| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches regard that response as unsatisfactory. There are still further amendments that deal with this area of consultation. In seeking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, I give notice that it is an issue to which we shall wish to return at later stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 29:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64. The purpose of these amendments is to remove the possibility that admission authorities or GM governing bodies can carry out absolutely no consultation on proposals to increase selection. Under the existing system proposals for significant changes in the character of a school have to be published and these proposals are made available to interested parties. The systems differ slightly as between county, voluntary and grant- maintained schools, but in many cases will fall to be determined by the Secretary of State as of right. Any others will be so determined where there are objections which cannot be dealt with.
The basic point is that the publication procedure is designed to give parents, neighbouring local education authorities and other bodies, such as the relevant further education funding council, the opportunity to learn of the proposals and lodge objections. There is appropriate ministerial oversight and intervention. The purpose of the system is to seek to ensure that the pattern of provision is coherent across the needs of differing parts of the country.
The Bill gets rid of all that in cases of selection up to the new proposed thresholds. Instead, the admissions authority or the governing body concerned is given the lightest of duties in respect of public consultation; namely, to carry out such consultation, "if any", as appears to it to be appropriate. The wording betrays an attitude which appears to view consultation as less, rather than more, likely to be appropriate. The consequence is that parents, for example, of children in the schools concerned or in feeder schools may well not learn of proposals to increase selection and thus will have no opportunity to comment.
It might be thought surprising that a well-tried system should be cast aside. The history of education reorganisations in many parts of the country shows how sensitive proposals are which attempt to alter the character of schools. The Government are well aware of the importance of this issue to parents. The amendment seeks to remove the words in the Bill which would allow no consultation to take place. By removing the words "if any", not only is the loophole plugged, but the sense of the wording is altered towards a presumption in favour of consultation rather than against it. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on this matter. As I read this part of the schedule, Section 6 begins with consultation on proposals which do not need to be published. That is its starting-point on all these matters. The amendment seeks consultation despite the fact that these are proposals that do not need to be published. In effect it seems somewhat to contradict the purpose of the provision.
If, however, a school is contemplating this course--which it would do should it seek to increase the numbers of pupils to be admitted to it by reference to ability or aptitude--it would presumably have considered whether or not this was something that was likely to be successful and for which there was a demand. It would have found out from parents and others who were interested that it was something they wished to do. So a measure of consultation would have taken place before a school embarked upon this course at all. I therefore do not see what purpose would be served in asking for a consultation on proposals which do not need to be published. The amendment seems to me to be quite contradictory. I shall be very interested to hear my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I support Amendments Nos. 29 and 64. The purpose of these very modest amendments is to try to remove the possibility of admission authorities or grant-maintained governing bodies carrying out no consultation on proposals to increase selection.
Under the present system proposals for significant changes in the character of a school have to be published so that parents, neighbouring local education authorities and any other relevant bodies have an opportunity to know about the proposals and an opportunity to object. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, there is also appropriate ministerial oversight and intervention.
In the past that was always considered necessary in order to try to achieve some sort of coherence across the whole country. The Bill sweeps all that away in the case of selection up to the new proposed thresholds. All a governing body need do is carry out such consultation, if any, as appears to it to be appropriate. All that these amendments suggest is that the words "if any" should be removed.
I find the inclusion of the words "if any" so casual as to be breathtaking. The wording implies that it is more than likely that there need be no consultation at all. There is certainly no obligation whatsoever in the Bill on governing bodies to carry out any. These amendments therefore seek to remove the words that would allow no consultation to take place. By removing these words the sense of the wording is, I hope, altered towards a presumption in favour of consultation rather than against it. I cannot understand in principle why people would stand against that.
I hope that the Minister will accept these very reasonable amendments. If he does not, I shall be very interested to hear why he thinks that the parents of children in the school in question, or in feeder schools, should not have an unqualified right to be consulted.
Lord Henley: There are in effect two questions before us on this amendment. I shall address both. One is a simple point about whether the words "if any" should stay in the Bill; that is, whether there should be consultation on any case. Secondly, we move on to the wider question as to what should constitute that
Starting with the first, the amendments seek to remove the words "if any" from descriptions of the coverage of consultation when statutory proposals are not required but would probably have relatively little practical effect on the scope of the legislation but merely serve to obscure the application of the provision in question. The remaining words would still allow those proposing changes not to consult if that was considered appropriate.
It is no accident that the Bill is drafted in this way. The words "if any" make that clear. Although we fully accept that consultation is important--and I shall go on to spell out that consultation where proposed changes would have a perceptible effect on the functioning of the school--we are also aware that there are bound to be some changes so small that formal consultation would be a waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
It may therefore be helpful if I say a little about the approach that we are taking on consultation for those changes that do not require the publication of proposals. That includes those proposals which are currently not significant as well as those which would be covered by the new provisions.
I start by assuring the Committee that we take very seriously the need for full consultation with those who have a legitimate interest in proposed change. I think that we have a pretty good record on this on statutory proposals. Having moved to the Department for Education and Employment from the Ministry of Defence, I cannot remember a department that consults on more matters than this one. Certainly, I do not remember my previous departments--and in particular the Ministry of Defence--consulting to quite the same extent, but that might say something about different approaches.
Existing legislation already requires those bringing forward proposals to consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate. That guidance is given in Circular 23/94, which I am sure is familiar to all Members of the Committee. That circular sets out in detail those who should be consulted for various types of proposals. If those concerned do not act reasonably in deciding whom to consult, they are rightly open to challenge in the courts. It is that type of model that we seek to follow in the present Bill, particularly Clause 5 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which requires those proposing to make changes to consider whom to consult in the light of guidance from the Secretary of State. That brings within the ambit of legislation not only changes that no longer require the publication of proposals but also non-statutory changes in admission arrangements. As I have mentioned, that includes changes that are not at present subject to a statutory duty to consult. So in some respects the Bill will strengthen the current requirements.
However, in order to cater for very minor changes in admissions arrangements, we felt that it was right for the legislation to allow for the possibility that there could
Perhaps I may illustrate what we have in mind by reference to proposals from grant-maintained schools to introduce selection. In such cases, we would expect the guidance to say that those whom the Secretary of State considers should be consulted will include any local education authority that is likely to be affected, the funding agency for schools, other schools in the area, whether county, voluntary or GM--including, obviously, the feeder primary schools--and parents and teachers in the area who may be affected. If a school has a particular religious foundation, it should be the appropriate diocesan authorities and, in the case of non-diocesan schools, any connected or other charitable body.
The guidance would be likely to say that the schools which already had an element of selection would still need to consider carefully whether to consult on further proposed increases in their selective proportions. But, depending on local circumstances, they may well consider that consulting on an increase of up to 5 per cent. in the same subject may not be necessary, provided the change would not take them above the threshold of 50 per cent. If it were proposed to increase the percentage by selecting an additional subject, then consultation would be required.
We also intend that the guidance should give advice on the procedures to be followed in carrying out the consultation. This would be likely to indicate that what was proposed should be clearly set out in writing, that interested parties should be given a reasonable period, not less than a month, in which to comment and that there should be a clear statement on where comments should be sent and the final date of receipt.
The most appropriate style of consultation may vary. We would normally expect it to include a notice to the press, letters to key bodies and meetings with those parents most directly affected. We would expect copies of projections to be available in a public place such as the local library and, where meetings are held, we would expect a written record to be made of all the points raised. We would of course--and I stress this--wish to consult on the precise terms of the guidance that we will offer before it is issued.
I hope that I have said enough not only to give the Committee a clearer idea of what we have in mind, but also to reassure the Committee that we have taken very seriously the need to ensure that adequate consultation takes place wherever and whenever required. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel that their amendment is not necessary.
Page 57, line 18, leave out ("(if any)").
9 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page