Education Bill

Memorandum submitted by John Sayer (E 84)

Summary

This submission relates solely to

Part 3, Clauses 7, 8, 11, 12 and Schedules 2 and 3 of the Education Bill.

I ask the Committee

1.to ensure deletion of these sections from the Bill,

2.to recommend a public consultation under the Privy Council into the future responsibility to the public and regulation of the teaching profession.

1. Deletion from the Bill of Part 3, Clauses 7, 8, 11, 12 and Schedules 2 and 3

a) They are contrary to the public interest

b) The Secretary of State has failed to exercise due care and responsbility, by not consulting the public, the teaching profession, or its Council (other than to arrange for its funeral) before inserting these sections into the Bill

c) The Secretary of State has pre-empted the responsibility of Parliament by announcing abolition without notice, and by freezing the resources and activities of the GTCE to the extent that its abolition appears to be a foregone conclusion before it reaches the legislature

d) These sections fail to include the major responsibility of the GTCE under the 1998 Act to be the body to advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the teaching profession

e) The GTCE as an independent public corporation should not have been presented in the context of quasi-non-governmental organisations

f) Abolition of the GTCE has been announced without due care in ensuring alternative arrangements for its necessary functions

g) Alternatives to abolition have not been considered, e..g. (if costs were the motive) reduction and eventual removal of tax-payers’ subsidy for any but those functions which the Government requires to be performed.

h) The effects on teaching provision across the United Kingdom and on its other three General Teaching Councils have not been taken into account

i) The effects on other professions, their responsibilities and their regulatory functions have not been taken into account.

2. to recommend a public consultation under the Privy Council into the future responsibility to the public and the regulation of the teaching profession

a) The Secreatry of State, by his peremptory announcement in June 2010, has not only pre-empted rational discussion but has removed his own departmental authority to initiate genuine consultation.

b) Appeals against decisions by the GTCE go to the Privy Council, and it is appropriate to ask that this matter should be handled under that Council’s aegis, as an issue in which the wider public interest is at stake.

Conclusion

a) I would be prepared to enlarge on any of these points, but note that many have been submitted in detail from other bodies and individuals.

b) This submission is on behalf of myself as an individual who sees my profession and its service to the public being undermined.

c) I received no reply to my submission to the Secretary of State of 14 June 2010, and only a courtesy departmental acknowledgement when after a month I enquired again.

d) I would be happy for my submission of July 2010 to the Parliamentary Select Committee for Education to be made available to the Public Bills Committee, and retract nothing from it.

e) There appears to be a strong case for taking out an injunction against the Secretary of State’s actions and these sections of the Bill, but it would be preferable to have the Public Bills Committee deal with my objections without recourse to legalities which could jeopardise the passage of the remainder of the Bill, on which I offer no comment.

March 2011