Education Bill

My Lords, I pick up initially on some of the points that were made previously, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has rehearsed. We start from the recognition that a permanent exclusion can have a significant impact on the life of the excluded child, both in the short term on their education, and in the long term. In other words, a permanent exclusion is a very significant decision in the life of that child. It is very important that, in taking such profoundly significant decisions, it should be evident to everybody involved, including parents and children, that there is a process of natural justice whereby schools not only act fairly but are transparently seen to act fairly. We have all variously recognised some of the dilemmas and difficulties for schools. However, exclusion without the right of appeal to an independent arbiter, with the possibility of reinstatement, is not a positive example of fair treatment. It sets a bad example to the very children whom we are seeking to influence, telling them that this is how things can be done when it suits the authorities. My second point is one which we started to rehearse when we debated this issue last week but which I think we need to explore further. We know that, even now, schools permanently exclude a disproportionate number of very vulnerable children from specific groups. Last time, we talked a lot about children with special educational needs and disability, and we heard the figures for the number of those children who are excluded. However, there are other groups. The Runnymede Trust has pointed out that in 2008-09 more than 16 per cent of all black Caribbean boys were excluded compared with 8 per cent of white boys—that is, double the proportion of black Caribbean boys. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children have similar problems, as do looked-after children and those in care. Therefore, we know that, left to their own devices, schools already exclude disproportionately more of the most vulnerable children in their care. Although the power to reinstate is used very sparingly at the moment, it must surely, if only psychologically, be a safeguard against that trend getting worse. Abolishing it can only make those figures even more embarrassing. I wish to speak particularly to Amendment 41, which at line 37 on page 8 would insert, "““direct that the pupil be reinstated””." The amendment would put back to the review panel the power to reinstate and give the panel another option. It is a different amendment from the one that has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but it is in the same spirit. It seeks to put back the power to reinstate. At the moment, the Government’s proposals abolish that power and review panels can at most, where they consider that the responsible body’s decision is flawed, quash an exclusion decision and direct the responsible body to reconsider. However, of course, the responsible body may reconsider and come to the same conclusion. Why would it not do so? Under what circumstances does the Minister think that the responsible body would overturn its initial decision? As a consequence, the rights of a child—perhaps unfairly excluded—to reinstatement would be withdrawn by the Government’s proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has explored at some length, so I shall not repeat here, the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. However, they have both concluded that these measures are contrary to the ECHR, as she said, and that the analysis underpinning the Government’s argument in relation to the noble Baroness’s point about contending that the majority of cases involve violence is fundamentally flawed. The AJTC said that majority of appeals succeeded because the panel did not accept that the pupil had done what he or she was said to have done or the decision to exclude was not proportionate. Therefore, it is very clearly and firmly of the conclusion that taking away the power to reinstate is wrong and that it is not a fair process, even in the very tiny number of circumstances in which it is applied. Does the Minister accept those conclusions of the cross-party report and will he rethink the proposal to remove the possibility of reinstatement?