Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I shall speak also to Amendments 211 and 212. We now come to the proposed new school complaints system. We on these Benches are still not fully convinced that this system is going to be any better than the previous one. It introduces another layer of accountability for schools rather than letting complaints go to the Secretary of State, if they have exhausted the local complaints process. We understand that 2,200 of those went to him last year. Schools are now answerable to a plethora of bodies: the independent appeals council for permanent exclusions, the LGO for fixed-term exclusions, the first-tier tribunal—formerly SENDIST—for special needs and a schools adjudicator on admissions. Now we are to add the LGO on complaints. The practical effect of formalising the complaints system like this will be an increase in record-keeping and a reduction in teaching time. Schools feel that they will need to keep records of any expressions of concern about the school, in case they should turn into complaints at some future date. That has serious workload implications. Let us consider the amendments. Amendment 208 specifies that the prescribed functions referred to in Clause 201 should be specified in regulations. That would prevent the local commissioner from merely substituting his judgment for that of the head teacher. We need to be clear what those functions are, otherwise the head teacher is undermined and, worse, the school does not really know where it stands. In Committee, the Minister uncharacteristically told me next to nothing; I hope that she will be able to tell me a little more today. She said: ""The functions for which a head teacher may be the subject of a complaint will be set out in regulations under Clause 199(2). I can reassure noble Lords that before we make these regulations, as you would expect, we will consult with stakeholders—including, importantly, teacher unions and parent representative bodies—on what might be included".—[Official Report, 19/10/09; col. 524.]" So that is OK then. No, in fact, it tells me nothing. I have relaid the amendment to give her the opportunity to tell me a little more. Amendment 211 is about the power of the commissioner to consider complaints from pupils who are no longer in the school. They should do so only when that is in the public interest. In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister said that this was to take care of a situation where, for example, there is a complaint against a school about the handling of the exams that a pupil took just before he left the school, making him therefore an ex-pupil. Consultations are continuing on this provision, but how would the commissioner judge whether a complaint by a parent who had taken their child away from the school fell within these provisions? If we cannot be clear about this, schools will have an eternal sword of Damocles hanging over their heads whenever a pupil is removed by a dissatisfied parent. For how long should a school keep the paperwork about pupils? How will they know which former pupils are going to complain about the conduct of their exams after they have left? Is there to be a time limit? We need to know more about these measures. Amendment 212 is similar to the amendment that I laid in Committee about the provision of advocacy, but it limits the provision to those children who want it from the following groups: children in care, or who have recently been in care; children with disabilities or special educational needs; or any other child who is considered by the commissioner to need such help. The current system of complaints has produced only 2,200 complaints to the Secretary of State a year. Few of those, if any, have been from children or young people themselves; most have been from parents. It is likely that, as now, most cases referred to the local commissioner will be from parents. For these provisions to have meaning, however, we must ensure that children can access the LGO without having to rely on parental support to do so. The amendment makes it clear that the advocate should provide confidential information, advice, representation and support to the child. They would not make decisions but support the child to understand the process. There is growing evidence that advocacy not only improves decision-making for children but also safeguards their well-being. It would also be beneficial to the school, because the advocate could be provided before a formal referral had been made who could help the child to pursue the school-based system. Local resolution and conciliation would be better all round, which might be achieved with the help of an advocate. It would also help the Local Government Ombudsman for the advocate to help the child to provide correct information as to the grounds of complaint and in the format required. It would save him from dealing with the early stages of a complaint that turned out to be beyond the bounds of his remit. I realise that there is a small cost implication to the amendment, even though a very small number of children would fall into the categories set out in it. However, I hope that the Minister will give me some assurance that the system will at least be trialled, piloted or publicised in its early months. I beg to move.