Children, Schools and Families Bill

Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Before we begin, I have a few announcements to make. I do not think that they will be terribly interesting to anyone, but I have to go through the motions with these announcements. If people wish to remove their jackets, please feel free to do so if you want to be more comfortable. There is a money resolution in connection with this Bill. Copies are available in the room. If colleagues need advice, we have Officers who can point them in the right direction.

I should like to remind members of the Committee that adequate notice of amendments should be given. Three days’ notice of amendments is normally required for them to be selectable. That is, amendments tabled up until the rise of the House on a Thursday will be selectable on a Tuesday, and those tabled up until the rise of the House on a Monday will be selectable on a Thursday. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Janet Anderson, do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that might be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

The Committee will be asked first to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope we can take formally.

Assuming that the second of these motions has been agreed, the Committee will then move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the Room and our oral evidence session will continue. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, the Committee will hear evidence this morning and this afternoon, and Thursday morning and afternoon. Next week we will move to the Committee Corridor and revert to the traditional clause by clause scrutiny.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to raise an objection to the way in which the choice of witnesses is handled. I was careful to choose only a limited number of witnesses reflecting the wide range of subjects in the Bill. However, at least two of my witnesses were rejected and I was not given any reason why. One was Mr. John Bald, an independent consultant and an expert in education, and the other was Mr. Paul Strong, a head teacher at William Farr school in Lincolnshire. There are other head teachers who are being called as Government witnesses and I was upset that two of my witnesses on a very short list were rejected.

If this process of calling witnesses from outside to help scrutinise Bills is to work and to be transparent and open, it is important that Opposition witnesses are called unless there are exceptional reasons why they should not be. If the Government simply use this as a way of justifying their own legislation, it calls the whole process into question.

On a practical note, I understand that one of the witnesses due to give evidence in the last session on Thursday was unable to accept the invitation, and I would like to suggest an alternative name to fill that slot.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

We have tried as far as possible to accommodate all the witnesses who have been suggested and have tried to ensure a balance of people for these public evidence sessions. If the usual channels can discuss who the alternative should be for the last slot on Thursday when someone is not able to come, I am sure we will be able to deal with that.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have two points. First, I wish to record our thanks to the Minister for taking into account the suggestions that we made about who should be witnesses, and for accepting some significant amendments to the Government’s original list of witnesses. We appreciate the time it has taken to track down a number of individuals, some of whom have and some of whom have not been able to come.

Secondly, may I register our concerns about the programme motion. Although the Bill is small in size, it is great in scope, and we shall have an awful lot to consider after we go on from the evidence sessions. I hope that we can have some assurance from the Minister that every attempt will be made by the Government and by the usual channels to accommodate as extensive as possible a debate, because if we do not have that time, I am sure that that will be taken into account in another place, when decisions are made about how much of this legislation should be allowed to go through.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I am grateful for the remarks at the beginning. I do not run a Bill deliberately to avoid anybody that anybody else wants being on the Committee. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about how we have tried to accommodate people on the Committee in order to give us evidence.

The hon. Gentleman will notice that we have an end date for our discussion of the content of the Bill, but clearly if there is a need for one or two additional hours on one or two of the sittings, I am sure, subject to discussion, that that will be possible. He will also note that, as is the case 100 per cent. of the time whenever I am responsible for a Bill, there are no knives. It is a matter for the Committee to determine how much time it wants to spend on particular issues, and I am sure that we will come to an arrangement without the necessity for an artificial knife. That will lead to the Committee conducting its business in a much more sensible and mature way. We have an end date, and I am sure that, with the good will that we will no doubt generate, it will be possible to put in an additional hour or two hours somewhere if people feel it appropriate to discuss something a bit more. I am sure that, subject to the usual negotiations and discussions, in the spirit in which this Committee will conduct itself, that may well be possible.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. The Committee will now deliberate in private.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I understand that a policy statement has been made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families about home education and clause 26. It would be useful to have such policy papers in advance and I wonder whether you can make sure that we receive them.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I echo those concerns. There is an extensive amount of paperwork involved in trying to scrutinise a Bill and it is difficult to do our job if we are not aware of the documents within a decent period of time. May I ask, therefore, that we receive any documents at least 24 hours before the Committee sits? Is it possible for the Minister to write to members of the Committee later this week to indicate which papers might be used during each sitting and roughly when we can expect to see them?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Yes, I will do that. I apologise for the fact that the documents are not here. They are on their way as we speak.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Welcome to all our witnesses this morning. I do not know whether you have had any experience of giving evidence at a session like this, but I hope that it will be an enjoyable experience. Please introduce yourselves and briefly say something about the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you. We have until midday to question our witnesses. Mr. Gibb will ask the first question.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I wish to ask Mr. Tony Redmond about guarantees. When you have heard a complaint and upheld and you share the views of the complainant, paragraph 19 of the consultation document, “The Pupil and Parent Guarantees”, states that you can recommend

“where there has been a failure to make provision promised in the Guarantees, the LGO could seek to ensure that it is delivered;”.

Later in the document, it says that you can recommend that

“practices be changed for the future”.

How do you intend to deliver changes at a given school to ensure that all pupils go to schools where they are taught a broad balance and flexible curriculum? How will you change a school so that it delivers a high standard of education?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

What you said is that when the school has been complained about—that it is providing a standard of education that does not fulfil the guarantee—at the end of that whole lengthy and probably costly procedure, you would ask the school to consider how it should fulfil the guarantee. Is that not just a complete waste of time?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Could you compare that with, for example, when you take up cases of a complaint of maladministration in local government and the impact of your recommendations there?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Therefore, in relation to your many years’ experience in dealing with complaints against a local authority, you think that the course of action the local government ombudsman takes can also be applied to complaints about the guarantees in schools.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

As we have started off with the ombudsman issue, may I continue in that vein? I wanted to check, Mr. Redmond, how confident you are that you will be able to make judgments on whether the guarantees have been delivered. I do not know whether you have in front of you the original White Paper that lists the guarantees. On page 98, some of the pupil guarantees are listed. I want to draw your attention to No. 5 in the list, which states that

“every 11-14 year-old enjoys relevant and challenging learning in all subjects and develops their personal, learning and thinking skills so that they have strong foundations to make their 14-19 choices.”

If I was a parent who felt that guarantee had not been delivered, do you think you would find it difficult to make a judgment as to whether it had been delivered in practice?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Do you think that the guarantees are drawn with sufficient clarity that you will know what they are supposed to mean? I do not think I would know what that guarantee is supposed to mean.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Have you estimated how many additional staff and how much additional expenditure you will need to police the guarantees?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

But you have not done any costings.

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

May I ask any of the panel if they would like to see something in the Bill that is not there at the moment, or see something clarified in the Bill, that would help some of the schools in my constituency? As far as parent participation is concerned, 95 per cent. of the children in three of my primary schools entered school with not a word of English—they all spoke Punjabi—and there is a senior school where it is up to 75 per cent. Thus, that senior school had only three parents visiting an open night. Can any of you suggest anything that would help parents, schools and children in my constituency, where there is a lack of English and a lack of knowledge of education?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Mrs. Cryer, your question has triggered interest among all the witnesses.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

This is a question for David Simmonds. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State suggested that there were 70,000 home-educated children, by the Government’s best estimate. According to the Government’s impact assessment on home education, the one-off costs for 70,000 would amount to around £100 million to set up the licensing bureaucracy, and thereafter upwards of £50 million a year. If that is implemented, for the next decade it would cost about £500 million to put in place a licensing bureaucracy, with no additional resource whatever for actual educational support. Given the constraints on public finances at the moment, do you think that it is, first, a good use of money and, secondly, that it might not lead to the redirection of funding from children who are currently in need and not being protected educationally or in welfare terms, and in fact lead to the setting up of this licensing system?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

In their impact assessment, the Government say that the figures for the number of children in home education who may not be receiving a proper education are based on local authority information. They say that it is 20 per cent., which is not what the local authority information says. I wonder whether you could comment on that. Had you made any assessment of the benefits that they claim in the impact assessment, which, according to a statistician in the information that I have received, says that they have effectively double-counted? They have taken both the lifetime benefit for the whole population of home-educated children as it stands now, and then taken the percentage of all those in future years, which is statistically completely unsound and means that they have effectively double-counted the benefits. Can you comment on that?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

In the Khyra Ishaq case, the failure was of following procedure by the local authorities. There was absolutely no lack of powers, and suggesting that home education was an effective barrier to the local authority doing its job would not be fair. The Children’s Commission told the Select Committee precisely that, and it was wrong, too. Khyra Ishaq is not a case of the child being below the radar because of home education. In fact, there were plenty of signals on which the local authority did not act, nor did it use the powers that it actually had. Can you confirm that?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

What would you suggest is the best way forward? On Second Reading, Front-Bench spokespeople from all parties indicated that there had to be some updating or improvement of the present regulations. What do you recommend?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Tony Redmond, have you done scenario planning with the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the sense of looking at the guarantees about the different types of case that might come forward? I have always found as an MP and a Minister that looking at different scenarios that could emerge and how we could deal with them is helpful in seeing how the law would be applied or implemented on the ground. Have you done any of that work so far, based on the guarantees?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Chris Keates, you said in answer to a question that most schools were delivering the guarantees already. That is very welcome, but given that it might be just a way of formalising what we should expect in raising good practice, and if schools are already providing it, why would they need extra resources?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Okay. But others have.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Mr. Simmonds, I wonder if I could seek some clarification on the local authorities’ responsibility for the education of a child. My colleagues on this Committee have provided me with some information. Most of us have received quite a lot of lobbying, which suggests that it is parents’ responsibility, not the local authorities’. Can you state clearly on what grounds you feel that a local authority has the overriding responsibility?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

No, they do not.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The elective home education guidelines for local authorities produced by the DCSF lay out clearly and precisely in non-statutory form that local authorities do not have that overriding duty; it is parents who do.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

What I wanted to ask was whether it would be possible for you to give a note of the LGA’s understanding of that particular point and which statute it relates to. I do not want to put you on the spot, but we really could do with knowing the LGA’s position.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

It would be really helpful if we could have that clarification. I wanted to pursue this matter a little further. The concept of registration has upset a large number of people, and there is a difficult balance affecting large numbers of people for the sake of a few. Obviously, the few are very important, but we are looking at whether it is safeguarding our education. Do you think that the registration with all the strings attached—I mean the sticks, rather than the carrots—will be very cumbersome to implement, for example, in determining whether an efficient and suitable education is being supplied?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Could Dr. Dunford, Dr. Rake and Chris Keates comment on the registration monitoring for home-educated children set out in the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Colleagues, we have only just over half an hour left. I can see everyone who wants to ask a question and am making a mental note. The reason I am being a bit tough on supplementaries is that I want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Coming back to home education, the Khyra Ishaq case was mentioned, but it is probably sub judice, so we had better not explore it. However, on that principle, can Councillor Simmonds or any of the other members of the panel tell me how many children who are home educated have been the subject of serious case reviews because they have been seriously harmed or killed by their parents or carers?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think that is probably because the figure is zero, so that puts in perspective why we are targeting such parents.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is about putting it into a cost perspective as well. Is there a real threat to that particular constituency of children and does it justify the elaborate framework and the cost being proposed in the Bill?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

It is probably quite difficult to get statistics on how many home educators are abusers. I hope it is not about this. It would be like asking how many MPs are abusers or how many teachers are subject to serious case reviews. However, I take the point that how we go about this must not be through taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Getting a balance is something that I hope we can work through in Committee.

I am interested, Dr. Rake, in your organisation, the Family and Parenting Institute, not having a view on this at all. Clearly, there are issues here that colleagues are raising about the rights and engagement of parents. In submissions that I have received on home education, one of the asks from those who are home-educating their children is about more capacity to get support and help for their choice in educating their children. You are saying the Family and Parenting Institute has not discussed this and has no view on the parenting and schooling of children.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

May I move on to home-school agreements and ask a couple of questions about them? The Government are seeking to introduce clauses in the Bill because they say that the agreements are not being used as effectively as they might be. I visited a school in my constituency recently, where it was clear that until very recently the head teacher—I am not saying it is his fault—was not even aware that he could use parenting orders. Perhaps David and some representatives from John’s organisation—Chris—could answer why, given that there are already powers for head teachers and schools to use parenting orders, they are not being used. Why not? Why are not teachers in every local authority getting the right sort of advice, whether it is from the local authority through guidance from the LGA or through head teachers about how they can effectively use the powers?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

But you almost contradict yourself, John, if I may say so. My concern is not about everyone running to issue a parenting order at the first sign of lack of support from a parent. I think you are right; I think most schools go through that. I am worried about teachers and head teachers in the school community not feeling confident about how they would go about pursuing a parenting order, and what shape the order might take, as they can vary enormously depending on the family, and, in extreme circumstances, could be a spur to bringing in needed support for that family.

Your final point was about having a home-school agreement—a piece of paper—and then waving it around. The Bill is partly attempting to tighten up and improve. Therefore, effective action can be taken. Cases where things often have been tried and are just not working, and are having a huge displacement effect on other children in the school community, are in the minority.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

In your memorandum to the Committee, Miss Keates, you say that you remain to be convinced of the need for parental satisfaction surveys. Why is that your position?

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

Chris, a new clause is being proposed to the Bill about the conduct of madrassas and Christian religious information or education establishments outside the mainstream of schools. It is about child protection. Do your members complain that they have a problem with discipline in state schools because, perhaps, the majority of children attend another religious school where, to put it mildly, discipline is sometimes a bit heavy-handed so the kids feel that the teachers at the state school are a soft touch? Have you ever experienced anything like that among your members?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Can I return to home-school agreements generally? In the briefings that the Association of School and College Leaders sent, John, you said that it was unrealistic to require home-school agreements to be personalised for each individual, and that that would be wholly impracticable in secondary schools.

Chris Keates, you said that your union was concerned about the potential for the agreements to become hugely bureaucratic. Will both union leaders expand their views on that?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

May I ask both union leaders their estimate of what the costs might be? The impact assessment says that the additional costs will be mainly transitional, in the sense of changing the home-school agreement templates, but it seems to imply that the cost to the school of reviewing and making the agreements bespoke for every child will be zero. Do you have a feel for what the cost will be if the agreements are bespoke and reviewed annually?

Could you also talk about the licence to practise? What are the views of your unions on both those subjects?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Can I ask David Simmonds about the parental satisfaction survey? As I interpret it, it is about influencing local authorities and enabling them to be seen to be listening to views about what choice is available. I do not see it as a battering ram to use against individual schools. In a certain area, parents might want an academy, a different type of specialist school or more diversity of faith schools. Is that your understanding of what it is an attempt to do—to help the local authority better plan provision?

How do you see the surveys working? Do you think that it is appropriate that they should be only for parents whose children have yet to enter secondary school, for example, or should the views of parents of children in years 7 and 8 be sought? Also, how do you think a local authority might deal with the fact that those who return any questionnaire often tend to be more confident and educated? Do you see a role for sampling, for example, across different communities in a local education authority to ensure that the response is robust and reflects the views of parents with different levels of confidence?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I respect that, but there are always a lot of other issues, such as the bins being emptied. I am specifically discussing a tool to involve parents in the planning for choice of schools in their local area, which sometimes needs a more refined and prioritised approach.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We have only five minutes left, so I ask my colleagues to ask quick questions and our witnesses to provide brief answers.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have two relatively brief questions. I return to both John and Chris and the additional bureaucratic burdens that will be imposed by the Bill. We have discussed the many parts of the Bill that concern you because of their bureaucracy. If, having listened to you today, Vernon was suddenly to decide that he would concede two bits of the Bill that you particularly disliked and wanted him to drop because of their bureaucratic effect, which bits would you suggest he drop?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have one other question, which might stir you both up a bit—if you need that. We have discussed the licence to practice before. Head teachers around the country often say to me privately, “It is true that there are mechanisms to get rid of teachers who aren’t very good, but the truth is that they take ages to implement; people go off sick when you are about to take action against; and then they leave the school and appear somewhere else down the road and do a bad job there.” Are you both saying that the existing mechanisms for dealing with teachers who are not performing well are sufficient?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

John, there are two minutes left. The Minister has not yet had an opportunity.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Ten seconds from John?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I have tried to keep out of this, because people obviously know what I think; I wished to give everyone else the opportunity of asking questions. I thank the witnesses for coming here and for the evidence that they have given.

I have a question for Tony. I wish to be clear about complaints. As John said, for most of the time one would expect the school to sort out particular problems that parents may have about the guarantee. The local government ombudsman has the ability not to investigate something if he believes that it would be vexatious. That is correct, is it not?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Just to echo the Minister’s words, I thank the witnesses for their time and the way in which they have dealt with our questions. May I now ask for the next set of witnesses to join us?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I welcome our witnesses. You have been in the Gallery listening to the previous session. Just to remind everyone, an hour passes very quickly, and all colleagues seem to have many questions that they want to ask our witnesses. Again, I appeal for brief questions and fairly brief answers. Witnesses, will you introduce yourselves and make a comment on the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Sorry, could you introduce yourself?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is an interesting comment, Mr. Bartley, from the GTCE, which is charged, I presume, with overseeing the licence to practise. Will all the witnesses expand a little further on the licence to teach, starting with Mr. Bartley?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am not sure that I can have witnesses falling out with each other.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

To put back the proposition, one of the issues that have already been raised in your contributions is the patchy nature of professional development. Therefore, from Mary’s last point, is contractual entitlement to professional development one of the ways in which, partly, we can—it is a shame that we have to say this—raise the status of teaching as a high-value profession? We can really pull people together, by saying, “Actually, you do should have that professional development.” From all the papers that I read and going back to my days on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, how that professional development is delivered is still very patchy. This sort of change is not easy, but teaching is probably one of the few professional areas of work—I respect what you said about the differences between professions—that does not have a licence. Can anyone comment on that?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Mary, just to be clear, you support this because you see it primarily as a way of improving CPD. You do not see it as a mechanism that will be helpful in getting rid of poor teachers.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Can I ask both Mick and Daniel to come back on the debate that we had earlier, if you heard Chris Keates and John Dunford? I said that head teachers around the country quite often say to us privately that getting rid of poor teachers is easy in theory, but that it can be quite difficult and quite prolonged in practice. Sometimes, they leave before the disciplinary action is taken, and then they turn up in another school where they might not be very good. Whether or not through this mechanism, is there any need to change the existing mechanisms for dealing with the minority of poor teachers? Or do you think the mechanisms are there for the heads who are willing to really use them, and the problem with them is weak head teachers?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Can I ask Daniel and then perhaps bring in John Bangs, who looks as if he is biting his lip and wants to say something?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

John, do you accept any of this?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Do you think, John, that the risk of some of the weak ones—there are bound to be some in every profession, and that includes Members of Parliament—clearing off early and turning up in another establishment might be prevented by the licence to practise if it is designed in the right way?

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

I want to be absolutely fair, so I will ask the same question of you as I did of the previous group. We have talked a great deal about the licence to practise, and I can perfectly understand your concerns, but may I move on to the aspects of the Bill relating to pupil and parent guarantees, home-school agreements and parental satisfaction surveys? Do you agree or disagree with those aspects of the Bill?

I should also point out that probably more than 20 per cent. of my constituents are now either Pakistani or Bangladeshi, so I am deeply concerned about aspects of the Bill that will affect their children’s schools. There are three primary schools in my constituency where 95 per cent. of children enter with not a word of English, three other schools where 75 per cent. are of that ilk and a senior school where 75 per cent. of the children entered earlier in their lives, at age four, without any English.

I am thinking about the pupil and parent guarantees and other aspects. It is difficult for parents with no experience of education themselves and little English, if any, to participate in such things. For instance, my senior school had an open evening last autumn that only three parents attended. Is there anything that we can add to, subtract from or enhance in the Bill that might help that sort of situation?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Who would like to answer?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Anyone else?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

A final comment. There are only 20 minutes left and colleagues are trying to catch my eye, so we will have to speed up.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Mr. Brookes, John Bangs implied—he did not quite say it—that head teachers do not find it hard to get rid of bad teachers. I am going back to the subject of licensing and tackling underperformance. The information came back from the NUT that there was not really a problem. Is that the experience of your members?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

So could you tell us, if you do not think licensing is the way to go, what changes you would like to see to tackle the problem? It is obvious that the teaching unions are in complete denial of them.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

How many of the 500,000 teachers have the GTC played a part in removing from the profession on the grounds of incompetence?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

From 500,000?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Finally on this point, Dr. Bousted.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

More than there should be.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Something completely different is personal, social and health education, within which is sex and relationships education. We have here a variety of people from different aspects of education. Do you see any problems with this for your school or for your role in education? How much do you think that putting it on a statutory footing and making it a foundation part of the school will actually improve the best practice in this particularly important area, which I hope will be changed and have a new name? My colleague, Graham Allen, suggested “life skills”. That seems to be much better than PSHE, so I hope that it is noted by the education Ministers.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Can each member of the panel say something about their view on the home-school agreement and, in particular, the fact that it is to be bespoke and personalised, and also reviewed annually?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Why do you need it to be part of a legal agreement?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I have an interest in the trade union’s view.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Although there are home-school agreements under previous legislation, am I right that parents can choose not to sign one—that there is no obligation to do so? Under the Bill, once parents have accepted a place at a school and the child joins, they will have to sign up to the home-school agreement. Surely it is important to ensure that the law is clear about the responsibilities of parents. Although schools have many responsibilities under the guarantees, the agreement puts the onus in that direction. However, I accept that it should not be only the school that has to deal with the parent who refuses to send the child to school. That is why education welfare officers and others will have to be part of the team picture when dealing with the matter.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Mr. Laws will now take us on to clause 10, the curriculum.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I wanted to come to an area that I do not think we have covered in any depth so far this morning, which is the primary curriculum. I cannot make up my mind about this section, about whether we are really gaining anything here. I think that the changes have been generally supported by people in primary education, but I note that the NUT is concerned that that is too top-down. I think also Nick Gibb has been concerned that that is too much dumbing down. Is it a waste of time? Will it achieve anything? Do you support it? I suppose that this question is particularly for John and Nick, but if the others are happy to join in, we would welcome hearing from you.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We have three minutes left. Standing orders say that we have to finish at 1 o’clock and three colleagues want to ask questions.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

I have a very simple question. Do any of you think that only people with a first or a 2:1 should be funded to become teachers?

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

On parental satisfaction surveys, you may have heard some of the evidence earlier, which suggested that the threshold response to trigger a plan should be 50 per cent. of parents in a local authority area. Does anyone have a view on that?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I am trying to keep out to allow everyone else the opportunity to speak, as I said to the other group. Different views have been expressed about the licence to practise, and I will take some of that on board. We are trying to raise the status by underlining the importance of professional standards and ensuring the identification and receipt of continuing professional development. We do not want it to be bureaucratic, and we want it to build on the existing system of performance management. I have heard what people have said, and I want to reassure people, notwithstanding all the other bits of evidence that we heard earlier and now, and will hear as we go through the week. I just wanted to put that on the record because I know that it was a particular concern for the last group of witnesses as well.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I have a quick question on supply teachers. I am concerned about how to ensure that they get access to CPD.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am afraid that I will have to interrupt. I thank the witnesses again for the time that you have spent with the Committee today. It has been a valuable session, and we are very grateful. Finally, I say to colleagues that the room will be locked, so you can safely leave papers here.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I beg to move,

That the programme order agreed by the Committee this morning be amended, to add the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy to the list of witnesses for the second evidence session on Thursday afternoon.

In light of what Mr. Gibb asked this morning, we have agreed to amend the programme motion to allow a change of witness on Thursday afternoon. It is my intention to run the Committee in as conciliatory and reasonable a way as possible. It is a reasonable request, so we have amended the programme motion accordingly.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I welcome our two witnesses. Kindly introduce yourselves, and perhaps you would comment briefly on the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The proposals in the Bill are quite modest and cover just two clauses. They have generally been met with a wide welcome, but given Brian Lamb’s very worthwhile study in your inquiry, and that we are limiting the proposals in the Bill to seeing how well schools take account of special educational needs and statements, are your comments about what is not here, Mr. Friel, rather way down the line? What may be required is better attention to how we provide statements of special educational needs, how appropriate they are and how well they are monitored by the parents and councils of the children involved. Will the proposals, in your view, stand alone in bringing reasonable improvement, or are they only scratching the surface? What specific things could be added, notwithstanding your comments about how that might take a Bill all on its own, Mr. Friel? What could enhance the proposals we are considering in the Bill?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Would Mr. Lamb like to say something on his own account?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On the basis of the need to assess outcomes rather than just processes, do you think that as the clauses are framed, we could give Ofsted greater responsibilities and requirements, but that it could still be inspecting the wrong things effectively?

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

Over the past 30 years, many parents have come to me about all sorts of disagreements. They may not have got a statement or the statement may have been accurate; in one case, the parents felt that there was nothing wrong with their child and that she should not have been statemented. I have therefore worked a great deal on such cases. Will anything in the Bill change things so that it will be up to the MP to take such cases up, as I have in the past? Other MPs may not have the time or initiative to do what I have done, and that worries me. If it falls to the MP to deal with the problem, what will happen if the MP will not do that? Will anything in the Bill protect people from the problems that I have had to sort out for my constituents?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

May I backtrack for a moment before coming to the main point? Like Tim, I picked up the point, Brian, when you said that we need a really adequate reform, yet the Bill makes only two proposals. Looking through the summary of your recommendations, we can see a lot about culture and a lot of things that one can do locally, but I focus on exclusions, noting the comments made previously. Is there not a case for including something on exclusions in the Bill? It is such a critical part of the problem.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Annette, do you want to come back?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I think that the right of appeal by the parent is all important, but I am not clear on what grounds the parent might appeal. I am worried that it would just end up with the local authority essentially not providing something because it would be too expensive—that comes to the separation point—and the parent obviously wanting more resources. Should there be something clearly set out?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I very much agree that it is not always legislation, as both Mr. Lamb and Mr. Friel have said. I just wondered while working on clauses 7 and 8 whether both of you would like to comment on some of the points made about the pupil and parent guarantees. They lay out specifically some of the expectations that parents would have of a school in dealing with the special educational needs of their son or daughter.

Similarly, the pupil guarantee lays out—we were just discussing exclusions—what the expectation of a school would be, for example, with respect to exclusions and special educational needs. What is your view, given that the guarantees lay out specifically, although not in legislation, what the expectation of a school is in terms of what should be provided for the child and what the parent can expect?

On redress from the local government ombudsman as a last resort if that is not provided in a state school —I emphasise “last resort”—do you have a view whether that is a good thing and will be a good way forward in ensuring that schools’ special educational needs provision is not so variable?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The National Autistic Society and others have suggested that among home-educated children, there will probably be a higher number of autistic children, yet the impact assessment for the Bill makes no mention of any negative impact on autistic children of visits by local authority inspectors coming to see whether children need to be returned to school. How bad an error do you think that is?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The impact assessment says that it is reasonable to assume that a child with SEN will often warrant more in-year monitoring. Could you find any evidence in the impact assessment for any funding or particular efforts to ensure a training package suitable for local inspectors to be able to look after the interests of autistic children when visiting?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

All education and child-based legislation for the last number of decades has made paramount the interests of the child.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Our witness was interrupted by the Division bell, so I wonder if he can remember, more or less, where he was.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Or indeed whether there should be.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I apologise for interrupting. Do you find it odd that not only is there no statutory duty on local authorities, for instance in the home education provisions or in the application of school attendance orders, to consider the best interests of the child but there is a further problem specifically in relation to autistic children? We have already established that there will be a larger number than average of autistic children in the home-educated community. There may be an autistic child whose parents are providing exemplary, individualised home education who fail to register with the local authority. Then, under the terms of this Bill, the local authority is bound to impose a school attendance order and is specifically barred from considering the quality of the education provided. Do you find that odd?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We have only 12 minutes left and a number of colleagues want to ask questions, so I would be grateful if our witnesses could try to give quite short answers.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Regarding the legislation that is already on the statute books and the proposals that we are discussing today, particularly the proposal for a right of appeal and the proposal that the Ofsted inspection should incorporate an assessment of special educational needs provision, how well does existing legislation and prospective legislation work? I ask that because I have often found that there is a mixed bag in terms of support for parents whose children have disabilities or SEN. That is partly because the capacity and understanding of the range of people that they deal with, whether in school or through the local authority, can vary enormously, given the wide range of different needs that often have to be addressed.

So my worry about more legislation is always whether there is the capacity to interpret that legislation and to look for specialist advice and support, before delivering on the ground. That goes back to your point about outcomes and statements. It seems that that issue is discussed less than all the rigid legislation and technical processes that we tend to like dreaming up.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Of course, Ofsted will have a larger role in terms of inspection. What about the capacity of the inspectors to be able to provide a thorough overview or seek support where they need additional support?

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

One of the other provisions in the Bill is for a school report card. How helpful will that be to parents who have children with special educational needs? Do you think there should be a specific provision in the report card to deal with that issue?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Clause 8 deals with the rights of appeal to the tribunal. Do you think the tribunal system works well at the moment? Is it sufficiently well informed and independent enough? Do you think more could be done along the lines of some of the Balchin commission proposals, for example, to use a mediation process, which means that the tribunal would very much be a last resort rather than an instant referral, which many parents have to use?

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

Do you think that the new Bill has anything that may help a situation that I found one of my constituents in quite a few years ago? The difficulty was physical: a young boy, 13 at the time I think, had a growth deficiency. Part of the treatment was to extend the length of his legs by about 3 inches —a very radical procedure—which meant that for six months he had to have his legs straight out in front of him and he could not bend them at all. He either had to move schools, to a school that was all on ground level, or stay at his present school, where a chair lift would not do, because other children would have been falling over his legs, and have a lift installed. Through pressure from myself, his family and the local press—with photographs and things, unfortunately—eventually we got a very small lift installed in the school, so that he could carry on for the six months. Might anything in the Bill address such a situation, so that we would not have had to go public and go through all the fuss that we did?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Mr. Stuart’s question will have to be the last one.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Could you comment on the provision within schedule 1 that allows parents to object to their home-educated child being seen alone or to inspectors from the local authority wanting to come into the home? Proposed new paragraph 19E(4) explicitly states that such arrangements may take place

“unless the child or a parent of the child objects”.

However, could you comment on what the Bill goes on to say? Proposed new paragraph 19F(1)(e) says that someone objecting can be cause for the revocation of licence to be allowed to home educate:

“by reason of a failure to co-operate with the authority in arrangements made by them under section 19E, or an objection to a meeting as mentioned in section 19E(4), the authority have not had an adequate opportunity to ascertain the matters referred to”.

In other words, there is a right to object but, if you do, you lose your right to be home educated.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Sadly, we do not have time.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

One.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Well, one.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

On behalf of the Committee, I thank our two witnesses for giving up their time this afternoon to give evidence. It has proved to be enormously valuable to the Committee in its deliberations. Will the next set of witnesses join us?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The purpose of the Committee is just to gather evidence from you, so please relax and enjoy the session. Starting with Graham Badman, will everyone kindly introduce themselves and comment on the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you very much. Mr. Gibb.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My questions at this point are mainly to Graham Badman. What was the principal problem that you were concerned about? Was it the issue of safeguarding, with home education being a potential cover for abuse, or were you more worried about the quality of education being received by home-educated children?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I think that you must, really. We on the Committee all need to know your main concern. Was it the quality of education, or was it abuse? You seem to be telling us that your principal driving force was concern about the quality of education.

Can I ask you about a recommendation in your report? You say, “At the time of registration parents...must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.” That contrasts with page 2 of the policy statement just issued by the Government, which says that parents will be able to follow the wide range of educational philosophies that they currently adhere to, including autonomous learning, and will not have to follow the national curriculum and so on. What do you think of the Government’s policy in terms of implementing your recommendation?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

So you are not expecting just two sides of A4; you are expecting a full curriculum and teaching plan.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

One final question. You recommended that local authorities should have the right to speak with each child alone if deemed appropriate, or if a child is particularly vulnerable. The legislation states that the parent or child can object to such a meeting. Why are you so insistent in your report that the local authority meets the child alone without the parent being there?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

When you were undertaking your review, did you meet any groups of people who supported the recommendations that you were making?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Mr. Badman, I want to start with you as well, for obvious reasons, if you do not mind. I assume that you have seen the paper that the Department issued today, setting out some notes about these particular clauses.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Great. I think we know what you are trying to achieve—certainly, my party recognises some of the concerns that you have. However, in the section that deals with registration, there is six pages’ worth of details of what will be involved in registration, when it can be rejected and so on. There is a paragraph that seems to sum up the approach to me, which is paragraph 28 on page 7. It states that regulations will require local authorities to acknowledge applications for registration to make a decision on registration within a reasonable period of time. Is one of the reasons why many home educators object to your report and the Government’s proposals is that they appear to turn something that at the moment is a right for people in the country—home education—into something that they appear to have to not just notify, but apply to the state for permission to do and to prove their worthiness to do it? Is that not quite a big tilt in the way in which the freedom to home educators are set out in this country?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

You accept that in practice it is a lot more than that. We as a party have no objections with notifying, but on page 8 we see what the statement will involve. Admittedly, it is fairly brief but it is nevertheless a substantive statement setting out the educational needs of the individual child, talking about educational philosophy and outlining plans for the current year. I am not saying that those issues are not relevant to the local authority, but the provision is turning what at present is a right into something for which individuals will have to apply to the state; they will have to apply for permission to do something that does not require permission at present. Do you understand why there should have been strong feelings about it, and why people should feel that the state is intruding not only by requiring notification but by requiring registration?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Yes, we accept that the local authorities have to know who those individuals are, not necessarily that they have to prove at the beginning of the process.

May I take you briefly to the question of monitoring, which links with the previous issue? Page 10 sets out the monitoring requirements. Earlier, you said that the primary concern was that the education should be suitable. On page 12, it says the same—that the primary purpose of monitoring is that it should be suitable. In paragraph 40, on monitoring, it states:

“This section requires local authorities to make arrangements with a view to ascertaining as far as reasonably practical...whether education is suitable”.

It then tacks on three other things:

“whether education accords with the application for registration; what the child’s wishes and feelings about the education are; and whether it is harmful for the welfare of the child to continue with home education.”

Do you accept that it is not asking only about the suitability of education, but about a load of linked—but arguably not linked—issues that would require a different level of monitoring?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Given the time that we have for these initial exchanges, may I ask one further question? One reason why Home Education is probably concerned about the proposals is about what is meant by “suitability”. At the moment, we have a fairly light-touch regime. We do not always test it, but if we are to set up a more rigorous regime, suitability will become much more important.

Paragraph 43 makes it clear that you have raised concerns about what suitability should mean and about how children should be prepared in the 21st century. It also confirms in paragraph 48 that the Government will now establish a review to look into the whole issue of suitability and to report, presumably in a year or two. Is not that really putting the cart before the horse? Should not we know what suitability is, how we shall define it and bottom out that debate before putting the apparatus into place? Surely the concern of home educators is that your vision of suitability, my vision and theirs might be completely different and the burdens coming through the provision could therefore be far more onerous than many of them would wish to see.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

So we do not know what we are signing up to until we have an idea of what “suitability” will mean over the next two, five or 10 years.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

But we do not know what the outcome is, do we?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

We have received a number of submissions about this matter and, on safeguards, it has been brought to our attention—other people have read it—that a number of home educators feel that some of the impositions that would be placed on them would mean that people who abused their children would have greater legal safeguards than those who home educate their children.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

What do you say to that, Fiona? It is a fair point, is it not? If we do not know where children of school age are, there is the potential—maybe it is a reality for a number of children—that home education could be used as a smokescreen, dare I say, for abusive or isolating behaviour by parents. I am sure that that is not the case across the piece, but unfortunately we know that it could be happening. Why not notify about the arrangements, just so it is up front and there?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Yes, but constituents have written to me about this in particular. I have some sympathy for not ending up with something that is basically a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but as I said in our earlier sitting, I am sure that I heard David, and either Nick or Michael Gove, say on Second Reading that some changes to the system needed to be made. I am trying to think of a way forward.

One issue is knowing at least where children are, if not going into huge detail about how they are educated—there is a point about suitability and what it means—and allowing a level of engagement that can clarify in a light-touch way whether the parents really want to educate at home, for a number of very good reasons, or whether there is something else going on that is not about education. As I said, I do not have the answers as to how to do that, but I think that it is a valid question. How do we know where children are when they are of school age?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

But it might be amended.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Mr. Badman, what is the rush? I must say that I am rather disappointed that, following our exchange at the Select Committee sitting, you have not reflected in any way on the child protection plan figures, but we will not necessarily play that out again.

The truth is that we do not have sound data on the educational outcomes for home-educated children in this country. There is a lot of research around the world, but it would be fair to say that your report airily dismissed pretty much all of it. Would it not be right to go slowly and with humility, to establish the facts in a way that could be commonly accepted, and then to take forward—perhaps immediately, while doing the research—the recommendations in your report that I certainly welcome, as I know many home-educating parents do, that additional support should be made voluntarily available to families if they wish to have it? Is it not true that most of the children who are beneath the radar at the moment are there because there is absolutely no benefit whatever in registering or notifying the local authority? If there is no support and no access, why would anyone bother? Should we not move forward on a voluntary basis, put in place the extra support that you talked about and get a better understanding of the facts before we move to what is by any stretch of the imagination a fairly draconian set of proposals, as we have been discussing?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

May I interrupt you there? The question was not about the letter to the Select Committee in which you suggested that I had said that any child who was not known about was automatically safe. I said no such thing, so you have your facts wrong there—again. What we were establishing was the rate of child protection plans in the home-educating community. We went through it slowly, and you want to rehearse it, so I will rehearse it.

If you have a child protection plan, automatically you are known to the local authority, so children previously not known to the local authority who become subject to a child protection plan are then known to the local authority. It does not by any means guarantee that children who are not known to the local authority and do not have a child protection plan are necessarily safe. But what you do know is that every child with a child protection plan is known to the local authority, and you claimed, completely erroneously—and although you have been corrected, here you are months later still getting it wrong, which is pretty frightening—that the percentage of children who are home educated who have a child protection plan is double the national average, when your own report suggests that the numbers are at least double the 20,000, which is the number registered with the local authority, and the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the Government estimated the number was 70,000. They do not know for sure, but they think it is 70,000.

If you take the number of home-educated children with a child protection plan and you see that as a percentage of 70,000, it comes out at a great deal less than the average for the population, and that I believe is the definitive statement of what we know. It does not tell us everything we need to know, which is why I would not overstate my reliance on it. Could you please comment on whether you believe that we can truly say, as you have repeatedly said, that there is double the rate of the most serious level of child protection plan among children who are home educated?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is maths.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The wider point to focus on is that there is a lot that we do not know. I think that you called for greater research and for greater support. Why not do the research and the support before coming forward with a procedure? If the Secretary of State is right, and if the impact assessment’s numbers are right—that is a whole different ball game, I know—it is going to cost £500 million-plus over the next 10 years at a time when we are seeing numbers in child welfare and in education being slashed. That is the situation. We are going to spend £500 million chasing a problem of which we have not established the existence. Can we not go more slowly? Why do this now?

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

May I suggest to the panel that there are important issues not specifically to do with home education? We must know where children are. In certain local authority areas such as Bradford—my own—children are taken out of school and sent back to Pakistan or Bangladesh for very long periods. In the case of one boy, that period was 18 months, but no one came to school to tell the head teacher that he was going anywhere, and no one came to school at the end of that period to say that he was coming back. The school could have helped by preparing work for him to do. This is just an extreme case, but every year many children are taken back to their family’s country of origin without telling anyone—they just disappear. In the worst case scenario, girls are taken back for marriage and no one knows, so this is very important.

I am not suggesting for one minute that that has an impact on home educators, but I am simply saying that we must bear in mind that in certain parts of this country we must be very careful about where children are at any given time. They must be given the support of the child protection that we would extend to other sectors of the community. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, it is not illegal. If the child is of school age and the parents say, “We want to go around the world”, I do not necessarily have an objection—at least we know what the state of play is. In other circumstances it might not be about an educational experience but possibly forcing or compelling a young woman or girl into a marriage of which she does not want to be part. Just knowing where children are, at least there was a conversation. Would you not agree with that?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I think Fiona has some comments.

Ann Cryer (Labour, Keighley)

No, I am not talking about arranged marriages; I am talking about forced marriage.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is an interesting analysis. I agree with a lot of it, but as Paul just said, the trouble is that you are subjecting all those four groups to an awful lot of paraphernalia that may be applicable to the tiny majority, as you described it.

I would like go back to something Graham Badman commented on earlier, and I would like everyone, or as many as would like to, to answer this question. We have stepped around the safeguarding issue, and you have now gone on to children’s rights as well. I thought that the initial analysis was that the criteria behind the proposals were to secure a good education and safeguarding; you did not want to give a preference to either one. Now you are saying that it was fashioned in terms of children’s rights.

You said that there were several high-profile cases. There seems to be some contention over the child protection plans. I asked this question earlier: what research did you do on how many children who have been the subject of serious abuse or have been fatalities, and have therefore been the subject of serious case reviews—making it quantifiable evidence—were undergoing home education? What are the statistics on that?

Coming on to the children’s rights aspect—perhaps Chloe and Fiona might like to answer this question—what would the position be if we were to interview an eight-year-old child, who is being home educated, and that child says, “I do not want to be home educated. I want to go to school.” What would happen then?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Well, it should be.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The trouble is that those statistics are not published, so we do not know that. However, surely Ofsted should take into account how that child was being educated—it is the inspectorate of serious case reviews.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

How many?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Out of—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Do you agree that, like it or not, you were commissioned to produce the report in short order after the Khyra Ishaq case?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is therefore probably sub judice, and we should not go into it in much detail. You can talk about the timing, but not the case.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

And the eight-year-old? Perhaps Chloe or Peter might like to address that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Where does the balance come? Paul, do you have a comment on that?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Is Fiona worried at all about those families who say that they are home educating their children, yet the children are not receiving any education at all? Does that concern you in any way?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Are you saying that they don’t exist?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Right, but we have to find the families in the first place.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I just wonder whether you were concerned at all about a child who is not receiving an education.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Okay. Thank you.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Annette Brooke. Colleagues, everyone will get a turn to speak.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I want to ask Beth a question, and to look at the support package side for a moment. Has the National Autistic Society received representations over the years from parents who thought that their only option was to withdraw their child from mainstream school because they were not getting an adequate education? Obviously, you have expertise on autism. Has that been a common occurrence to the society?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Thank you. That is one of Paul’s four categories. It is one that we should be concentrating on in the legislation in many ways because, in the past, parents have been turned down and told that there is nothing for them. Yet suddenly it is a bit like the spider saying to the fly, “I am going to be really nice if you come closer.”

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

You will obviously agree that it is a high priority to make sure that there is a package of support for home education for children with and without statements, with special educational needs. Do you agree that that should be one of the first things that is attended to?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

May I ask Paul a different question, and then you could add anything before we move on?

Fiona correctly said that, at the moment, there is obviously a notification system if a child is withdrawn from school. As I understand it, however, the gaps exist if the child moves authority or if the child has never been to school. I agree that we need to get some idea of the numbers and I understand that, for Fiona’s group, registration now has this connotation of all these hoops that you have to jump through—I understand that entirely. So we will just come back to pure notification, Paul. Would a pure requirement for notification actually act as the first filter that you require?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Compulsory notification?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

The question was about prioritisation of actions, which does not necessarily mean legislation at this stage.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

One thing that has also come across in the evidence that we have received is how there are these very different ways in which local authorities go about dealing with both the voluntary arrangements and the support that is offered to families. Judging from some of the information that we have received, it seems that in some places the situation is very good and in some places it is not so good.

Is there no way in which this debate can be moved on to a ground where we say, “Is this an opportunity to try to improve things, both in terms of notification and support?” It seems to me that doing that would respond to some of what seem to me to be the justifiable criticisms that have been made, both today and in the submissions that we have received.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

Thinking through the practical implications of the Bill and knowing from the evidence about the attitudes of many home educators, will the Bill help improve relations, understanding and co-operation between home educators and local authorities, or is it more likely to drive an even greater wedge between them, preventing more support and co-operation? If, when the Bill is enacted, a high proportion of home educators refuse to comply, which we heard today might happen, and given that the sanctions for non-compliance seem to be weak, we may end up spending a lot of money to achieve very little. May I ask Chloe to comment first? I shall then ask other members of the panel if they would like to add anything.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is a Nazi law, but never mind. It was passed by the Nazis in 1938, specifically to stop children escaping the inculcation of Nazi propaganda.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Sir Paul, I think that this indicates how badly the whole measure has been handled from start to finish. You cannot blame members of the public who are unhappy with the things that emanate from the House of Commons. We have to blame the Government and, I am afraid to say, Graham Badman, for how the whole matter has been handled. People’s views about our legislation and proposals are very valid, and need to be taken very seriously when we legislate.

May I give Chloe Watson and Fiona Nicholson an opportunity now—because I do not think they have really had one—to set out their case why they are so opposed to these proposals? In particular, would you mind, when answering the question, trying to incorporate in the answers the issue about safeguarding, which I am concerned about, and the issue that Graham Badman mentioned, which is that the home-educated population has twice the rate of NEETs compared with the population as a whole? Could you broadly set out your case now as to why you are so opposed to this legislation?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

How do you and Chloe tackle the accusation about the quality of home education that is leading to these NEET statistics?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

What about your qualifications? Can you tell us what you achieved?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Colleagues, we have only 15 minutes left. At least four people want to ask questions, including a colleague who wants us to move on to clause 28. So I call the Minister.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Chloe, what you just said is very interesting. Everyone would be delighted by what you have achieved. You point out some of the anomalies in the system: you are regarded as NEET, when that clearly seems nonsensical to you and to everybody in the Committee. However, it is interesting that we could all have the Government we absolutely dreamed of and there would always be a tension between the pursuit of what anyone would regard as the public good and where that butts up against individual rights and individuals’ right to go on in an unfettered way, irrespective of the state and completely free from state interference.

A debate goes on all the time about where that interface should be. At its extreme, it is easy, but as it closes up, it gets more difficult to draw the line and the balance. We in Government felt that issues were coming to our attention, so we asked Graham to conduct a review. We were not trying to outlaw people or say that things were draconian or terrible; we were simply conducting a review to find out what was going on and analyse the numbers and some of the issues.

As a consequence of that and some of the things that have been said, none of us here would question the desire to ensure that we understand who is missing. There may be people outside the system whom we know nothing about and who may be suffering in some way that we do not understand or know. Alongside that are quality issues and, for a very small number, issues of safeguarding. If the Government step back from that, my question is whether it would not be an abrogation of Government’s responsibility to say, “Isn’t this something that we should try to understand and do something about?”

While accepting people’s right to educate their children—we respect that and do not want to undermine it—do not we as a state also have a right to ask whether we are doing all that we should to protect young people, understand who is missing and look at the quality of what is going on? We recognise the right of people such as you to be home educated and of the people whom Fiona represents to be home educators.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Would Mr. Stuart and Mr. Laws put their questions one after the other, and will the witnesses then respond? After that, we shall have a little time for clause 28.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

This will be a question for Mr. Badman. We cannot get over the fact that we should get the evidence before we act. No one disputes the Minister’s point about acting if the evidence is there.

We should consider other similar systems. For instance, Mr. Badman, you said in your report that New Zealand had demanded that home educated children be taught at least as regularly and as well as in registered schools. Why did you not mention the fact that for the second time in a number of years they decided that their monitoring and licensing scheme was a waste of time and money and dropped it altogether? Why did you not mention Ontario, which decided that it was a waste of time and money? In New Zealand, many people said that it was similar to the UK and that the incidence of problems was so small that it did not justify the cost, saying that the money would be better spent on support than on bureaucracy and licensing.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have two brief questions. The first is to Chloe and Fiona. Do you accept the Select Committee’s conclusion that it is unacceptable that local authorities should not know accurately how many home educated children there are in their areas?

My second question is for Graham. Is it your view that local authorities have a responsibility to all home educated children to ensure that their welfare and safety are secured? Graham, as you have the easy question, do you want to go first?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I said welfare, not education.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Fiona and Chloe, do you agree with the Select Committee’s conclusions?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Is it unacceptable that they should say at present that they do not know? Is that unacceptable to you?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Is it unacceptable that that is the situation? Do you think that local authorities should know the identities of all home educated children in their areas?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am sorry, but there is very little time. Was there a response to Mr. Stuart’s question?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Graham, New Zealand had a similar system of monitoring and licensing, but they have just canned it because they thought it was not worth it.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Just before the lead Minister puts a final question to our witnesses, I think Tim Loughton wanted to put a question to Sir Paul Ennals about clause 28.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This seems slightly academic and on a completely different subject. Clause 28 is about local safeguarding children’s boards, apparently giving them considerable powers to request information, the purposes of which are not entirely clear. There are no examples of what that information might be and for what purpose, so there are questions about confidentiality if it is on specific people. Are you aware of what this is aimed at, and the deficiency that it is aimed at bridging?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Okay. Pass.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The final question picks up on what David Laws said. If local authorities are saying to us that they know about 20,000 children, but there may be 40,000 children, is it not incumbent on the Government to try to ensure that local authorities know how many home educated children there are?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am afraid, Chloe, that I must interrupt you for a moment.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Just to say, if it is any help to Fiona, if she would like another meeting with Diana Johnson to discuss the various papers that have been published, that can be arranged.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank our witnesses for the time they have spent with us this afternoon. It has been an exhausting session, and an exhaustive one. The evidence that our witnesses have given has been very valuable indeed. We meet again, colleagues, in this room on Thursday at 9 am.