| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, could he answer two questions? First, would he expect the level of consultation to be no less than that which pertains now when a local authority consults? Secondly, would he care to consider
consulting before Report stage of the Bill the record for local authorities? It is my experience and that of colleagues, I am sure, that to allow a month for consultation when parental feelings run high and several institutions are involved would be inadequate. I should not like to be the person who tried to carry it out within that timescale.If the Minister is saying that he does not intend any reduction in the proper consultation but merely a change as to who makes the final decision, that would be interesting information to have.
Lord Henley: I mentioned Circular 23/94 and made it clear that I thought that what we propose would tighten up the position. I also said in considerable detail that we intended to consult on the guidance that the department would put out. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are certain guidelines on how long we should consult on certain matters. It would not be right for me to try to consult the local authority associations between now and Report stage because I do not think it would be long enough. However, I am sure that they will make their views known to us between now and that stage.
What I do make clear is that the guidance that the Secretary of State will put out will be subject to consultation before the final guidance goes out. That guidance will have at least the minimum of 10 or 12 weeks--I forget what it is--for consultation on those matters as appropriate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, I did not ask for the views of the local authorities on the guidance. I merely asked that the Minister sought some factual information about the timescale involved, whichever sector of the schools it is. Consultation affecting a large group of schools, including feeder schools, to my knowledge cannot be carried out to the satisfaction of all parents concerned in four weeks from beginning to end.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I perfectly understand the noble Baroness's point. It has been put to my department on a number of occasions when consultation has necessarily, for one reason or another, had to be curtailed. Knowing the school year, it can be quite difficult to do it in those timescales.
My point was that my right honourable friend will consult on the guidance that she ought to put out. There may be certain people who have strong views about the month I mentioned as a possibility. On certain occasions, if it is a month in term time, a month might be appropriate. I accept that that month would not necessarily be appropriate if it were a month starting on 1st August and extending from then. But obviously those are points on which there must be consultation before my right honourable friend issues that guidance. But she would like to put out her views on guidance following the passage of this Bill and then consult--I am not talking about a consultation of merely a
month; it goes wider and is not merely one school's consultation on the whole guidance--for the appropriate length of time.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his long and interesting replies. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for her contribution. We must go away and look at this matter. As the noble Baroness said in her response to a previous amendment, this amendment refers to a range of anxieties which are very widespread, not only on these two Benches but among many other people.
Before I sit down, let me respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Our amendment precisely queries the type of consultation provided for in the Bill on matters which do not, technically speaking, have to be published. That provision is in the Bill and my amendment attempted to address it.
As I said, I am grateful to the Minister for the length and detail with which he replied. I thought that he went some way at any rate toward recognising the strength of some of our comments. For that reason, I rather wish that he would accept these very small amendments or think again about them, if only because the phrasing does not, I believe, reflect any part of his answer to us. I shall leave that thought in his mind. Meanwhile I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 31:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 35. We turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill which requires governing bodies of secondary schools to consider annually whether to introduce selection, if they do not already have it, or, if they do have selection, whether to increase the proportion which is selected.
This amendment follows the same requirement brought in and imposed on schools to consider whether to seek grant-maintained status each year. It is notable that since that provision was brought in and schools have been required each year to consider whether to seek grant-maintained status, the number of schools deciding to do so has plummeted. Although considering it every year, there are now almost no schools which decide to seek grant-maintained status.
Given that record of what I would consider success, although the Minister might not do so, I was somewhat tempted to leave the clause as it stands. It might indeed be the most effective way to stop an increase in selection were we to follow the precedent of the grant-maintained schools. However, I can resist that temptation. My views about selection are such that I do not even want to take the risk. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to require the provision only to apply to schools currently
The arguments for this amendment are the arguments against allowing a higher proportion of places to be selected. As was said at Second Reading by myself and other speakers, there is little public support for a general reintroduction of selective education in this country. The level of examination results has been rising steadily under a system in which the great majority of school-age pupils are educated in comprehensive schools. Governing bodies of schools are now required annually to consider the case for proposing grant-maintained status and Clause 2 follows that precedent.
However, what is clear is that the effect of Clause 2 on county schools will be particularly divisive since the governing body is not the admission authority. It is difficult to see what motive Ministers might have in mind for making that annual requirement other than to seek to put pressure on LEAs to enable schools to select up to the new threshold. The result is clearly intended to be a creeping process whereby the proportion of selected places in the system rises, with the Bill setting out a number of paths along which selection can be expanded. The presumed effect of the annual consideration by governors is to seek to legitimise that process as well as seeking to ensure that the issue is raised regularly within county and voluntary sectors.
It would be preferable if, rather than pursuing that process, the Government were to recognise that the burden of proof rests with those who wish to move to greater selection rather than the other way round. On that basis it will be logical to ask the governing bodies of selective schools to consider reducing their proportion. The clause would then be more targeted, applying only to those governing bodies whose schools included a proportion of selected places, and more focused by placing the argument where it is most relevant.
Governing bodies already have many and onerous duties and there is increasing difficulty in many areas in persuading busy people with relevant experience to take on that role. All school governors know that their agenda and responsibilities have grown enormously in recent years. The onus is surely on the Government to explain why all governing bodies should have to add what for most of them is an irrelevance to their already substantial pile of business. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I intervene briefly, largely because my name is attached to the amendment. From these Benches we wholeheartedly support the amendment moved with great clarity and force by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
I do not wish to repeat something I said earlier in the debate today in relation to my views and those of my noble friend on grant-maintained schools. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, stole one of my lines when he said that we had far better leave this the way it is and let it wither on the vine; that is exactly what is happening with grant-maintained schools, even in the face of the many denials we heard today from the Minister. They are simply not succeeding.
The provisions are just another way, in the context of the Bill, of providing greater selection. Our views have been made clear on that and I hope the Committee will consider those views. If the Government are so keen--as they obviously are--on an annual consideration, it is logical and fair that the governing body, where the school is wholly selective, should be given the opportunity of saying that it wishes to reduce it to some extent.
The Minister may not agree, but I believe that there is a movement in the country these days against selection; there is no doubt at all about that. It may be that the governors of a school of this type would wish to reduce the proportion of selected pupils. We support the amendment.
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("unless") and insert ("where").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page