| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Surely, this amendment is a matter of fairness to the LEA and the governing bodies. I believe that the noble Baroness summarised the matter by saying that where a number of former comprehensive schools in an area began to select part of their intake, a former selective school could easily find that there was an insufficient pool of pupils from which to select. In the context of letting governing bodies, local authorities and parents have a degree of planning in the level of selection that they want, I am intrigued to learn how the Government can argue against this amendment simply on the basis of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Lord Henley: Well, well, well! I was interested to see whether there would be a response from the official Opposition Front Bench. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that an amendment of this kind would appear to fly in the face of recent remarks by his honourable friend Mr. Blunkett in the Wirral about not doing anything to endanger the selective schools or grammar schools in that and other areas. What it would allow the LEA as admission authority to do would be to reduce selection entirely, without publishing any proposals whatsoever. As we all know, Schedule 1 sets out the rules that govern changes in selective admissions. For changes within the threshold, publication of statutory proposals is not required. For changes above the threshold, the existing change of character regime applies. If the changes mean that the proportion of selective admissions crosses the threshold in either direction, statutory proposals are always required. That is a full and consistent set of rules.
The amendments introduce the inconsistency that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was trying to remove, by requiring publication for changes where an increase in
the proportion of pupils selected crossed the threshold but not for changes where a decrease had the same effect. There should be consistent rules for publication of statutory proposals in terms of the character of individual schools. Reductions in selection can be just as important as increases. If the noble Baroness had not spotted that, I hope that she now recognises it and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Lord said: It may for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 53. The import of the amendments is the same. They seek to do two things: first, to simplify the criterion at which the break point occurs; and, secondly, to ensure that the threshold of the break point--if I may describe it as such--is sensible, logical and understandable by everyone involved. I shall talk a little about the second point: the reduction of the threshold of significant change from 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. to 15 per cent.
We need to recognise that we are here talking about the definition of significant change in a school. One of the important factors about legislation is that it should be, as much as possible, in tune with people's common sense and understanding. If one went to any parent and said, "If the size of your child's class changed from 30 to 35 pupils would you think that to be a significant change?", or, alternatively, "If the class stayed at 35, but five pupils were removed and five pupils who all had blond hair and blue eyes were installed in the class, would you think that to be a significant change?", probably 99 per cent. of parents would say that that was a significant change. That is the common sense way of looking at things that I hope we can enshrine in the Bill.
When we say that there is a significant change and we call for a different procedure to apply once that significant change has been exceeded, we need to ensure that it is in tune with that which ordinary people on the street can understand.
My second point is that in the Bill we are talking about a number of different types of school. We are talking about county schools, which are under the administration of the LEA; maintained schools, which are effectively Church schools, again financed effectively by the LEA; and nationalised schools. That is my definition of grant-maintained schools. They are no longer administered by the LEA; they are effectively administered by the Government; that is, they are nationalised.
We describe the schools as different, and they are described as different in different parts of the Bill, but they have certain things in common. They will all have
All those other groups of lay people have a source of expert advice. The jury will have the advice of a learned judge; members of a local authority will have the advice of their chief executive, who is probably legally qualified, with great professional ability and understanding of the legal and administrative position; and magistrates are advised by justices' clerks, who are professional men and women who have the expertise to provide the advice necessary to ensure that the lay people abide by the regulations that Parliament lays down. School governors are not necessarily in that position.
It is correct that school governors will have the advice of the head teacher, but the head teacher is first and foremost a head teacher and not a professional adviser or administrative or legal expert. We must recognise that. When we are writing laws that apply to governors and schools, we need to take care that we do not make them so complicated that they need the professional advice which they do not have.
For those reasons, it makes sense for us to have a common threshold of 15 per cent. which applies to all the different types of schools, because effectively the governors are all lay governors. That threshold should be 15 per cent. because that will strike a resonance of common sense with the vast majority of the people in this country that a change of 15 per cent. in a school's character is a significant change. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened almost with fascination to the noble Lord, because he came out with a wonderful piece of obfuscation of the issue under discussion. It is a superb way of taking the time of the Committee, but perhaps we could return to what the debate is all about. It is that he prefers one figure and the Government prefer another. He prefers, inevitably, of course, a more restricted figure than the Government who wish to have a rather more relaxed environment in which schools can work. He tries to claim that his figures create a resonance with ordinary people. I listened with great care for some justification of that statement. I am bound to say that there was none. "Mr. 15 per cent." may be an interesting title, but I do not believe that we should waste any more time on it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that we might reasonably justify spending a few minutes more on the issue. We have plenty of time, although I gather that we may find ourselves distinctly squeezed and sitting very late on another day in Committee.
Perhaps in the interests of clarification I may ask the Minister two questions. The purpose of our amendments is, first, to suggest that the present common selection threshold would be appropriate for all schools; and, secondly, to enable Ministers to explain the basis on which the legal position has been undisturbed until now. Is it not the case that the Bill represents a significant departure in that the interpretation of "a significant change in the character" has been a matter for circulars issued by the department interpreting primary legislation? On that basis, Circular 693 advised that selection up to a threshold of 10 per cent. would not be considered as representing a significant change in the character of a school. Last year, that was changed to advise that a threshold of 15 per cent. would be acceptable. It is important to be clear that neither of those statements was based on any legal provision. Each one represented guidance as to how Ministers wished to implement pre-existing legislation.
The Department for Education and Employment recently became concerned, and rightly so, that its 15 per cent. judgment rested on no legal basis. One of the advantages of the present legislation is to give officials a firm basis on which to rely. In doing so, they have taken the opportunity to push the threshold up yet again to these unequal levels. First, why change it; and, secondly, why vary it?
Lord Henley: I do not intend to take long over this amendment. It strikes at the heart of the Bill, which is bringing in a range of different thresholds for different types of schools which have different ways of viewing things. That is why we considered that 20, 30 and 50 per cent. were appropriate. To reduce the threshold to 15 per cent. would strike at the central purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, wished to know how we had arrived at the figure of 15 per cent. and what our legal advice was. He will understand if I do not embark on the legal advice that we received, other than to say that we were advised that if we wished to go beyond 15 per cent., which would be a significant change in the character, primary legislation would be required. That is exactly what we are seeking to do in the Bill, and it is why we should like to give local authorities an option--whether that is in voluntary or county schools at the 20 per cent. option, specialist colleges at the 30 per cent. option or grant-maintained schools at the 50 per cent. option. That is exactly what the Bill will achieve and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Page 55, line 7, leave out ("20") and insert ("15").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page