced as young people, often leading may be some truth in that. them to achieve tremendous results. We did not introduce the duty to put a bureaucratic burden on schools, but Sue Bainbridge from National Strategies told us, in because Sir Alan Steer asked us to introduce it. The evidence to the Education Committee, that in relation duty has not really been given a chance to work by the to the end of the requirement: Government, so it should not be taken away. However, “Some partnerships will use it as an excuse now for schools to if they insist on its removal, we must know the consequences, drop out. At the end of the day, schools will work with schools so we will be happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s that they can benefit from.” amendment were it to be pressed to a Division. She went on to say: “We may find that”— Mr Stuart: It is a pleasure to serve under your some schools— chairmanship again, Mr Williams. As has been said by “are not as welcome into the partnership, because they negatively the shadow Minister, amendment 69 would require the contribute to the number of excluded pupils without doing their Department for Education to bit to contribute in a positive way”. “commission a report within 24 months to evaluate the impact of She was, if I recall, as mixed in her views as the overall eliminating the duty to provide Behaviour and Attendance balance of evidence, which suggested that there would Partnerships.” be benefits to compulsion remaining, but that that In October 2010, the Government made the sensible compulsion was not all necessarily a good thing. decision to free schools from bureaucratic requirements and allowed them to decide how to allocate resources to The schools White Paper proposed the piloting of a support improved behaviour in schools. The general new approach to managing permanent exclusions, whereby drift of giving greater trust, power and autonomy to schools would be held accountable for the pupils they head teachers on the front line is one that I and the exclude. We have discussed that already in the Committee, cross-party Education Committee broadly support. or we have discussed the possible incentives that that would create for schools to behave in positive ways and As the shadow Minister said, Sir Alan Steer who has more negative ways. Of course, if that piloted approach worked a great deal in such areas has long been of the were to be extended more widely, that would be likely to belief that behaviour and attendance partnerships have act as a disincentive to exclusion, but would perhaps a vital part to play in ensuring that schools work encourage schools to work more in partnership together. together, when they might not naturally wish to do so. We need to remember that, although the Government The shadow Minister gave a reasonable and balanced are removing the requirement, they are not abolishing speech. If we created a framework that set up the right behaviour and attendance partnerships. They are not incentives for people to behave in the right way, and saying that schools should not co-operate. They are not which, in general, led to that, then that would be a saying that schools should not find common sense ways better situation than one in which we, sitting at this level of working together, whether on managing moves or of Government, prescribed precisely how people should academy change. I guess that we will hear from the behave. Therefore I hope—though I am by no means Minister on that. certain, which is why I tabled my amendment—that the Government will be able to correct that framework and The assessment is that the removal of the requirement have those positive outcomes, but my amendment suggests to participate means that those schools for whom it is a review to find out, on the ground, whether that does not appropriate—perhaps because they are part of a deliver. chain that takes care of themselves most effectively—are not forced to spend time in meetings with members of the partnership in order to tick the box to show that Kevin Brennan: That is an interesting point, but I they are doing that, when in fact they are part of wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will indicate, from working together with other schools in some federated his experience, what he thinks would be the factors— 453 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 454

[Kevin Brennan] In further response to the shadow Minister’s point, by sending signals today and in the framework and I presume he is talking about nudge theory—that would accountability mechanisms that they set in place for nudge schools into doing that anyway, without there schools, the Government might be able to encourage having to be a statutory duty. the co-operation and participation of schools, so that compulsion is not required. I hope that both sides of 1.30 pm the Committee accept that that will result in a better outcome than our prescribing precisely what schools Mr Stuart: I just touched on one factor. Some people should attend and telling them how they should do so. were very rude about the suggestion that schools should remain responsible for excluded pupils—extremely rude about it, as I recall, suggesting that it was entirely crazy. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): I am There are difficulties, but if the pilot were to become delighted to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and more general—we have discussed that already—then Holderness, who is starting to arrive at some of the that continuing responsibility, and the fact that the cost same concerns that we have about some of the changes, of alternative provision is so high, would hopefully lead and their implications in reality. There is a difference to very early intervention. I hope that that would lead between arguing for what we would like to see happen schools to co-operate with other schools in the surrounding and how we get there. If everyone agrees that partnership area. I hope that they would seek to maintain partnerships working and collaboration between schools is a good with nearby schools at which children might be more and helpful thing, duties to work in those sorts of ways likely to be happy, well adjusted and able to learn. are not restricting—they are empowering, because they The Education Committee heard mixed evidence, so ensure that everyone participates and every area benefits compulsion to participate may not be the right answer. from the positive results of people working together. The Government and the Minister need to send out a I note that the Government believe that partnership clear message that the measure is not a signal that we is a good thing. I am sad to see that the amendment I think every school should be atomistically fighting only have tabled is not in the group, because it relates to my for itself, and should put its head down and solve only experience on the ground of people working together, its own problems. When it comes to behaviour and particularly on gang violence and gang behaviour, and discipline, co-operation with other schools is a strength. the implications of those not only for schools, but for Such co-operation should not only be between schools the wider community outside the school gates. From my that are dealing with same cohort; secondary schools experience, we cannot resolve such issues within a school should work with primary schools, and they should alone, or even within a small partnership with a number have consistent policies. The great message from Alan of schools. In areas where there are several schools that Steer, and everyone else who has ever looked at behaviour face challenging issues in the locality, such partnerships and discipline, is that we need consistency. When we allow people to get to grips with what happens inside walk into a school, we should see on every classroom, the classroom as well as outside the school gates. board, and whiteboard: “This is how we do things The Government state: here.” “All evidence and experience suggests stronger partnerships, We know that many children kick off when they greater integration of services and a shared purpose for all those working with and for children and families lead to better services move to secondary school and go into an alien environment. for children, young people and families—especially the most We should create consistency between primary and vulnerable. The core principle of a shared commitment to improve secondary schools, so that such transition is less challenging. the lives of children, young people and families—enshrined in the The more we build co-operation and a smooth path for ‘duty to cooperate’ on local strategic bodies – remains as important young people, the more we are likely to promote good as it ever was.” behaviour, and thus learning and so on. That is why the clause and the repeal feel like an attempt Amendment 69 is based on the Education Committee at consistency on the basis of a philosophical principle, recommendation in paragraph 121 of its report, “Behaviour rather than an evidence-based approach to how good and Discipline in Schools”: services could be created for young people. That is “The Government has decided to remove the requirement for why Opposition Members urge caution in accepting schools to be part of a Behaviour and Attendance Partnership the clause. My amendment reflected my experience of (BAP). However, the Government should monitor areas where the impact of safer schools partnerships, particularly voluntary partnerships do not exist ”— the role of schools working together and with the local we know from evidence provided to the Education police, youth services, health care services and social Committee that the quality of partnerships is variable— workers. That can make a real difference to some challenging “or are not operating effectively. The Government should be problems. prepared to reverse its decision on BAPs if voluntary partnership I agree wholeheartedly with Sir Alan Steer’s initial working fails to deliver behavioural improvements.” approach to behaviour and attendance partnerships. He The Government should not simply take an entrenched argued that they position and regard any change in policy as a reverse. “are formed when secondary schools in one area come together to They should say that, generally, evidence shows that pool resources and collaboratively challenge poor behaviour and voluntary participation, rather than compulsion, leads attendance” to better outcomes. I hope, however, that they accept and that they that they cannot be certain that the voluntary approach “have had a dramatic effect on helping identify problems before will be enough to bring positive outcomes. They should they become ‘crises’”. be prepared, therefore, to consider holding a review One of my fears about the proposal and the idea that we after, say, two years, which would allow time for the will leave it to chance that people will work together to measure to settle in. address the issues is that we will only see a willingness 455 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 456 to intervene when there are particularly bad problems which is what I think the clause will do. The things for in areas where there has been no co-ordination, rather which they stand are those exact things that the Government than that being a commonplace approach to working have told us repeatedly in Committee that they seek to together. support. Sir Alan Steer also argues that the partnerships are a classic example of where good, early intervention makes Mr Stuart: I am sure that they do not mean to do so, a difference in dealing with those kinds of problems and but, at times, Opposition members of the Committee helps schools develop sound like a parody of themselves. It is as if they are “clear protocols for how and when to move a child to a different saying, “If anything is identified as good, it must be school more suited to their needs and how to work best with the legislated on and made compulsory.” Does the hon. most challenging pupils”. Lady not realise that we have had years of prescription The amendment continues our discussion on Tuesday and micro-management? If she ever sat on a governing about the—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for body—as I did under the previous Government—she North Cornwall shares our concerns about how we can will know there was a daily arrival of papers telling us best help deal with children who are being excluded, he more good things. We would probably agree with most should come to our side of the Committee. I am sure he of those things, but does she not see that letting go, would find it a welcoming environment. concentrating on the framework and trusting the front line might deliver better results than those achieved Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I was somewhat during 13 long years of over-prescription? distracted by the passing of articles around the Committee and was speculating about whether we would require 24 hours’ notice for you, Mr Williams, to extend the Stella Creasy: I am sorry that having sat down and Committee’s sitting time. reflected on his own words about the importance of people working together, the hon. Gentleman has now decided against anything we do from the centre that Stella Creasy: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman might encourage or facilitate that and show the seriousness agrees that 24 hours’ notice—telling the Chief Whip in with which we treat such issues and think they might be this instance about someone’s behaviour—would be a done more effectively. This is not about a single school merited intervention in encouraging good behaviour. acting on its own. For every school that wants to work Our discussion on Tuesday was about how to deal with others, there may be another school that will do with young people who have challenging backgrounds, that only once such actions are taken seriously and seen who exhibit challenging behaviour in the classroom, as a duty and something that should be prioritised. and for whom teachers may find it difficult to find an Many Labour Members feel that concern. appropriate learning environment. The danger is that Sometimes, particularly in a locality, challenging the way in which the Bill approaches exclusions will be behaviour cannot be dealt with by a single school. Even used increasingly as a way of dealing with those concerns, with the best will in the world and the most energetic rather than looking for other ways of working with and engaging head teacher, a school needs not only those children and understanding that, often, the child other schools but the local authority, social services, is not on their own and that there may be other impacts youth work services and police to help it and take its on, and other people involved in, their behaviour that issues seriously. The duties reflect not an obligation but need to be addressed and that may not be directly in the a seriousness about those kinds of relationships. school environment. By repealing behaviour and attendance partnerships, all of the things that we agreed on Tuesday about the Mr Stuart rose— importance of early intervention and of working with other services, and about being able to get schools to work in that way, are undermined. That is exactly what Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman wants a semantic behaviour and attendance partnerships have started to argument. I would enjoy nothing more on a Thursday do. They have started to bring people together to work afternoon than a semantic argument, instead of talking in that whole-school and, indeed, whole-family approach— about how we deal with challenging behaviour, which is which is what the Government say they are concerned what we are really concerned about. about—to look at how they might deal not only with challenging behaviour in the classroom, but with young Mr Stuart: My point is about compulsion and people with special educational needs, and to look at encouragement. Those are two different things, but schools and their environments in a locality and to see perhaps it is impossible for a socialist to see that. I note which would best suit them. I think that is why a wide only that Sue Bainbridge from the National Strategies range of people who work in education are expressing programme said that, concern about the clause. I am mindful in particular of “the strongest partnerships that we have seen across the country the comments of the NASUWT, which believes that it are in places such as Bradford…They have engaged in those would be a retrograde step, particularly for those schools partnerships because they wanted to and not because anyone told dealing with particularly challenging behaviour. I am them to. They saw the benefits of working in partnership.” afraid that I do not have the specific reference to hand She highlighted Tower Hamlets as another excellent and am sure that hon. Members are disappointed as a case. No one told those schools to work together; they result. decided to work together. The point about compulsion I genuinely do not understand why the Government may need to be revisited, but the idea that if something would want to act in any way that undermines the is good it must always be compelled is not necessarily existence of behaviour and attendance partnerships, the right approach, and it may not be in this case. 457 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 458

Stella Creasy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for calling “There is a real danger that revoking the requirement for behaviour me a socialist. I am sure being criticised in such a way partnerships risks increased classroom disruption, bullying, gang- will raise my stock with many people, and I revel in that related violence, and truancy. This will cost the taxpayer more in title. I also think he should look a little more closely at dealing with increased antisocial behaviour. The Government’s decision to revoke these statutory provisions is likely to mean that his examples. He is talking about the oldest behaviour fewer schools will collaborate with others.” and attendance partnerships that exist, but all schools got involved in such partnerships only once that became Indeed, that is inherent in the proposal on the table. If a duty. That is what made them successful and it is you want and expect people to co-operate, why not important to understand why that makes a difference. make it a duty, since the amendment will inevitably The Minister wants to intervene—bring it on. raise the prospect of fewer schools co-operating, which will undermine the ability to work with a cross-school approach? Mr Gibb: When does the hon. Lady think that duty came into force? I understand that it did not come into force, and that all schools that have joined a behaviour Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con): Does the and attendance partnership did so voluntarily without hon. Lady agree that, by removing compulsion, we any compulsion. create the opportunity to innovate? For example, in my constituency, Stevenage, head teachers of every primary and secondary school are now creating a charity called Stella Creasy: I will allow my hon. Friend the Member Stevenage Educational Trust in which all of those schools, for North West Durham to intervene as she wishes to none of which are an academy, have applied to become give the chapter and verse on the history of that programme. one and will co-operate fully across a whole range of different issues. Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): Behaviour partnerships have been in place since about 2000 and Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman has made a brilliant they have been voluntary. Bradford and Tower Hamlets case for why our desire to see co-operation—[Interruption.] were some of the oldest partnerships, but not all schools The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford sees in those areas took part. It was only with compulsion in co-operation as Stalinist. Does he take the same approach 2009 that all schools took part. to safeguarding issues? There are some things that we take so seriously that we call for them to be duties. Does Stella Creasy: This goes to the nub of the issue. Good the hon. Gentleman apply the same cavalier attitude he schools want to work within the communities that they does to co-operation to people involved in safeguarding serve and with other schools to be innovative and issues, which may not be as funny to him? creative. If there are problems in a locality and some For those of us who have dealt with gang issues in schools do not wish to work in that way, that can our local area in Walthamstow and Waltham Forest, exacerbate the challenges faced by all schools. We will the partnerships developed with the police and youth all benefit by making this a duty and stating that such a and social services are just the start of attempts to deal measure is important. The commitment to dealing with with very challenging problems. It would be a retrograde behaviour, and giving schools options other than exclusion step to take schools out of the mix. I accept that good for young people who express challenging behaviour in schools would want to be a part of that partnership, the classroom, is important. We will all benefit from which is why they do not see such a duty as onerous. such co-ordination. The hon. Member for Beverley and Hence why you are seeing genuine bewilderment, from Holderness may be concerned about my socialist tendencies, people working with young people in the behaviour but I want every young person to benefit from a school sector, about the Government putting at risk the work system that works in that way. We must work at a that has been done so far. national level and say that this matters and that we want It is worth looking at the terms of reference for every school to be part of that process. Every pupil behaviour and attendance partnerships to see what they should be involved in a school that looks at behaviour do, and ask coalition Members whether they really do in the classroom and takes it seriously. not think that the issues are important. Those terms of reference include improving the overall standards of 1.45 pm behaviour in schools; reducing rates of persistent absence; I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about developing more positive pupil behaviour so that it can challenging behaviour in the classroom, but I caution make a strong contribution to learning; reducing the him to look at where such partnerships have worked, number of permanent and multiple fixed-term exclusions learn from that and say that we want such a system for and the incidence of differential rates of exclusion; and every young person and every school. The alternative is reducing persistent absence by pupils with special a patchy and varied system and the hon. Member for educational needs, looked-after children, and pupils Beverley and Holderness is right to say that there have from particular ethnic groups. If those are not important been some mixed examples. That is an argument for issues, and if it is not worth saying that we want schools reforming how the process works and for asking what to work together despite knowing that it will make a best practice is and why it matters to have every school difference for them, I question the Government’s around the table. It is not an argument for saying, “Let’s commitment to dealing with behaviour in schools and just wait and see what happens”. That is why people are to those working with children with special educational expressing concern. Having found the quote I wanted to needs. refer to from Chris Keates from the NASUWT, I am We want to see across the country the kind of sure the Committee will be delighted to hear it. She partnerships which the hon. Member for Stevenage said: mentions. Making it a duty means people taking it 459 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 460 seriously. It also offers the opportunity to be innovative. Pat Glass: I come back to the same question: why? I The terms of reference of behaviour and attendance cannot understand why, when there is evidence that partnerships allow bringing the voluntary sector and something is working, we would repeal it. The only the police into the mix. That kind of activity could not answer that I have been given is that repealing it reduces be possible without partnership, because it is an onerous bureaucracy, but I think that is partly because Opposition task to co-ordinate it on your own. Head teachers Members do not understand how behaviour partnerships dealing with a range of issues in communities like mine work. In my experience, we are not talking about a welcome the opportunity to work together and share roomful of people, or every school, having to turn out. the burden of organising such activities and therefore It is not a bureaucratic burden on schools that takes up receiving the benefits. time. In my experience, the only people for whom it is I have read the Select Committee report and it is compulsory are specialists from the local authority, interesting that, while everybody says that they do not child and adolescent mental health services, or social know whether the scheme needs to be voluntary, they care. School head teachers told us in the Select Committee all agree on its benefits. So it is perplexing to us that the that when there is a crisis, they are desperate to get Government would put at risk a scheme that people those people in the room. think is beneficial: that they would say, “We are sure it will happen anyway”, rather than making sure it happens Mr Gibb: These behaviour and attendance partnerships since the benefits to the young people and schools have never been compulsory. They were due to be made involved far outweigh any concern about having to compulsory on 1 September 2010, and the Government organise meetings. Why not get involved in reforming decided not to implement that duty, so the marvellous them and call for a review of what the practice is and examples that the hon. Lady and other members of this say that we want to see it happening? [Interruption.] Committee have cited have all occurred due to the Sorry, I cannot quite hear. If the hon. Gentleman voluntary arrangements made between schools. wishes to intervene, I am very happy to take an intervention. Pat Glass: That was in 2010, so the partnerships have Mr Stuart: I am at risk of repeating myself, which been compulsory for a short while, at least. would encourage the hon. Lady to further repeat herself, and nobody wants that. Because it is a good does not Mr Gibb: We did not introduce it. mean that we must compel it. I am repeating myself, but I think that philosophically the hon. Lady cannot conceive Pat Glass: Oh, they did not introduce it. Nevertheless, of a good—she wants laws saying that everyone must the partnerships are not an onerous bureaucratic burden do this because it looks good from here. Perhaps we on schools. Most behaviour partnerships have a rota, should trust people and have incentives in the framework. and head teachers turn up according to that rota, if Get that right, and maybe it will be done, and done they wish to. Those head teachers who are desperately better, than if we send out guidance telling people what in need of support and help will turn up because they to do. It is possible. have a crisis. Most schools are very keen to get involved. Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, even with partnerships Stella Creasy: I am saddened that the hon. Member that work very well, there have been occasions when feels that—a Member who I feel has always learned so schools have not been keen to be involved and have not much from Shelley’s grandmother about the capacity to turned up. In most cases, those are the schools that are communicate about educational policy. I feel as though excluding the most. I am learning from him this afternoon. I see that there is a genuine philosophical disagreement about whether a Kevin Brennan: The Minister is absolutely correct: the duty is empowering or onerous. I urge Opposition Members commencement of the order in question was revoked by to learn from the words of Alan Steer, who said in his a statutory instrument in September last year. The duty evidence to us, was introduced, on the recommendation of Sir Alan “What troubles me, and I think that it is a mistake that will Steer, because the partnerships, which the previous need to be revisited—I mentioned earlier that I thought it was Government had encouraged through exhortation and incoherent—is the abolition of the behaviour and attendance positive policy, had broadly reached a stage of acceptance partnerships.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, across the piece. Sir Alan Steer felt that creating a duty 1 March 2011; c. 56, Q110.] would ensure that everybody participated, and that the The evidence tells us that those partnerships benefit practice was embedded in the system. Does my hon. education. Many of us who are concerned about inequalities Friend the Member for North West Durham agree that in education are fearful that if the commitment is taken that shows that we are not talking about an onerous away, schools that do not wish to participate or accept duty, but one which would complete a reform? responsibility for challenging behaviour will not take part. It will then be harder for schools and local authorities Pat Glass: I absolutely agree. I come back to the to support those young people. I know that the Member question: why? My experience is that most head teachers for Grantham and Stamford does not find this interesting; see the value of the work that behaviour and attendance I invite him to come to Walthamstow and see for partnerships do; they are supportive and helpful. I have himself the challenges that we have been dealing with, no experience of head teachers looking for the duty to in terms of gangs, and the roles played by safer schools be repealed. partnerships and the police in schools. He would see the difference that that has made. Then perhaps he will Mr Stuart: The hon. Lady will remember that she understand why it is so important to us Labour Members was at the Education Committee on 27 October, when to make sure that every young person has the benefit of we heard from Gillian Allcroft from the National Governors learning in the kind of environment that I am talking Association; Mike Griffiths, the head of Northampton about. School for Boys and a representative of the Association 461 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 462

[Mr Graham Stuart] achieving, and correspondingly the highest excluding, schools—that did not take part. To my knowledge, they of School and College Leaders; the head of the National still do not take part. One of them was the one I Association of Head Teachers; and another head. They referred to on Tuesday, when I spoke about the child were asked about the impact of doing away with behaviour Lewis, who was permanently excluded for swearing and attendance partnerships. Russell Hobby said: although he had a statement for Tourette’s syndrome. “Even if you require people to participate in partnerships, they No matter what we do, there will be schools that, unless can be there in spirit but not in body and vice versa, so required we compel them, will simply not take part and do their partnership working tends to produce no better effects than fair share. We know how that happens. It is not just by voluntary ground partnership working.” permanent exclusions; it is by having a quiet word with Mike Griffiths said: “I agree 100%.” Gillian Allcroft parents and saying, “I think your child would be better said: “I agree.” Charlie Taylor said: “I agree, too.” That off in the school down the road.” There are not only was the most telling evidence that we had on the subject exclusions, but unofficial exclusions as well. in the Education Committee. All were in agreement, from the NGA to head teachers at various schools. The 2pm hon. Lady must surely remember that. My concern is that if we do not have compulsion, we will have schools that simply do not take their fair share. Pat Glass: I do, and no one disagrees that everyone There is an issue around compulsion, but I do not know agrees that if people can work together, that is better what the problem is. Would we suggest that, because we than compulsion; I do not disagree with that at all. My have come so far, we no longer need measures such as argument is that there are still schools that do not do the sex or race equality legislation? The low number of their fair share of heavy lifting when it comes to children women in this place is an absolutely shocking national with challenging behaviour. They need to be compelled. scandal; I did not realise until I came here how few there are. In those areas, compulsion, in the form of Stephen McPartland: Does the hon. Lady agree that legislation, came first and culture followed, so I am not refocusing Ofsted so that behaviour is one of the key sure about the philosophical argument on compulsion. components will encourage head teachers in the schools My concern is that we might go back to where we that she mentioned to focus on improving behaviour, so were. If we take our foot off the pedal and tell schools that educational standards are improved? that they are not compelled to take part, those that have been most reluctant to take part will go off and do their Pat Glass: I am happy that the focus is on behaviour, own thing. They will go back to where they were, and the four areas are entirely right, but I am not sure and we will be back to having London boroughs with that school improvement is led by Ofsted. I do not 149 permanent exclusions—that is, 149 ruined lives. know how helpful that refocusing is. We know what that means because, as we have discussed over the past couple of days, exclusions are Behaviour partnerships were introduced as a result of disproportionately high among children who have special a crisis. There were rising numbers of exclusions. In the educational needs or are disadvantaged. I do not understand early part of the 21st century, we faced a real crisis. I why the Government are taking away the duty to comply remember being placed in a local authority—“placed” in the face of the evidence that behaviour partnerships is the operative word; I did not go there voluntarily—with work. I ask the Minister again: why? many challenges. Shortly after I arrived, it had its 149th permanent exclusion—and a person could spit from one end of the authority to the other. The situation was The Chair: Order. We are again having very full out of control. Behaviour partnerships came out of debates on amendments to a clause that has a single schools and local authorities. They did not come from purpose, so I am minded not to allow a stand part Alan Steer; they came from looking at good practice. debate. The first thing we had to do was analyse those permanent exclusions and look at where they came from. We then Mr Gibb: We have had a good, interesting debate. It invited the head teachers and chairs of governors from has, however, been based on the false premise that the the three highest excluding schools to come and meet duty has been in existence since 2009 and, as a consequence, us. It was an interesting meeting, because they took very that a large number of schools have entered into behaviour different approaches to it. One head teacher came in and attendance partnerships that would not otherwise with huge piles of paper; he was determined to convince have done so. That is not the case; the duty was not due us that every permanent exclusion was justified. I remember to come in until September 2010 and, as the shadow saying to him, “I don’t for one second disagree that the Minister correctly said, we introduced a statutory instrument incident that led to the permanent exclusion was justified. to prevent the duty from coming into force in September. I am interested in what you did that led up to that, and The purpose of the clause is to remove the duty altogether. what you did to prevent that happening.” Other head teachers came in and simply said, “We need help. We accept that it is out of control, and we do not know Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): Is it not the what to do.” case that schools and the educational establishment The local authority was not doing what it needed to generally were aware that the duty was about to come do, and the schools were not doing what they needed into force and acted on that presumption? to do. The obvious thing was to bring them together, which is where the behaviour partnership came from. It Mr Gibb: That may or may not be the case, but as the is clearly in everyone’s interest to have that, but even hon. Member for North West Durham said, many of then, there were schools in that authority—the highest the partnerships, such as those in Bradford and Tower 463 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 464

Hamlets, which were referred to by Sue Bainbridge “On behaviour and attendance partnerships, most schools from National Strategies, were old ones that began even work with other schools to improve behaviour. It is much better if before the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning schools can determine whom they work with, rather than having Act 2009. However, I share the concern to ensure that a local authority dictate it for them.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2011; c. 19, Q36.] partnership working between schools is effective and beneficial for schools, and for the pupils and communities I recognise the benefits of partnerships between schools that they serve. The best way to do that is to give and applaud those who work together to improve behaviour; schools the freedom to choose what partnerships they indeed, a majority of secondary schools in the country form, and to hold schools accountable for the outcomes work in such partnerships. that they achieve. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question— The hon. Member for North West Durham was “Why?”—is to enable schools to form partnerships concerned about sharing challenging pupils and ensuring voluntarily; they should not be told with whom they that some schools are not busy saying, “I do not think should form a partnership any more than the hon. Lady this school is appropriate for your child.” All schools would be told with whom she should form a lifetime are obliged by the admissions code to be part of the fair partnership. access protocols. That duty will still exist, separate from the duty on behaviour and attendance partnerships. Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): The Minister has Repealing the duty will not abolish existing partnerships never been to Durham. or stop new ones from forming. Behaviour and attendance partnerships appear to have flourished without being Kevin Brennan rose— mandatory. I refer to Sue Bainbridge, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness; Sue Mr Gibb: On that point, I give way to the hon. Bainbridge cited partnership working in Tower Hamlets Gentleman. as a “really good example”. She continued: “No one told those schools to work together”—[Interruption.] Kevin Brennan: As someone whose grandmother’s I hear, from a sedentary position, “they anticipated it”, marriage was contracted over the sale of a pig in west but that is the wrong example to choose, because partnership Cork, I am reluctant to get involved in the debate on working occurred before the 2009 Act. how partnerships are formed. May I ask the Minister whether, in the light of what he has said, he would Pat Glass: I suspect that it was the local authority regard it as a failure if, as a result of the repeal, fewer that told the schools to work together and facilitated schools were involved in behaviour and attendance that; that is often the case. partnerships in the next few years? Mr Gibb: Local authorities tell me that they do not Mr Gibb: No, because it is not for us in this Committee have powers over schools, so while they may well have Room, or indeed for those of us in Sanctuary Buildings, facilitated, encouraged and incentivised schools, the to have a model of how we think schools should operate schools worked in partnership voluntarily. and co-operate together. Schools may have far more Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National innovative approaches, as my hon. Friend the Member Association of Head Teachers, said in a Select Committee for East Surrey said. There may be many alternative evidence session: approaches to how schools work together, and it is not “Even if you require people to participate in partnerships, they right for us to have such a measure in mind. The can be there in spirit but not in body and vice versa, so required Government will look at how children perform and partnership working tends to produce no better effects than how well educated they are as the measures of the voluntary ground partnership working.” success or otherwise of the reform. We will not, and should not, measure the inputs, and the measures taken Stella Creasy: If some people would be there only in on the way to achieving that. body, not in mind, if the partnerships were compulsory, what assessment has the Minister made of their willingness Stella Creasy: By that logic, if there is an increase in to co-operate if they become voluntary? exclusions or instances of challenging behaviour across a number of schools in a local area, how will the Mr Gibb: I have not done an assessment, but my Minister judge whether there is evidence to show that instinct as a member of the human race is that if they could have benefited from working in a partnership someone is forced to do something against their will, but chose not to because they did not want to acknowledge they tend to do it as a tick-box exercise to complete the partnership working and had the freedom not to? Will duty. It would not be entered into in the spirit intended, he look for clusters, or will he simply judge a school so in theory, it would not have the beneficial effects that individually without understanding the context in which one would expect from partnership. Evidence gathered it is operating? by the National Audit Office in 2009 indicates that Government policy may not be the most important Mr Gibb: Again, the hon. Lady tries to lead me down factor in schools establishing attainment partnerships. the path of prescribing a method of working, but that is It found that school partnerships had most commonly not the Government’s approach. Our approach is to developed in response to local needs. trust professionals to run their schools as they see fit, The hon. Member for Cardiff West said that schools which will be through partnership and co-operation will not be able to co-operate in pooling budgets, but a with other schools if they wish. Ofsted will be the judge feature of behaviour and attendance partnerships that of how effectively those professionals carry out their already exist voluntarily is that schools pool resources duties. A number of witnesses in the evidence sessions to buy in specialist resources, including, for example, agreed. Dr Moynihan, chief executive of the Harris special educational needs provision. There is no reason Federation, said: why that should not continue after the clause is agreed 465 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 466

[Mr Gibb] academies—work with a partner school. We are also publishing regional families of school data, which will to. I believe that schools will continue to form partnerships allow schools to identify similar schools in their region where they need them, and that the measures in the Bill that are performing differently, so they can collaborate to reduce bureaucratic burdens on teachers, to allow with them and learn from them. them to reassert their authority, and to bolster their I understand the thinking of my hon. Friend, but I disciplinary powers, and the measures holding schools am concerned that evaluating the effect of the Government’s to account for performance of their core functions will proposed repeal will be rather difficult, given that the lead to schools taking whatever steps they judge best to partnerships have never been mandatory and no previous improve behaviour. formal evaluation has been undertaken. I believe that I turn briefly to amendments 45 and 46, which would the best way to achieve improvements in behaviour and delay the repeal of the requirement to form behaviour other matters is to give schools as much freedom as and attendance partnerships until September 2013 and possible to make their own decisions, including the only repeal it after Ofsted had reported that voluntary freedom to choose the partnerships that they form, partnerships on behaviour and attendance were working while holding schools accountable for the outcomes in all authorities. If we measure the existence and that they achieve for their pupils. With those few words, effectiveness of partnerships in all local authorities, that I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff West to withdraw assumes that creating formal partnerships will be a the amendment. necessity for every school to improve behaviour. Furthermore, recording the existence and effectiveness 2.15 pm of partnerships and measuring whether a particular Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for his response structure is in place is the wrong focus for inspection. to the debate, which has been interesting. We have Ofsted should focus on schools’ outcomes, including ranged rather far and wide. I know that it was not how good behaviour is in each school. intended, but it devalues our debates if “Stalin” or such The previous Government clearly recognised that it words are mentioned. Stalin was a monster. We are was not sensible to monitor local partnerships. No talking about a narrow range of views along a spectrum arrangements were planned to monitor or enforce the and when it is appropriate for the Government to duty on schools to form partnerships and no resources compel something, and when it is appropriate to take a were allocated to schools to help them with the laissez faire approach. This is a philosophical debate. administrative burden that it would have been imposed. We could say that it was an ideological debate because Had the requirement on schools to join partnerships philosophical on our part is ideological on the part of commenced, some schools would have paid lip service those on the Government Benches. However, such debates to those partnership arrangements, and that would have occur from time to time and the pendulum swings led simply to a culture of compliance, rather than the backwards and forwards. No doubt it will continue to culture of innovation referred to by my hon. Friend the do so as the dialectic goes on for many years to come. Member for Beverley and Holderness. That would have What we are saying about behaviour and attendance shown, once again, why it is simply not necessary or partnerships is, in a sense, somewhat ironic because practical for central Government to issue detailed attendance partnerships are created because we compel instructions. children to attend school. In the eternal debate along The revised Ofsted school inspection framework will the philosophical-ideological continuum, I can imagine give more attention to behaviour. If poor behaviour a similar debate taking place probably in this very room and attendance is identified as a key issue for a school, in the 1870s about compelling children to go to school. it will have to prioritise it and take appropriate action. We can see the faces of those on the Government Asking Ofsted to report on partnerships in each local Benches, many of them perhaps saying what an outrage authority is not practical or proportionate; it would it would be to compel families to send their children to only add to the bureaucracy in the school system, and I school and how disgraceful it is for the state to interfere ask the hon. Member for Cardiff West to withdraw his in family life. amendment. Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State Mr Stuart: The shadow Minister should know that to commission a report within 24 months of eliminating no such compulsion was ever introduced in the 19th the duty. That follows from the Education Committee century, although given the authoritarian tendencies of report that recommends that the Government be prepared his party, it is understandable that he did not. There has to reverse their decision on behaviour and attendance never been a compulsion in this country to send one’s partnerships if voluntary partnership working fails to child to school; there has been a compulsion to give deliver behavioural improvements; I hope that I can one’s child an education. It was the institutionally based give my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and biased and narrow focus that led to the near victimisation Holderness some comfort on that point. that was fortunately averted at the last minute thanks to In direct response to the challenge about the direction the efforts of my Front Bench, which stopped the of travel signalled by the clause, I point out that it does stigmatisation, licensing and oppression of home educators not promote the philosophy that every school is an throughout this land. However, the hon. Gentleman has island entire of itself. In fact the White Paper “The learnt nothing from that experience. Importance of Teaching”is replete with references to the importance of schools working together, and to promoting Kevin Brennan: I rest my case. One could well imagine best practice and peer-to-peer support through national the hon. Gentleman making a speech in this room back and local leaders in education. It insists, for example, in the 1870s with similar passion, albeit attired rather that academy converters—outstanding schools that become differently. 467 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 468

Is it not ironical that, if an attendance partnership is Similarly, our amendments, which have been debated, about making sure that children—who are compelled to do not seek completely to overturn what the Government attend, if they are enrolled in the school—turn up are doing in the repeal under clause 6. The amendments to school and that it is compulsory for them to do so in would delay the effect of that repeal until behaviour and such circumstances, we do not compel the schools attendance partnerships are up and running across the themselves to bother to turn up at the attendance country, so that there would be an opportunity for them partnerships in which they are discussing the importance to become embedded as a duty and so that there would of children attending if they are enrolled and not being then be a duty for the inspectorate to report on how the home educated, which is what the hon. Gentleman’s voluntary partnerships are working across the country. tirade was about? That was the purpose of the amendments. We will The Minister rightly pointed out that the duty was register our concern about this policy by pressing both not commenced by the Government last September amendments 45 and 46 to a vote, so that it is clear to through the statutory instrument. That is correct, but those outside what we are voting on. the duty has not been given a chance by the Government to see whether it can make a difference to entrenching Mr Stuart: We have had an extremely interesting and embedding the reforms to behaviour and attendance debate on the amendments to clause 6. It is interesting that were introduced by the previous Government. The to see whether this divide, between compulsion and a hon. Gentleman really wants to strangle it at birth belief in a more liberal trusting of the front line, is probably for ideological or philosophical reasons rather philosophical or ideological. I would like to say that it than to give it a fair chance. That is a shame. was a left-right thing, and that the left were always into compulsion. Perhaps I suggested that earlier. The cynic might add that those in opposition are always in favour Mr Gibb: The proposal is neither philosophical nor of greater freedom and liberalisation, while those in ideological, but in line with the general direction of government tend over time to become ever more travel of the Government, which is to trust professionals. authoritarian, and as they become frustrated, they get It is part and parcel of that mantra rather than any more interested in compulsion. It is interesting that the ideology or philosophy. Opposition, so freshly out of power, are still hanging on to their habits, but moving in a liberal direction. It will Kevin Brennan: I am not a fellow traveller in that be interesting to see whether the coalition can stay true direction, but I think that there is an ideology behind it. to its Conservative-Liberal instincts. As Ministers become All I am saying is that the Government have not given frustrated by the failure of the front line to deliver what the duty a chance to work because they are being they want to see, they may be tempted to bring in more unpragmatic and a little ideological. Not only is the and more provisions. That will be interesting to see over Minister intent on strangling the duty at birth, but he is time. We may have the amusing sight of a reversal of not even willing to compromise on amendments that political positions. would examine the impact of the decision to do so. The reasonable amendment from the hon. Member for Beverley The Minister has set out clearly that he favours and Holderness, which he may withdraw in a minute, co-operation between schools. That is in line with the would have the Government commission a report to Government’s view that we should not over-prescribe evaluate the impact of this decision. What is wrong with from the centre and tell people what to do. We should that? It is surely sensible and good practice for any allow freedom on the ground. There is plenty of evidence Government to look at the evidence of the consequences from the main head teachers’ unions—both of them— of their decisions. The Minister is not even willing to do suggesting that compulsion does not offer a great deal that. of benefit. Others, such as Alan Steer, took a different view. I believe that we should look at the position on co-operation on behaviour and discipline in a year and Dan Rogerson: What I would take from the debate a half or two years’ time. that we have just had is that it is absolutely right that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has suggested As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly suggests, it is that such a report might be a good idea. It would, not that we never put such things in a Bill, although we however, be unusual to make that a feature of legislation have rarely done so. I hope that the Minister will take by putting it into the Bill. We would hope to see it on board the points that have been made today. I know happen anyway, although I accept that it is in line with he will. I hope that the Minister will go on to be one of the philosophical direction of the hon. Member for our longest serving Ministers. I am sure he will certainly Cardiff West to seek to compel Ministers to undertake be the most distinguished Minister with responsibility such a thing. I have no doubt that the Minister will for schools that we have seen in many a long year. I have taken note of that. Perhaps, on that basis, we can know that he is a listening Minister and self-confident move on. enough to change tack if the evidence were to so suggest. Kevin Brennan: It is not my amendment; it was tabled Kevin Brennan: I sense that the hon. Gentleman does by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. He is not intend to press his amendment to a Division. From the one who seeks to put it in the Bill and to compel the the comments that the Minister has made, is the hon. Minister to do it. It is not an example of compulsion, Gentleman satisfied that he will get his report, even if it however; it is a sensible holding of the Government to is not in the Bill? account for the consequences of their decision making. There is nothing unreasonable or wrong about trying to Mr Stuart: I had hoped that the Minister might have do that. It is not ideological; it is just a sensible and found it possible to go a little further in reassuring the pragmatic way of looking at how the Government Committee that the Government, though confident of work, based on the evidence. their course, were prepared to review the provision 469 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 470

[Mr Graham Stuart] Hayes, Mr John Rogerson, Dan McPartland, Stephen formally or informally. In discussions with the Minister Munt, Tessa Stuart, Mr Graham beforehand, it was suggested to me that if anyone were to do a review, as Chair of the Education Committee, I Question accordingly negatived. could. That was not an entirely unreasonable line thrown Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), back by the Minister. That the clause stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Government, with their resources, will Question agreed to. keep an open mind on the matter. Even if such a review were to come about, and even if it was decided that Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. things were not as good as they should be, it might not be that compulsion was regarded as the right option. It Clause 7 might be that further changes to the accountability mechanisms that apply to schools, and other changes in ABOLITION OF THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR the framework in which schools operate, might be more ENGLAND appropriate in order not to stifle the freedom of schools to co-operate to best serve their pupils rather than to fit some bureaucratic fiat sent out from this place, which Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 47, in the previous Government all too often issued. Despite clause 7, page 10, line 19, at beginning insert ‘Subject to his reasonableness, the hon. Gentleman was in the subsection (6),’. Government that did that. On the basis of reassurances from the Minister outside The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the Committee, I am happy that the Government will the following: amendment 48, in clause 7, page 10, line 28, at keep an open mind and be prepared to think again if end insert— necessary. ‘(6) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power to Question put, That the amendment be made. commence this section under section 78, he must lay before The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. Parliament a report which sets out arrangements— Division No. 7] (a) to maintain the standards of teacher professionalism and competence through a Code of Conduct and AYES Practice for Registered Teachers; Brennan, Kevin Hilling, Julie (b) to reduce variability in assessing teacher performance; Creasy, Stella (c) to maintain, or cause to be maintained, a register of all Munn, Meg Glass, Pat persons who have been granted qualified teacher Hendrick, Mark Wright, Mr Iain status; and (d) to end any functions of the GTCE which will not be continued.’. NOES Amendment 49, in clause 8, page 10, line 30, at Boles, Nick McPartland, Stephen beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection (3),’. Duddridge, James Munt, Tessa Gibb, Mr Nick Amendment 50, in clause 8, page 14, line 40, at end Gyimah, Mr Sam Rogerson, Dan insert— Hayes, Mr John Stuart, Mr Graham ‘(3) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power to commence this section under section 78, he must lay before Question accordingly negatived. Parliament a report which sets out arrangements which demonstrate he has put in place sufficient resource and expertise to carry out the teacher misconduct functions.’. 2.30 pm Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 6, page 10, line 14, at end insert— Mr Wright: Good afternoon, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. ‘(2) Subsection (1) shall not come into force before 1 September 2013, and only after Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Clause 7 will abolish the General Teaching Council Children’s Services and Skills has reported that voluntary partnerships for England. I appreciate that the GTCE will go to its for behaviour and attendance partnerships are working in all local grave largely unmourned, but it would be a shame if authorities.’.—(Kevin Brennan.) some of its good work was lost in the rush to abolish it. Question put, That the amendment be made. I am concerned at the speed at which it is being abolished—it is too quick and happening without due consultation The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. and consideration of the consequences. I am also concerned Division No. 8] that it would leave the teaching profession without the kind of regulatory body that other professions have. AYES The GTCE was established by the Teaching and Brennan, Kevin Hilling, Julie Higher Education Act 1998. I had looked the proceedings Creasy, Stella Munn, Meg of the Committee that considered that Bill, and serving Glass, Pat as a Back Bencher on the Committee was a thrusting Hendrick, Mark Wright, Mr Iain young buck, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is no longer in his place. I do not NOES want to mislead the Committee in any way, but I can, Boles, Nick Gibb, Mr Nick now that is not here. He seemed to be quite keen on the Duddridge, James Gyimah, Mr Sam principle of the GTCE. The Lib Dem spokesman at the 471 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 472 time was Phil, now Lord, Willis, the former MP for can the Minister confirm that the code will continue to Harrogate and Knaresborough. He welcomed the idea play a part in the regulatory hearings that I have mentioned? of transferring powers away from the Secretary of State That matter is not included in the descriptions of the to a more independent GTC, so it will be interesting to Secretary of State’s power under the clause. see, in the event of a Division, how the Lib Dems will Subsection (6)(c) in amendment 48 proposes maintaining vote. a register of all people who have been granted qualified The purpose of the GTC was to be the independent teacher status. In getting rid of a comprehensive register professional body for teaching in England and to give for the teaching profession, the Bill has significant and teaching the same status as other self-regulating professions serious omission. As it stands, it allows for a database of such as nursing. The functions of the council, as set out barred teachers only. In its response to the Committee, in section 1 of the 1998 Act, were twofold: ASCL stated: “to contribute to improving the standards of teaching and the “We strongly believe that there is a need for an online database quality of learning, and…to maintain and improve standards of of all qualified teachers which is accessible by schools to replace professional conduct amongst teachers, in the interests of the the GTCE register. To remove the database will create additional public.” red tape and threaten streamlined procedures for recruitment. We I think the Committee would agree that it remains would like to see a clause inserted into the bill which puts a duty on the Department for Education or one of the proposed executive crucial that improving standards of teaching, quality of agencies to do so”. learning and professional conduct in the teaching profession should be a key part of the Government’s education It also told us that policy. “by abolishing the GTCE and not having a suitable replacement to the GTCE register the Bill effectively removes the public’s The Government declared in the White Paper that guarantee that all registered teachers are eligible, suitable, properly they would qualified and of good standing”. “put new arrangements in place for the regulation of the teaching The NUT said: profession and for dealing with professional misconduct and incompetence.” “Whilst the proposed legislation addresses the transfer of the GTCE’s regulatory functions, it does not appear to cover However, since then, there has been precious little detail the functions relating to the registration of teachers, as set out in about how that would be undertaken, including in the section 3 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Bill. This group of amendments therefore probes the Clarification is needed, in particular, about whether the Secretary Government to provide further details as to how those of State would take responsibility for the award of qualified functions will continue. On that basis, amendments 47 teacher status and whether a registry of all qualified teachers, and 48 seek to delay the abolition of the GTCE until trainees, overseas trained teachers, etc. would continue to be maintained. Much work has been done in recent years by the arrangements have been introduced on teacher registration GTCE on the latter, as previously there was no definitive national and maintaining standards of teacher professionalism list of registered teachers—it would be a waste of the resources to the satisfaction of Parliament. The proposals would that went into establishing the GTCE’s register if this work was ensure that when the GTCE is abolished, there will be abandoned now.” ongoing arrangements for a number of matters. First, I appreciate that the Government may have questions “to maintain the standards of teacher professionalism and competence about the GTCE’s objectivity, but it made a valid point: through a Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers”; “The Bill proposes moving from a Register of all those teachers secondly, who are entitled to teach in maintained schools, non-maintained “to reduce variability in assessing teacher performance”; special schools and pupil referral units. Instead, a single, publicly accessible, list will be published by the Secretary of State of those thirdly, who have been prohibited from teaching for conduct that has “to maintain, or cause to be maintained, a register of all persons fallen below an acceptable standard or who failed to prove their who have been granted qualified teacher status”; competence at the end of the induction period. This change holds and finally, potential risks to the public interest.” “to end any functions of the GTCE which will not be continued.” It went on to say that I shall focus on two of those aspects, which are particularly “the GTCE Register has been the public’s guarantee that registered teachers are eligible, suitable, properly qualified and of good important. First, will the Minister confirm that there standing. It has been an important part of the professional will continue to be a code of conduct and practice for accountability framework for teaching because every teacher registered teachers? The GTCE code of practice was working in maintained schools, non-maintained special schools established under section 5 of the Teaching and Higher and pupil referral units (PRUs) has been required to be registered”. Education Act 1998, and is currently used in regulatory The present situation regarding registration of teachers hearings. provides transparency and reassurance to the public. It The White Paper states that there will be a review the is value for money, because it streamlines recruitment GTCE’s code of conduct and practice, which will be led procedures as well. It is being used more and more—the by head teachers and teachers. Can the Minister provide GTCE’s annual report for last year says there was a 63% more detail on that? Does he recognise that the GTCE rise in its usage for that year. In those circumstances, has recently conducted an extensive public consultation can the Minister outline his thinking regarding not on a new code of conduct and practice for registered having such a comprehensive register? teachers? I understand that more than 3,000 respondents I move to amendments 49 and 50, which consider took part, and the new code came into use in October provisions contained in clause 8— 2009. Given the Government’s direction of travel, they will presumably hold another consultation for the revised code of practice. Will doing so be an appropriate use of Mr Stuart: The shadow Minister is right to suggest resources, considering that there was a consultation and that when the GTCE was set up, it had widespread a revised code only a matter of months ago? Secondly, support. Why does he suggest, all these years on, that it 473 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 474

[Mr Graham Stuart] Clause 8 sets out the new functions of the Secretary of State in relation to misconduct by teachers. Amendments 49 would be little mourned? Why would this body, which and 50 would ensure that the Secretary of State has has an important role for people across the spectrum, sufficient resources and expertise to carry out the new not be mourned? functions.

Mr Wright: It was evident from the feedback after the 2.45 pm publication of the White Paper and of the Bill that It is unclear from the points made by the Government, stakeholders questioned the possible value of the GTCE. since the publication of the White Paper and the Bill, As I said, that is a real shame because in many respects whether the 200-odd staff of the GTCE, who are currently it has produced good work. I mentioned the register, involved in carrying out functions that will be retained, which is being increasingly used, and provides reassurance. might be transferred—under the Transfer of Undertakings There are things that have improved standards and (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and 2006 teacher quality. When the Minister responds to my or other arrangements—to the Department for Education, amendments and those of my hon. Friend, I hope he so that their experience and expertise of handling hearings will outline his thinking as to why, after what tended to can still be used. Under the new remit, that might be on be universal consensus of the need for a general teaching a more limited basis, but it would be helpful if the council, the outcome has been disappointing. Minister could give us an idea of what will happen. Given that uncertainty, the amendment would provide Mr Stuart: One argument could be—and I wonder if the safeguard that Parliament had to be satisfied that this is the hon. Member’s view—that the professional the Secretary of State is demonstrably capable of taking standards for teachers are toothless. Another argument on the misconduct functions before they are transferred is that it was a lack of application by the last Government to him. If he takes them on without the necessary to impose more effective performance standards for resources and expertise, he risks repeating some of the which the GTCE could have been a more effective experiences of previous Secretaries of State of both watchdog that has contributed to a sense that those who complexions—whether Labour or Conservative—when are not performing as well as they should are not people who should not have worked with children were challenged and that the GTCE itself is superfluous. not banned from schools. I hope the Ministers will take this in the spirit in Mr Wright: I know that the Chairman of the Select which it is intended, as I like and respect them enormously, Committee takes this point very seriously. It is a personal but there is a real question about the administrative priority of his. We might come to that later, certainly in capability and capacity of the Secretary of State and respect to clause 8. I think we will have an interesting the ministerial team at the Department for Education. debate on clause 8 about this matter of teacher competence, We have recently seen that in the handling of and whether, say, it is the culture of the education correspondence. This week, I raised a point of order on environment that colleagues want to go down the path the Floor of the House about 563 unanswered questions. of questioning the competence of a colleague. I do not Only 10% of named day written questions have been want to pre-empt the discussions that we might have on answered, and only 20% of correspondence from hon. clause 8. However, I recognise the hon. Member’s point. Members has been answered. There are real issues We put in place good points, but there is always room about hon. Members being able to hold the Government for improvement. I know it is a particular concern of to account and to pass on their constituents’ cases. his. Before I move on, I would like to give way to my One of the Bill’s themes is to centralise powers, duties hon. Friend. and functions with the Secretary of State. Frankly, does he have the capability and the capacity to be able to handle that? Individual teachers and the profession Kevin Brennan: As someone who is a qualified but more widely must have confidence that the Secretary of not a registered teacher, I have a distant interest at a State will be capable of, and competent in, carrying out personal level. Does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister the GTCE’s functions. On correspondence, the record should explain, in abolishing the GTCE, how we are of the Secretary of State and his ministerial team is nevertheless to build upon the important recognition in disappointing, but on wider policies—such as Building recent years of the professionalism of teachers, which Schools for the Future or the school sport partnerships—it has reached a stage where there is a higher respect for is fair to say that the Secretary of State has so far failed teachers than there was many years ago? to inspire confidence in the teaching profession. He is good at making speeches and he is good at telling gags Mr Wright: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The but, I do not want Peter Kay running education policy standing of teachers in terms of their status and their in this country. Interestingly, when he wears his glasses, professionalism is higher than it has ever been. Independent the Secretary of State looks like a very young Eric observers conclude that the quality of teaching in this Morecambe, but if I pursue that point I think you will country is at an unprecedentedly high level. In terms of rule me out of order, Mr Williams. the recruitment of the brightest and best of our country On a serious note, it is important for the teaching who want to go into teaching as a vocation and a profession and the wider country that the Minister gives profession, that is to be welcomed. greater detail about when the GTCE is to be abolished— Before the interventions, I was about to speak about transferred in-house to the Department—and whether amendments 49 and 50. They relate to clause 8, but are the resources, the expertise and the capability will exist. in this group of amendments because they cover the I ask him to say something about that matter, which the same issues and principles about resources and expertise. amendment has attempted to probe. 475 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 476

Mr Stuart: As the shadow Minister has said, the It may be going a little wider, but could the Minister GTCE will probably be little mourned, but its abolition spell out who stands between the Government and leaves open many questions, and I hope that the Minister individual teachers? England is a large education system. will fill us in on them during this debate. One question, In McKinsey’s work on education systems and on which was pretty much put by the shadow Minister, is appropriate interventions at different times in such systems’ how will getting rid of the GTCE help improve the development, it does not talk about national systems professionalism of teachers. That is a central question. but smaller ones. England is very large and so may not Those of us interested in education—as everyone in this be an individual system at all. Yet, with the GTCE room is—know that, as the White Paper rightly put it, going and the reduction in the role of local authorities, the importance of teaching is pre-eminent. The quality how does the Minister sees what stands, in this quite of teaching—attracting, retaining and motivating the large country, between the Secretary of State and the best-quality people in teaching—is the most important individual teacher in the classroom, who may or not be factor. held on a database? How can this relationship be mediated so that we have a system that supports the teacher to the The ugly corollary of that is having to face up to greatest effect, instils public confidence in his or her those who are not able to contribute in the classroom. professionalism, and makes sure that, in each staff Most teachers who struggle, like most of us who struggle room nationwide, we have the best possible people in our jobs at times, do not need to be removed or doing a job where they are supported and celebrated, stigmatised, but need to be supported and helped, and but if necessary, Mr Williams, challenged where they to have a plan put in place to allow them to come up to are not delivering as expected? acceptable standards and to contribute. With the GTCE, there was the idea of having a central database, and Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): I will speak briefly during the last Parliament there was talk of having a about the retention of the register. We could look back licence to teach. This is very much the idea of the in history, with teachers having their teaching numbers teacher as a professional. I do not know whether teachers held by the Department for Education, or whatever it are currently held in the highest esteem ever in this was called in those various past emanations of the country, though I slightly doubt it, but there has been Department, going forward into the GTCE. It is very an increase in teachers’ professionalism in recent years useful to have that information held centrally and where and in the perception thereof. If the Government are it is accessible. I can say, as a former governor of going to improve educational standards, they must build schools, that it is very useful in the recruitment of staff on that progress and further improve the standing of to know that there is verification that someone being teachers as professionals. We therefore need to understand interviewed is registered as a qualified teacher without how the abolition of the GTCE fits into that. having to go through all sorts of other vetting procedures. There is another, wider purpose to having a list of I recognise the desire to move away from unnecessary qualified teachers. I was talking to the Minister yesterday central databases and bureaucracies. On the other hand, about the numbers of men teaching in primary schools. there may be benefits in maintaining an existing and One advantage of a central register is being able to look paid for database of all teachers and professionals who at how many teachers are in different phases of education; have the qualification. I am delighted, Mr Williams, what is their gender; what is their ethnicity. We can then that following a campaign by various people—including look to see how we can improve recruitment into certain myself when I secured a debate last year, supported by phases, how we can ensure that there are men teaching my predecessor, as Chairman of the Education in primary and women teaching in secondary and that Committee—calling for further education teachers and there are black and ethnic minority teachers teaching in lecturers to be able to teach in schools, the Government our schools. It seems to me that there is a good purpose have acceded to it following the Wolf report. I hope that to holding a central register of qualified people—it is the Minister may be able to say something about the not just about recruitment, it is also about monitoring benefits of retaining the database. the profession and targeting recruitment at different I have spoken to the Minister and know that he is times. I urge the Minister to maintain a list of qualified taking it seriously, but I hope that this is an opportunity teachers, not just the list of people who are barred. to put on the record that the closure of a number of non-departmental public bodies by the Department is Dan Rogerson: I am aware that members of the being carried out in as thoughtful a fashion as possible Committee will want to make progress so I will not to make sure, Mr Williams, that any babies who may be detain them too long, but I will just respond to the hon. sitting in the bathwater of those organisations are not Gentleman on the position that my noble Friend Lord flushed away and that there is careful thought. Like Willis took at about the time of the creation of the bureaucracy, databases can be good or bad—it depends General Teaching Council. We have heard across the who they belong to before you like or dislike them. But Committee that, at the time of its creation, there was a there are databases that are expensive to create and feeling that this might add value and make a useful maintain and we need to ensure that all useful and contribution. However, unlike some of the other provisions valuable information and data held in these non- that we have already debated, where there has been a departmental public bodies is retained, transferred to range of views in the evidence presented to us, there has the Department and not lost. It would be a great shame, not been a huge support out there for the continuation not least for this Government who are so committed to of this body, notwithstanding the issues hon. Members applying common sense and good financial judgment have raised about the value of its work. to the management of public finances, if we were to We can have a debate about where that work should throw away things that currently exist, only to recreate sit and who should carry it out, but I note in passing them later at vast additional cost to the public purse. that, as a constituency MP, I have become less and less 477 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 478

[Dan Rogerson] and the wider functions currently undertaken by the GTCE. First, I would like to reassure hon. Members sympathetic to the self-regulation of professions. It is that although it has not been necessary to stipulate in incredibly frustrating when a constituent operates in a the Bill a detailed arrangement for the new regulatory certain profession, or feels that they have been disadvantaged system and the future of wider functions currently in some way by someone who is a professional in that undertaken by the GTCE, the Department has been field, and the only recourse they have is to a body made working closely with the GTCE and wider partners to up of people who carry out that function. There is develop those issues. At 17.18 pm on Thursday 10 March, sometimes a lack of trust that they will get a fair result. I was able to circulate to members of the Committee a While that is a much wider debate than we are engaged detailed policy statement about the new arrangements in now, I just note in passing that self-regulation has not for regulation, which I hope hon. Members will have always been successful and is not always the answer. found helpful and reassuring. However, I will also take Based on the evidence we have, the Bill is doing the right the opportunity to respond to the specific points raised thing in seeking to move on from that. Certainly, talking by the amendments. to teachers, as I have, I do not think that there will be Amendments 47 and 48 would subject the abolition huge mourning for the General Teaching Council in of the GTCE to an additional commitment to lay a England. I mention these points that go wider than the detailed report before Parliament. The suggested content amendments on the basis that we may yet not have a of the report covers considerations regarding the content clause stand part debate. of the new arrangements and regulation. I will say a few words about each of the issues set out in proposed new Pat Glass: I will be very quick. I have a series of paragraphs (a) to (d) in the amendment. questions that I would like to ask the Minister. Post-GTC, Proposed new paragraph (a) refers to maintaining who will award qualified teacher status? Will the the standards of professionalism and conduct through Department continue to maintain a register and will a code of conduct and practice for registered teachers. that include teachers from overseas? That is really important We announced in the White Paper that we will review in parts of London. Will the code of practice remain in existing measures of teacher performance and conduct, place? My reading of the Bill is that employers must referred to by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, including consider referring cases of misconduct, when there is the current professional standards for teachers and the currently a requirement. Is this a change and, if it is, GTCE code of conduct to establish a single set of clear will the Minister explain what the change is? Will the and unequivocal standards. That will be an independent Secretary of State continue to collect statistics on equality review led by some of our best teaching professionals. I and diversity to support recruitment and retention? am delighted that Sally Coates, the principal of Burlington Danes academy, has agreed to chair the review. We The Chair: I am of the opinion that we have had a expect it to help develop clear standards, which will broad debate on the principle of this clause in which the help schools make judgments about teacher conduct matters arising have been examined. I am therefore not and competence. We also expect it to result in new minded to permit a separate debate on clause 7 stand standards, which will replace both the framework of part. professional standards for teachers of the Training and Development Agency for Schools’ and the GTCE code of conduct and practice. 3pm Mr Gibb: The hon. Member for Hartlepool started his remarks by saying that the GTCE will go to the Mr Wright: I mentioned in my opening remarks a grave largely unmourned, a comment reflected by my comprehensive consultation on the code of practice, hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. That which was carried out no more than 18 months ago. carries resonance with the profession. Chris Keates said Does the Minister think that the new arrangements in that the White Paper are an unnecessary duplication, given “she had ‘no doubt’ Mr Gove’s decision would be welcomed by the huge consultation exercise less than two years ago? teachers.” She said: “I have frequently said that if the GTCE was abolished tomorrow, Mr Gibb: No, I do not, I am afraid. I do not think few would notice and even less would care…Too much time, that that code of conduct had huge support among the energy and resource has been frittered away on pursuing projects unions. We need to clarify such issues. Sally Coates and and issues which duplicated the work of other bodies and did little or nothing to enhance the status of the profession.” her committee will make the teaching standards clear and comprehensible. At the moment, they are less Christine Blower from the NUT said: than clear, and there are many of them. There are also “From its inception, the GTCE has struggled to overcome the 117 pages of guidance, and the whole approach will be fact that teachers felt it had been imposed on them.” to clarify and simplify the professional standards and Research by the National Centre for Social Research the code of conduct. More details are set out in the into the referrals to the GTCE concluded: code that I circulated. It is stated that prior “The findings…suggest that there is no uniform understanding “to the development of the revised teacher standards, the panels of, or support for, the GTC as an overarching regulatory body.” will refer to the code of conduct and practice developed by the With those few introductory remarks, I would like to GTCE and the TDA professional standards for teachers”, consider amendments 47 to 50. I understand that they so until Sally Coates’ committee reports, the code of are designed to seek greater detail about the Government’s conduct will continue to be used to assess behaviour plans for the future regulation of the teaching profession when referred to the new executive agency. 479 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 480

Mr Wright: One of the criticisms levelled at us by the that employers have told us will help them to know Conservatives when we were in Government was that when to take action to address performance and capability we did not allow teachers to teach, that we were providing issues. I hope that Opposition Members will be satisfied them with unnecessary guidance and bureaucracy, and with our plans and agree that we should not pre-empt that all that was needed was to free up their time to or duplicate the work with an additional requirement to allow them to teach in a classroom. Will not the teachers provide Parliament with a report on such issues. be thinking, “Haven’t we just done this? Haven’t we just Subsection (6)(c) of amendment 48 states that the been consulted about standards and the code of practice? proposed report to Parliament should include arrangements Can’t they leave us alone to allow us to teach and to to maintain allow that code of practice to embed?”, because the “a register of all persons who have been granted qualified teacher guidance has been subject to consultation and has been status”. shortened considerably as a result of teacher involvement? We recognise the potential benefits of providing that. As set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley Mr Gibb: Chris Keates from the NASUWT said that and Holderness and other hon. Members in this debate, “The GTCE’s recently revised Code of Conduct and Practice there are potential benefits in providing head teachers was largely unworkable. Over 30,000 teachers signed the NASUWT and employers with access to a central record of those petition for its withdrawal.” who hold qualified teacher status. Although we are It was not particularly well received by the teaching clear that we do not want to replicate the GTCE’s profession. Having met Sally Coates several times at her current register of teachers, we are exploring further school, I am confident that she will be sensible and what central records and data will still be needed in proportionate in drawing up the new standards. the future. We want to consult on that further with the teacher and head teacher unions. We will look closely at Mr Stuart: I hope that this Government, unlike the the demand for the service alongside value-for-money previous Government, will not allow the teaching unions considerations. I expect to confirm our plans to the to have a right of veto over the process of professional House during the later stages of the Bill’s passage standards because that might contribute to the fact that through Parliament. they are so incoherent and weak as they stand. Kevin Brennan: Can the Minister explain why he Mr Gibb: No one has a right of veto in such matters, came to the conclusion that he does not want to replicate but we are consulting widely with the profession. A the current register? distinguished team of teaching professionals on Sally Coates’s committee will do a thorough and professional Mr Gibb: There is a difference between a register and job in revising the new standards. a database. A register requires a £33 or £36 subscription from teachers and a huge amount of information. We Pat Glass: The Minister keeps referring to the same want to ensure—we have had representations from the names over and again. I am sure that Sally Coates is a head teacher unions on this—that when a school wants very good head teacher, but she has been mentioned at to employ someone, they have a quick, simple and least five times in the past five minutes. If the hon. cost-effective way to check that the teacher has qualified Gentleman would like me to introduce him to other teacher status. There will be other data that list those head teachers who might disagree with his position, I people who are not suitable to be working with children. should be happy to do so. Mr Wright: I apologise for intervening, but given that Mr Gibb: Sally Coates gave evidence to the Committee, you, Mr Williams, have rightly said that we are not as did Alan Steer, whose name was mentioned more having a clause stand part debate, because we have than once during the previous debate. already had an extensive debate on the amendments, The new standards for teachers will be in place, we will the Minister pass comment on the possible variation hope, by September 2012. Prior to that, the new between the various nations of the United Kingdom? arrangements for teacher regulation will continue to use As I understand it, the provisions in the Bill maintain existing guidance, including the current code of practice the GTC for Wales. Given the abolition of the council held by the GTCE and the current professional standards in England, what happens if a teacher from England for teachers. goes to Wales, or vice versa? Will that not cause unnecessary, Subsection (6)(b) of amendment 49 refers to and possibly avoidable, bureaucracy in the case of, for arrangements example, head teachers in Wales checking up on English teachers or vice versa? What will happen on that situation “to reduce variability in assessing teacher performance”. between the nations? We have already announced our intention to make it easier for schools to tackle poor performance through streamlining and simplifying the performance management Mr Gibb: The current arrangements of sharing important and capability arrangements. We shall be consulting data, as each of those regulatory bodies do, will continue. shortly on the proposed revisions to performance If I have not got that right, I will correct it. It is my management regulations and on a short and optional understanding that those arrangements will remain in model policy, which is consistent with the ACAS code place. It is just that in England, it will not be a registration of practice. We expect that to assist employers to tackle system, as there is in the devolved Administrations. performance effectively and we also expect the review of I will just refer to two other points raised by my hon. teacher standards, which I have just mentioned, to Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. We provide clear, national benchmarks for performance are carrying out a methodical and thorough check of 481 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 482

[Mr Gibb] the £36 annual fee subscriptions. How will that saving be made? It suggests to me that the only way that that functions and activities, including all the databases that can be made is through redundancies. Can the Minister exist at the GTCE. He made a good point about not outline, perhaps in a letter, how that £8 million is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and we want derived? to ensure that we do not delete, abolish or incinerate data that we may later require. There is reference to that in the paper that we circulated. There is also the issue of Mr Gibb: These issues are obviously more complicated qualified teacher learning and skills. In her final report, than simply redundancies. We are making savings across published on 3 March, Professor Wolf recommended Whitehall and within the Department. There is clearly a that QTLS status should be recognised in schools for reduction in the number of functions carried out by the the delivery of vocational education. I know that my GTCE, but what happens to individuals who are working hon. Friend has been advocating that. I am pleased to for the GTCE and their future within the state sector is confirm that the Government have accepted his a matter for sensitive negotiations. I do not want to be recommendation. We have already begun working on drawn any further on those matters. It would be wrong making it happen in practice. formetodoso. I will move on to subsection 6(d) of amendment 48, I will move on and finish speaking to the amendments. which suggests that the report to Parliament should In practice, the new system of regulation will be undertaken include the arrangements by a new work force agency, which will be an executive agency of the Department. Where functions that the “to end any functions of the GTCE which will not be continued.” GTCE currently undertakes are transferring to the new I agree with the need for us to be clear on the implications agency, it is likely that the GTCE staff working on those of abolishing the GTCE and the need for us to provide functions will have the option of transferring with information about the specifics of the new system relating them. I can assure hon. Members that transfers of staff to teacher regulation in the future. I refer the hon. will be managed according to relevant legislation and Member for Hartlepool to the detailed policy statement Cabinet Office guidance. I hope that that provides some that I circulated at 17.18 pm last Thursday. I hope that reassurance. that provides the reassurance that he seeks. Within the new system of regulation we propose that Amendments 49 and 50 would require that before the the investigations of disciplinary cases will be able to Secretary of State exercises his new regulatory functions draw on a range of expertise as required, including, for for the teaching profession, he would need to provide example, from the teaching profession and legal and Parliament with a report to demonstrate that he has put medical expertise. Only the most serious cases will in place arrangements with sufficient resources and proceed to a hearing panel, which will decide whether expertise to carry out these functions. I understand hon. the person may need to be barred from teaching. Hearing Members’ concerns that we must ensure that robust panels will include expertise from the teaching profession, arrangements are in place for the delivery of a new and lay person representation and panels will be able to system, prior to the abolition of the GTCE and the seek further professional expertise as appropriate to the commencement of the new arrangements. I want to case. reassure hon. Members that we are already working very closely with colleagues at the GTCE, as I mentioned In summary, I hope that I have been able to reassure earlier, to ensure that expertise is retained and that the Committee that we are putting arrangements in smooth transition plans are developed and delivered. place to ensure the smooth delivery of the new regulatory There is already a transition board, which includes the arrangements, and that we have plans in place to address GTCE chief executive and members of the GTCE the wider concerns raised in the amendment. Given senior management team, as well as officials from the those plans, I hope that the Committee will concede Department who are managing the transitional that a requirement in law to report to Parliament on this arrangements. We will continue to work closely with the matter will not be necessary. I therefore urge the hon. GTCE to learn from its experience as well as the experience Members to withdraw their amendments. of other regulators. Mr Wright: I thank the Minister for his response and 3.15 pm I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the Kevin Brennan: What percentage of GTEC staff does debate. There was a degree of consensus on some the Minister estimate will be transferred to the Department? aspects of the debate. I want to cover a number of things. I am pleased to see that 17.18 is the new 4.34, but we are getting later, which is a concern. The Chair of Mr Gibb: We are consulting with the GTCE on the the Education Committee made what I thought was a transfer of functions of the staff. I am not able to give pertinent point about registration being an effective use an estimate. Detailed discussions are happening. They of resources. It is being designed and built now, and are obviously very sensitive, because we are talking knocking it down and starting again would be a gross about people’s careers and futures, but we are consulting misuse of public money. Any reassurances from the closely with the unions and the GTEC. Minister are welcome. On the potential £8 million of savings identified in Mr Wright: I acknowledge that the Minister might the impact assessment, I reiterate my request that the not have the details at his fingertips, but I recall that the Minister write to the Committee with further details. I impact assessment says that there will be a net saving of realise that matters regarding people’s careers, professions around £8 million. I think the GTCE has an income and lives are sensitive. However, 96% or 97% of the of £16 million, which is almost universally derived from GTCE’s money comes from the £36 subscriptions from 483 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 484 teachers. The impact assessment states that there will be Mr Stuart: The amendments would include teachers savings of £8 million, but it seems that there will have to who had displayed “sustained professional incompetence” be substantial cutting if that £16 million subscription in the list of individuals whom the Secretary of State income is lost. That income will be absorbed by may investigate for unacceptable conduct. Such conduct departmental costs, so how can savings of £8 million be relates to those who bring the teaching profession into made? I would find reassurance useful, preferably before disrepute and those who have been convicted of a Report—or imminently, if the Minister wants to respond. relevant offence. The amendments are probing—I might as well say Mr Gibb: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that now—and they aim to continue the discussion that that we will write to him with more details—it is only the Minister has begun on how we regulate the teaching fair that we should do so. I will write to him as soon as I profession. As I have said, one of the key factors in can; I have, so far, written to him fairly swiftly. improving education lies in enhancing the quality of our teachers, which the Government acknowledge. Parents Mr Wright: I look forward to seeing that at 17.18. remain, perhaps, the single most important people in the educational life of a child, but quality of teaching is I do not want to detain the Committee much longer, the next most important factor. but I am concerned about the profession. We want On Second Reading, I expressed disappointment that teaching to be seen as the profession of choice for our the Bill did not contain more to improve the quality of brightest and best. It is a huge vocation, yet it seems teaching further. The White Paper, which came as the that the Government are creating a curious situation in John the Baptist to the Bill, was called, “The Importance which the teaching profession is not trusted with any of Teaching”, and I had hoped that there would be degree of self-regulation—they want to bring it in-house. more in the Bill on that topic. A curious comparison would be if the Department of Health were regulating the nursing profession. I cannot However, I am pleased to say that I ended that see why the Government want to go down this route. criticism of the Bill by managing to mention that the performance and management systems for teachers at Through different stakeholders, there might be a the moment are toothless, that too much was conceded recognition that the GTCE has not performed as we by the previous Government to the teaching unions and would have all wished, but surely there has to be—to that the systems have contributed to the perception that use the Chair of the Education Committee’s word—a those who were not up to scratch were not sufficiently buffer between the Secretary of State who is responsible challenged. I asked the Secretary of State when will he for education policy in England, which is a large country “rewrite the professional standards? That cannot be started too in these terms, and the teaching profession. If there is a soon.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 196.] problem, why must the solution be abolition and not reform or replacement? Why does the responsibility I am delighted that he wrote to me, as the chair of the have to be centralised to the Secretary of State? Education Committee, on 11 March, the eve of my birthday, about the teacher standards review. I am concerned about incoherent and inconsistent regulation and variable interpretations of regulation, Kevin Brennan: At 4.34? but I understand what the Minister has said. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, because I do not want to test the Committee’s opinion. I may want to Mr Stuart: I have the letter and its date. I do not have return to the matter on Report, however, after I receive the exact time, and I apologise. If I had been in the the information that the Minister will provide. I beg to spirit of the Committee, I would have ensured that that ask leave to withdraw the amendment. was shared with the Committee. Perhaps I can bring it in later. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Secretary of State let me and the Education Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), Committee know about the teacher standards review That the clause stand part of the Bill. that I had called for on Second Reading and his Question agreed to. appointment, as the Minister has said, of Sally Coates Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. to lead that. The Secretary of State mentions that, as he set out in the White Paper, “raising the quality of our teachers is the most vital reform if our Clause 8 education system is to become truly world-class. We need to free up teachers to make the right decisions based on their professional FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO judgment. In order to do that, we must have a simple and clear set TEACHERS of standards they must meet.” I do not think anyone in the Committee would disagree Mr Stuart: I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 8, with that; I certainly hope that they do not. The Secretary page 11, line 17, at end insert— of State continued: “Over the past decade, the proliferation of teacher standards ‘(c) has displayed sustained professional incompetence.’. has been confusing. It has been difficult for teachers to map their own professional development and even more difficult for schools The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss to manage performance properly…I have asked Mrs Coates to the following: submit an interim report to me by July 2011 making recommendations about the QTS and core standards, and to report in full Amendment 71, in clause 8, page 12, line 19, at end recommendations for the full suite of teaching of teaching standards insert ‘or sustained professional incompetence’. by the autumn term.” Amendment 72, in clause 8, page 12, line 46, at end That is extremely welcome and answers some of my insert ‘or sustained professional incompetence’. queries. 485 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 486

[Mr Graham Stuart] That was in November of last year. In almost half of local authorities almost nobody had been removed A question remains, which I hope the Minister will be from teaching. I am sure that you would agree, Mr Williams, able to answer, although perhaps he will not be able to that in politics—indeed, in the House of Commons, do so because the review is happening. It seems odd that even with its requirement for thousands of people to the Bill says that those guilty of offences and gross vote for you in order to get here—a sizeable number of misconduct will be included on this astonishing central people, regardless of politics, are fundamentally list to be held by the Secretary of State, but those who incompetent. Fortunately, none is on this Committee: show sustained incompetence will not be. That is what I well, one hopes not. We recognise that happens in any wanted to tease out. It is also rather odd that schools profession. have to consider whether they refer someone. There are I would hate to be misinterpreted. I think that the various figures available, but I think everyone would role of teachers in our society is fantastic; I want to accept that fewer than 20 teachers have been struck off celebrate it, I want to reinforce it, I want them to have in the last decade. If there are as few as that on the the status and preferably, if money ever allows, I would central list, it will be quite a big thing to be on it for the like the pay of teachers to be raised, because what could individuals concerned, with implications not only for be more important than shaping the childhood of somebody their professional lives, as they will no longer be able to so that they can progress in life and, hopefully, enjoy the teach, but potentially in other areas. It is therefore day that they are being educated as well? There is no slightly odd that it is up to the school to consider more important profession in this country than teaching whether it refers them or not, which may lead to a bit of and we owe it to those teachers who put such effort into a lottery as to whether someone finds their name on giving a high performance to make sure that their staff there, and it may not be related to what they have done. room does not have people in it who have clearly either According to “Panorama” last year, only 18 UK lost the will, or never had the ability, to contribute in the teachers have been struck off for incompetence in the way that the best do to the betterment of the children in past 40 years. That seems extraordinarily unlikely, but if their classes. That is why we need to hear from the people are aware of other figures, they struggle to come Government, while we discuss a Bill which follows a up with the numbers. That is despite estimates that White Paper called “The Importance of Teaching”, some 17,000 teachers may not be up to the job. I know how precisely the Minister for schools thinks we can from personal experience of what tends to happen in a improve the current situation, which is not acceptable. struggling school that has struggling teachers. We move in to provide support for those whom we think we can bring up to standard, but we lean on the others, one way Mr Gibb: It is a pleasure to respond to the amendment or another, and they have a tendency to move on. They of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. tend not to leave teaching, but to move to another To take up his first challenge, about why there is not school. All too often, teachers who are showing sustained more in the Bill regarding the quality of teachers, the incompetence move to another school, and there is not fact is that we are not in the business of putting declaratory a great deal of incentive for schools to do something sections and clauses into legislation. That was a slight about it. It is possible that there will be even less habit of the previous Administration and we are keen to incentive to do anything about it when it is necessary to legislate only when we need to, because every piece of report all the way to the Secretary of State about their legislation complicates the statute book. In fact, most behaviour. That would, of course, be an argument of these Bills will amend other pieces of education against my amendments, but I would like to know legislation and we are keen to legislate only when necessary. whether the Minister has any thoughts about how we are going to create a system in which those who are The effects of amendments 70, 71 and 72 would be to failing young people are better held to account. require that allegations of both professional incompetence and misconduct are considered at the national level, which would replicate the current GTCE arrangements. 3.30 pm Amendment 70 would mean extending the new national The chief inspector of schools, Christine Gilbert, has system of regulation to cover cases of sustained professional noted that incompetence as cases of misconduct. Amendment 71 “poor teaching turns a child off learning” would require employers to consider whether to refer and that cases of sustained professional incompetence as well as serious misconduct cases. Amendment 72 would require “parents should not have to put up with it”. supply agencies to consider whether to refer cases of Who would not agree with her? She also said: sustained professional incompetence as well as serious “As I go round the country, heads tell me how difficult it is to get misconduct. rid of weak teachers. They say they start the procedure and they might be 18 months down the line and the teacher will move...we The single most important factor in ensuring a good need to be thinking of ways of preventing that”. education for every child is, as my hon. Friend so ably said, that they have a good teacher. I remember my That is the chief inspector of schools. The current favourite teacher, Brian Rogers, who taught me A-level situation that this coalition Government have inherited economics. He was from the left, which is probably one is not a good enough one and does not give the confidence reason why I became a Tory. He was a very good to parents that they deserve and are entitled to expect. economics teacher, and I owe him a huge debt of Another insight into these numbers comes from a gratitude for what I believe is my good understanding of Times Educational Supplement investigation, which found: economics, although it does not come anywhere near “No teachers have been fired for incompetence in almost half the the understanding of the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary local authorities in England during the past five years”. to the Treasury. 487 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 488

Teachers are our greatest asset, and we want to help teacher. Who can blame a head teacher who is concerned them to do their job even better by encouraging schools about the performance of a colleague if, by going to provide them with the support and professional through the capability procedure, he has to refer the development that they need to fulfil their potential and teacher to the GTCE, where they may be struck off and to help their pupils do so, too. The White Paper, “The have their career terminated? For any human being that Importance of Teaching”, has set out our approach to might be regarded as too much to go through. achieving that, including our plans to make it easier for Employers are best placed to make decisions about schools to address teachers’ poor performance. The the skills and competence of their work force, and we majority of our teachers are highly competent professionals, are introducing a package of measures to empower and but where poor performance occurs it is critical that support them to do so. I have already referred to, and that is tackled, as my hon. Friend said. will not repeat again, the fact that we have asked Sally As drafted, the Bill proposes that only cases of Coates to review teaching standards. We will shortly misconduct will be considered by a national regulator. I consult on similar arrangements for performance would like to reassure my hon. Friend that I share his management and tackling poor capability, which will concerns about the need to tackle poorly performing streamline the system and remove the current duplication teachers, and to ensure that poor teachers are not that employers have found to be a barrier to tackling recycled or transferred around the system. The question such issues. is how we can best address those concerns. It is clear that the current system of considering cases of Mr Stuart: On a more positive note of rewarding incompetence at the national level is not working. As good performance, the threshold—I am not sure if it is my hon. Friend said, since the GTCE was formed in still called that—was supposed to be based on higher 2000, nearly two thirds of local authorities have never performance. It was supposed to be a hurdle that the referred a case of incompetence to it, despite employers best performing teachers would get over, but the perception being under a duty to do so. From 2001 to the end of was that over time it became something that people January this year, the GTCE concluded only 82 competence were just given through service rather than on the basis hearings and struck off only 14 teachers for incompetence. of quality. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on Although the majority of our teachers are highly competent how we incentivise high performance and recognise professionals, I, like my hon. Friend, simply cannot where it exists, and do not have a system that morphs believe that in the past 10 years there have been only into paying out money on a time of service basis? 14 incompetent teachers. That can be said about the members of no other profession. The National Centre for Social Research undertook Mr Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such a comprehensive study into low referral rates to the a perception is out there. It is certainly important, and GTCE for incompetence. It was published last year, and we shall return to it in due course when we have the revealed that employers were reluctant to make referrals revised teacher standards from Sally Coates’ committee, to the GTCE on the basis of poor performance. It because those standards will determine whether a teacher found that that was because they felt either that the is a leading teacher or an excellent teacher and so on, GTCE “has no teeth” and that there was no point, or which will then determine their pay spine and remuneration. that striking a person off the register for a performance One final point that I have not yet mentioned is that issue was too severe an action, and one for which they we are not legislating for everything. As well as the did not want to be responsible. As I quoted in the issues of the commission, teaching standards and so on, debate on the previous group of amendments, the report we are strengthening the training and support available stated that to school leaders so that head teachers and aspiring “there is no consistent understanding of the GTC’s regulatory heads are better prepared for their management role role with regard to incompetence.” through a revised national professional qualification for There was a clear sense from employers that referring a headships. Serving heads will be able to access information case of incompetence to the GTCE meant a “duplication and advice. of local procedures”. The research also found that In conclusion, it is only through empowering and employers expressed the view that performance can be supporting employers to play their role in properly contextual—that is, an individual whose performance is addressing performance issues that we can begin to in question in one context may perform to standard in tackle the issue of poor teachers being recycled around another. Moving schools might therefore transform the the system. We already know that employers are reluctant individual’s performance ability. to make referrals to a national regulator on the basis of My hon. Friend may recall that David Smellie, an competence and the revised regulatory arrangements eminent employment lawyer, gave evidence at the public seek to learn from that. The new arrangements for evidence session. He has said: regulations proposed under the Bill, combined with our plans to empower and support employers to tackle poor “Independent schools seem to cope well acting autonomously. Performance is being managed better in those schools without performance, will ensure a less bureaucratic system that creating a hire and fire culture”. can better ensure the quality and high standards of our teaching profession. On that basis, I urge my hon. He went on: Friend to stick to his guns that the amendment was a “The imposition of centralised disciplinary/capability procedures probing amendment, and to withdraw it. has been shown not to work on a wider national employer basis, and there is no reason to pursue the same policy within schools.” It is evident that the arrangements for teacher regulation Mr Stuart: I am grateful to the Minister for a full under the GTCE have not been effective, partly because response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. the duty to refer acted as a disincentive to a head Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 489 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 490

Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 8, agree with him. When there is a disciplinary process, page 11, line 20, at end insert ‘, or a reprimand, conditional which is properly and fully considered, with people who registration, or suspension, which have the same meanings may have done something pretty poor, it may be seen as in schedule 2 to THEA 1998.’. that there is an appropriate punishment other than The purpose of the amendment is straightforward being permanently struck off. That would mean that we and simple. It would make the sanctions available to the would not lose someone who made a mistake, who Secretary of State match those currently available to the deserves to be punished for it, but who does not need to GTCE. Under current arrangements, if a teacher were be barred for all time and cast into darkness from the found guilty by a professional competence committee, educational firmament. I hope that the Minister will they can be punished in several ways: by a reprimand, consider the issue further. As this Bill goes through which is kept on record for two years; a suspension, Parliament, it may be possible to reconsider the measure. which can stop the teacher from working for up to two years; or a prohibition order, which bans teachers from Julie Hilling: I want to add my support to this the profession. In some cases, teachers who have faced a amendment. If we think about other professional bodies prohibition order can reapply for teacher registration and other professions, such as the medical profession, after two years. we have more options than just barring people for life. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has only two There needs to be something that is proportionate and, proposed judgments for cases coming before him: barred in some cases, remedial. We share a concern that previous or not barred. Those prohibition orders would be very cases have not been referred to the GTC when they blunt instruments to use in often quite complex cases. should have been. Going forward, we share a concern The GTCE had a variety of judgments at its disposal, that cases may not be referred to the Secretary of State which could take into account individual circumstances, when they should be. People may see that barring and I cannot understand the rationale behind the Minister someone for life, for what could be a poor decision or moving from what is a targeted and individual way of practice at that point in time, but from which they could providing sanctions and punishment towards a somewhat learn, is extreme, when they could retrain or be barred blunt tool. for a period of time. The NUT said that the clause, as it stands, would I urge the Minister to look at whether there should be mean that other sanctions. If we want to ensure that teachers are “potentially good teachers may be lost to the profession”. referred and that we deal with incompetence and those who should not be teaching unless remedial action is The Association of School and College Leavers told us taken, unless we look at other sanctions that can be that taken, we will be in a situation where teachers are not “the sole sanction of prohibition for unprofessional conduct is being referred to the Secretary of State. I urge the not proportionate or remedial—it is too crude an instrument”. Minister to add alternatives to the ban for life. It also said that a sole sanction of prohibition “is actually likely to increase the historical reluctance by employers to refer teachers and to exacerbate the trend for teachers to Mr Gibb: In essence, in responding to the hon. Member resign, and move on, rather than be referred”, for Bolton West and my hon. Friend the Member for a point that has been made eloquently by the Chair of Beverley and Holderness, the purpose of the new the Select Committee. Can the Minister explain why he arrangements is that teachers should be referred to the is moving away from those different types of sanctions panel only if people want the teacher to be banned. The towards a more blunt tool of punishment? I note that issue to be referred has to be of such seriousness that the Bill mentions an interim prohibition order. Will the those referring a teacher would expect that to be the hon. Gentleman outline what that means and say in consequence. Amendment 52 would allow the Secretary what circumstances it would be applied? of State to issue a teacher with a reprimand, a conditional registration or a suspension, as well as the prohibition Amendment 52 would give the Secretary of State order. In essence, that would reinstate the range of more options to deal with teachers’ disciplinary matters, intermediate sanctions that the GTCE currently has at would mean that more appropriate judgments will be its disposal when considering a disciplinary case. That is made, would raise standards in teaching and hopefully not what we want to achieve with this Bill. mean that more teachers are retained in teaching, but to We do not believe that the GTCE system was successful. a higher quality. I hope that the Minister will look at I have already pointed out that over the past decade, our amendment favourably, provide us with a response there were only 14 cases of teachers being barred for and an explanation, and hopefully accept the amendment. incompetence. Where there are concerns about a teacher’s performance or conduct, those should be addressed by 3.45 pm the school. We are trying to develop a serious relationship with schools. We want to trust professionals to tackle Mr Stuart: The shadow Minister makes a good point. those issues of competence and conduct effectively. The Minister is considering whether the full list should Only the most serious cases will lead to a dismissal at be retained, if there is a way of keeping it going the school level. Only cases of gross misconduct should administratively in a simple and cost-effective way, which be referred to the national level. We think that that is would allow a more graduated set of measures to be the right approach. recorded. I am not sure why the whole list, as opposed to a small list, would necessarily help, but if there was a thinking that it needed to be kept as simple as possible, Mr Wright: Does the Minister think that more or that was one of the reasons for having what the shadow fewer referrals will take place under the arrangements Minister called a blunt instrument. I would tend to proposed in the Bill? 491 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 492

Mr Gibb: It is difficult to say. Only gross misconduct that they find that an easier alternative. Then there is will be referred to the Secretary of State, who will then the worry that if someone does manage to ease out or refer it to the hearing panel, so there will be fewer. I sack a teacher through the capability procedures, they think 150 cases were referred on the grounds of then get referred to the GTCE, which is not something incompetence. Those will not be referred in future. We that most head teachers want to have on their conscience, want to see those dealt with at the school level. That is even if it is ultimately the right thing for the teacher. why we put in place and are reforming issues of competence We are trying a range of measures to bring into our and capability procedures. That is why we are reforming schools some of the approaches to managing professionals teaching standards and the national professional that exist in other professions. That is what we hope to qualification for headship. All that is intended to assist achieve. That will not eliminate the problem—it cannot and enable professionals at the school level to tackle be eliminated. In every field, whether accountancy, performance issues there. It seems rather absurd that medicine or the law, people recruit and make mistakes, one of the GTCE’s recommendations should be for a but what we are trying to do will minimise that because teacher go on a course. These are not matters that it will reduce the incentive to produce flattering references. should be dealt with by a national regulatory body. Schools should take up references when they recruit a They should be dealt with at the school level by professional new teacher, and we want to try to put in place systems head teachers. That is the kind of arrangement that we that decrease the incentive for providing an inflated want to have in place in future. reference when one is sought. Head teachers need to give far more honest references. Julie Hilling: One of the problems is that teachers are The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked why the being recycled. They may leave a school because they Secretary of State had an interim power to prevent a have taken a compromise deal and not been sacked by teacher from teaching—he wanted to know what that the school. They are eased out, but are then able to seek was about. If there is an allegation of serious misconduct, employment at other schools, either within the same we believe that there should be a power to prevent the authority, a neighbouring authority or at the other end person from teaching while their case is being considered. of the country. That problem is recognised by all members Protecting the safety of children has to be our prime of the Committee. I am not saying that there are vast concern. The GTCE had previously called for such a numbers of incompetent teachers, but we know that power, and it has also been recommended by the Council some teachers do not provide a good service for young for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which provides people, so surely we should be asking how we can best practice advice on regulations. In fact, the majority improve the situation to ensure that teachers who are of other regulators already possess this kind of power. incompetent and who have committed undesirable acts We expect it to be used for only the most serious cases, cannot then simply be recycled through the education and, if it is used, that the case will be concluded as system. If we are simply to have a banning, fewer swiftly as possible. With those few remarks, I hope that people will be referred. How will the Minister deal with I have managed to reassure the hon. Gentlemen, and the recycling? that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr Gibb: The hon. Lady raises an important and serious point that is of concern to all members of the Mr Wright: With the greatest respect for the Minister, Committee. We know that having a national regulatory I do not think that he has adequately explained the body—with competence being referred to the GTCE—is situation. In order to make progress, I will not press the not successful. We know that it does not work because amendment to a Division, but I do not think that he has of the figures that have been cited—two thirds of local explained how the provisions in clause 8 will improve authorities have never referred a teacher for incompetence, the situation. If one accepts the notion that there is and only 14 teachers have been barred from teaching on incompetence and gross misconduct in the teaching the grounds of incompetence. That does not work, so profession, as in every other profession, it is not appropriate we have to find another way. It is difficult, because we to move away from the more proportionate and graduated are talking about human beings who train to be teachers response that we have under the GTCE towards a blunt and who want to continue teaching. They may find it one—you are barred or you are not barred. The notion difficult to do anything else, but it might be that by that was put forward by the Chairman of the Select going to a new school or going on a course recommended Committee that people are put off because of that will by a head teacher, they may be able to improve their not be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. They teaching ability. exacerbate the problem of inflated references and recycling, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member In a new environment, such teachers may flourish. for Bolton West. They may not have flourished in a comprehensive but may flourish in a grammar school. They may not have I fully accept the Minister’s point that having to flourished in the independent sector but may decide to resort to an outside body is not the greatest way of move into the maintained sector and do well. It is doing things—of course it is not. Disputes and questions difficult for us to know. We are trying to make it easier about competence and misconduct should be dealt with for head teachers to exercise their professional judgment at a local level by the manager in charge, but often that and management skills, and be enabled either to help cannot be done. teachers become better teachers or to manage them out I give notice that I want to come back to this on of the school. Too often, they tend to give very good Report. The response at present in schedule 2 of the references to teachers in the hope that they simply go on Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998—the four their merry way.It may be that the capability or performance different sanctions that are available—is far more management procedures are so complicated and lengthy appropriate than this blunt response. I will not press the 493 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 494

[Mr Iain Wright] a man of near perfection in personality and professional application. However, were he to make a mistake and amendment to a Division now, but I want to come back find himself referred—not just to a local authority to it at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the body, embarrassing though that would be, but to the amendment. Secretary of State far away in London—to be possibly Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. put on this small list of seriously barred individuals, I expect he would feel pretty sore if he found himself on that list, but someone who had behaved in exactly the Mr Stuart: I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 8, same way had not been referred. He would be even page 11, line 40, at end insert— more upset if there were no mechanism by which he ‘(c) the names of persons disqualified from membership of could insist on equal treatment. the Institute for Learning due to their professional conduct.’. When a severe penalty is at stake, normal principles of justice would suggest that those guilty of the same offence should be treated in the same way. It should not The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss be down to the decision of a body that is not ideally the following: amendment 79, in clause 8, page 12, line 10, at constituted to make that decision. Governing bodies end insert and head teachers are not primarily in place because ‘This will include information held on such persons by the they know how to make these kinds of judgments; they Independent Safeguarding Authority.’. are there to help run schools. So I am sympathetic to Amendment 53, in clause 8, page 12, line 23, leave out those amendments, and hope to hear from the Minister ‘consider whether it would be appropriate to’. that there is a sensible rationale for what on the face of Amendment 81, in clause 8, page 12, line 25, at end it is the possibility of two people doing exactly the same insert thing, but one of them faces a higher penalty than the ‘and to the Independent Safeguarding Authority’. other, as a result of a decision by a governing body which may make that decision for reasons hard to Amendment 80, in clause 8, page 13, line 7, leave out divine from the outside, particularly if one is the person ‘consider whether it would be appropriate to’. being referred. Amendment 59, page 63 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 32 to 38. Stella Creasy: I am pleased to follow what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, for a 4pm change. Mr Stuart: Amendment 73 follows the point that was made earlier about the Government acceding to those Mr Stuart: Be nice! with QTLS—qualified teacher learning and skills— qualifications in the further education sector being able Stella Creasy: I think he understands some of the to teach vocational courses in schools, which, as I said, I concerns I have. The hon. Gentleman should cast the entirely welcome. The aim of the amendment is to stone out of his own eye, not the splinter out of mine. highlight that issue further and ensure that we have a This is a genuine concern. We have tabled these probing consistent system so that schools know that, when they amendments to try and understand how these changes look at this list, they can find those with a QTLS who will work with the changes that are also proposed to the are barred from teaching in the same way that they can Independent Safeguarding Authority; the changes in for those with a QTS. I hope that it is straightforward the way information will be collated in that proposal; and I will be interested to hear from the Minister who will have access to that information; and possible about it. contradictions within these proposals. It sounded earlier Amendment 79 touches on information held on such as though the idea of any sort of central co-ordination persons by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. might be amiss, but central co-ordination is needed to Again, I will be interested to hear from the Minister get safeguarding right—[Interruption.] I would welcome whether he considers that to be a useful addition. the evidence and experience of a number of coalition Amendment 53 picks up the point I made earlier, as Members. I am sure that even with the stern looks of to whether it is appropriate, given, as the Minister has the Whips, it would not take long to go through some of said, that the aim of this list is that only the most the issues with them. Having worked in child protection serious offences are referred. I think it is therefore odd in the voluntary sector, I am concerned about how the that the legislation suggests that schools should consider information on the previous register was used, where whether to refer. The implications for the individuals that was translated to child protection and safeguarding, are huge, and if the legislation is designed to do what where there might have been cross-over with information the Minister says, every school should be obliged to that schools have access to and how that might have refer to the Secretary of State. He could then make his been used within broader child protection and vice judgment, with the current set of powers, which might versa. need to be varied from the all or nothing situation we The amendments recognise that under the previous have at the moment. system, the organisation that information was referred However, if the circumstances are as the Minister to was either the GTC or the ISA. There needs to be described, we would expect everyone to be referred. I clarity for all concerned about what information needs am particularly interested to hear how the Minister to be passed on, to whom and in what circumstances, would feel were he to be guilty under this provision— and about what information will be held about people I know it is impossible to imagine this of the Minister, on the small list—and about how those two connect he is such an upstanding individual and so professional, together. I hope that the Department has been involved 495 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 496 closely with the Home Office in constructing the new Predominantly, I want to talk to amendments 53 and system because of the dangers that we have seen. There 59 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member have been tragic cases in the past where information has for Cardiff West, although the Chair of the Select not been passed on or where we have asked individuals Committee put the argument far more eloquently than who may not understand the implications of what has I could with regards to amendment 53. In discussing the happened to make judgments. last group of amendments, the Minister explained the Amendment 79 would clarify how the information matter of referral to the Secretary of State and of that the Secretary of State will hold on an individual barring or non-barring in relation to the most serious will meet the information held by the Independent cases of misconduct. Surely following on from that, Safeguarding Authority, and how that will be shared logically, the employer must provide the information with the public and people who are interested in safety about the teacher to the Secretary of State. I would like in schools. Amendment 53 refers to the point raised by the Minister to outline why there seems to be some the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness regarding inconsistency between his earlier remarks and the rationale who would do the considering, and would provide behind the current group of amendments. clarity by saying that all information, in issues of serious I would also like the Minister to comment on the misconduct, should be passed on. point that was made by Brian Lightman from ASCL in Amendment 81 is about joining up the two different the evidence sessions we had a couple of weeks ago. I bodies and ensuring that information that will be passed shall paraphrase Mr Lightman’s remarks. He essentially to the Secretary of State by schools will also be passed said that head teachers—employers—will not want to to the ISA, so that where there are serious concerns follow the proposed procedures because although they about an individual, their conduct and their access to might think a teacher is terrible and that they do not children, information is shared with the ISA and any want them near their particular institution, they do not other organisation that may access the ISA database. want to wreck that person’s career. An element of that From a voluntary sector perspective, I suggest that culture still persists. How does the Minister wish to people who are inappropriate to be involved in schools address that? should also not be involved in youth organisations or What does the Minister think are the implications of work with vulnerable people. It is important that the the clause in terms of safeguards when teachers are proposals mesh together as the changes take place—I found guilty of serious misconduct? Under the clause, think such proposals are being discussed in another what does he think would happen if a teacher had done Committee Room—from an education perspective. something for which they would ordinarily be struck off, but the employer did not provide the information to Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I do not the Secretary of State? Again, that point was made by have a great deal to add to what the hon. Member for the Chair of the Select Committee. Does the Minister Beverley and Holderness and my hon. Friend the Member think that, in certain circumstances, the employer must for Walthamstow said. In the past, the GTCE has provide such information because of the gravity of the worked closely with the Independent Safeguarding situation? Will he outline some such circumstances? Authority and has developed particular ways of working Will he provide any information or guidance to employers around cases that are not necessarily clear-cut, where to help them determine whether to provide the information issues might be relevant to one situation but not to to the Secretary of State, or will the onus always be on another. Close working relationships were developed to the employer to determine whether it should be provided? deal effectively with such situations. I therefore want to Through amendment 53, we essentially want to probe use the amendments to probe the Minister about that. the Government’s thinking on that matter and whether, given his earlier comments, all information on the grounds Amendment 80 is particularly important because it of misconduct should be provided. deals with the supply of information by contractors and agencies. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness I will speak briefly to amendment 59, the purpose of has set out clearly the issues about consistency. However, which is to probe the Minister’s intentions behind removing it is not just about that, but about ensuring that we are the requirement that only registered teachers may carry not creating new loopholes. We know that the danger out specified duties. Under his proposals, a teacher has gone the other way, and that the vetting and barring must still be qualified to carry out the specified duties scheme had to be reviewed because it had gone over the or qualified teacher status can no longer be demonstrated top. However, if we leave a loophole, something will through registration with the General Teaching Council inevitably slip through, and we will be back to the cycle for England. It is not clear from the Bill what the of kneejerk responses and again creating something implications of the clause are in relation to teacher that is not fit for purpose. The amendments try to be qualifications, although he has touched on that in his helpful and probe the Minister’s intentions. I hope that earlier remarks. I ask the Minister to set out his intentions he will respond to our genuine concerns. in relation to the wider point about qualifications and QTS. Again, I know that he has referred to that briefly in earlier remarks, but it would be useful to get a bit Mr Wright: I rise to support my hon. Friends for more detail. By tabling amendment 59, we are seeking Walthamstow and for Sheffield, Heeley on amendments 79 to probe the Government’s intentions about the qualification and 81. In the past few days, I read the last annual levels they expect from teachers. report of the GTCE which noted that there have been more referrals to its competency committee—more than 4.15 pm in any other year. It put that down to much closer working relationships with the ISA; the amendments Mr Hayes: It is good to be responding to a short tabled by my hon. Friends would help to consolidate debate on the amendments, despite the fact that most of the good work that is going on in the new regime. the remarks were addressed rather personally to my 497 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 498

[Mr Hayes] and bureaucratic system of formal registration. However, as I have said, I recognise—I acknowledge the arguments hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and from the Opposition Benches—that some aspects of the Littlehampton. I am delighted to speak on behalf of data and functionality provided by the current register both of us. are of some value and use for employers, most notably I shall speak to all the amendments, which relate to for recording the award of qualified teacher status. We aspects of the teacher regulation system operated by the are therefore committed to considering carefully—I GTCE and the regulatory system we are putting in shall repeat that because I want to make sure that place. That has been debated at some length this afternoon. shadow Ministers are absolutely attentive—we are carefully I shall try not to replicate some of the earlier debate, but considering what data that are currently collected by to address the specific points in the amendments. Let the GTCE may need to be retained and used in future. me first deal with amendment 59. As has been said, that We recognise the central benefits of providing head amendment would retain a system of registration for teachers and employers with access to a central record teachers in England. Although I share hon. Members’ of who holds qualified teacher status. We will explore view that the current system has elements that would be whether and how to provide that in future. We want to useful, it is my contention that the process of registration consider the demand for such a service alongside the is not necessary to maintain the supply of effective need to minimise burdens on teachers and schools while teachers in our schools for reasons I shall go on to delivering value for money to taxpayers. As the hon. highlight. Gentleman knows, the current registration system costs As colleagues have said, the GTCE collected myriad taxpayers around £2 million a year, and requires employers detailed information on teachers, ranging from personal and teachers to update their records at least three times data and qualifications through to information on the a year. I am not convinced that that represents good types of posts held in previous employment. The point value for money. was made earlier that teachers’ social profile and their Amendment 59 was referred to earlier. Against the history could be useful for good public policy. For that background of what I have said, I am pleased to say reason, I want to remind myself of the data that we that the head teachers associations have already offered already collect. The Department collects an enormous to work with us on the matter, and I look forward to a amount of data on the work force, and has access to constructive dialogue with them on how to take forward data collected by other bodies, such as the Training the commitments that I have just made. Development Agency for Schools. It is always my aim As all members of the Committee know, we are a to reassure the Committee, and the Department is listening Government, and a responsive Government. looking at all its data collection requirements, and the We want to take the profession, schools, governors, data needed by the new work force agency to support parents, and all Committee members with us on this schools in the exercise of their legitimate business. It is journey to raise standards for the future generation, for right to collect data, the Department does so, and that whom we are responsible. data could be used for the very purposes that were mentioned earlier to gain profile information about the Amendments 53 and 80 relate to the duty to refer all character of the teaching work force. cases of misconduct, for which the hon. Member for However, the current arrangements are time-consuming Hartlepool and others have made a case. I understand and expensive, and I am not sure that they are necessary that the intention behind the amendments is to place a to ensure that we have an effective teaching force in our duty on employers to refer all cases of serious misconduct schools. I do not consider it essential in making sure where teachers have been dismissed, or would have been that employers and the public are able to determine had they not resigned first. Our measure proposes that which teachers have been barred from working in England we respect the professionalism and judgment of employers, that we maintain the current arrangements. That is and give them the autonomy to decide for themselves clearly an objective that all responsible members of the which cases of serious misconduct to refer to the national Committee—all members of it are responsible—would regulator. We have debated that matter at some length. want to secure, but I am not sure that we need the Currently, as has been said, all cases of misconduct existing arrangements, with all their costs and bureaucracy, must be referred to the GTCE. My hon. Friend the to do so. Instead, we will set up a list of teachers who Minister has drawn our attention to evidence that suggests have been barred from working in schools in England, that the effect of that practice has not been as robust or and employers and the public will be able to access that reliable as was originally intended. The approach has list. not ensured that all cases of misconduct are referred, That is not an unprecedented principle. It is sensible which is well illustrated by the different patterns of always to err on the side of making a list of those referral across the country. For example, the Policy people who are prohibited, rather than making a list of Exchange research that was published in 2008 revealed everyone, because that is a much simpler, more cost-effective that 27 local authorities had never made a referral for and clearer exercise of our responsibilities. Our view, as misconduct; yet three authorities had made between 19 my hon. Friend the Minister articulated with extraordinary and 27. Such patterns suggest that the system, as I have elegance and eloquence— said, is not consistent, robust or reliable in delivering its original intention. Mr Wright: And resonance. Members of the Committee have raised the perfectly proper concern that misconduct is a matter to be taken Mr Hayes: And resonance. Employers are more than seriously, which, of course, it is. I believe, however, that capable of ensuring that teachers have the necessary something of a gap is growing between the two sides. I qualifications, experience, skills, and other attributes do not want to exaggerate the point, but it seems that appropriate to their school without the need for a costly Government Members in Committee have a powerful 499 Public Bill Committee17 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 500 belief that our teachers and head teachers have, to some Mr Hayes: I will happily do so. Perhaps I can move degree, been infantilised by the excessive concentration speedily on the amendments without in any way abridging on micro-management, central control and bureaucracy my commitment to the teaching force of this country. of previous regimes. We, on the Government Benches, Every great civilisation—Persia, China, Greece and are determined to remove some—indeed, all—of that Rome—has revered teachers and elevated the role of bureaucracy where it is unnecessary, and give greater the educator. When we diminish that role, we diminish freedom to trust the professionalism of our school our civilisation. I believe in our teachers and head leaders to believe in teachers. teachers and make no apology for doing so. I will Perhaps at this juncture, without wishing to get on continue to advocate their cause for as long as I am a the wrong side of anyone on the Committee, I might say Minister and a Member of this House. that every great civilisation has respected the role— Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— [Interruption.] (James Duddridge.)

James Duddridge: The Minister eloquently makes a number of points. Does he see the merit in returning to his seat at the end of my intervention, so that the Whip 4.25 pm may catch the Chair’s eye? Adjourned till Tuesday 22 March at half-past Ten o’clock.