| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We from these Benches support these amendments. I shall not rehearse all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, covered so admirably. I would point out just two things: one of the themes of the amendments we are putting forward today is that we believe that individual schools are part of a wider community of schools. That is why the criteria to which we suggest they should have regard try to take on board the effect of the action of individual schools upon the wider school community and the community at large.
My second point concerns the potential for increasing LEA costs because children have to travel further to school. A primary school child is not obliged to travel far before the LEA has to pick up the costs. If a secondary school child has to travel more than three miles the LEA will contribute towards the costs.
LEAs in counties--I am a member of an LEA in a county--already spend enormous amounts of money on school transport. It is one of the biggest single elements of the school budget. The idea that individual schools can, through the mechanism described by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, oblige the LEA to provide school transport when it already has places available for children in each locality is a most unfortunate result of some of the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question which interests me. She referred to the community of schools and the need for individual schools to have regard to what other schools in the community are doing. What does she mean by "community of schools"? Does she define it by area, by type, by catchment area or by LEA?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In my experience living in a small town in a shire county, the community of schools operates in several ways. All the primary schools in my division and the adjacent division are part of a group of schools which co-operate with each other in settling the difficulties of placing pupils exactly, deciding whether they need to make representations to local authorities for funding for some special approach and so forth. Whatever their problems, they tend to talk among themselves and to use the group as a way of improving the performance of the schools and sharing good practice. That is one group which operates in my small geographical area involving five or six primary schools. At secondary level, similar co-operative endeavours occur, despite the Government's recent efforts to put everyone at each other's throats by introducing a competitive economy in education. Co-operative efforts still occur between local schools sharing good practice and so forth.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that I fully share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on boxing. I was interested in his reference to Book 6 of the Aeneid and
the fact that boxing took place with fatal consequences. Perhaps I may remind him that that was before the Queensberry rules had been formulated. The noble Lord ought to be grateful for the hereditary principle in formulating the Queensberry rules. We should be grateful to the former Marquess of Queensberry--
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was on many occasions.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. His amendments would require the governing bodies of county and voluntary secondary schools to have regard to criteria which the Secretary of State would be required to specify after consultation with local education authority representatives when undertaking their annual review of selection. The criteria will have to include the impact on other schools, the desirability of the admission arrangements in terms of the needs of all children in the area, the additional costs which might arise and any relevant criteria arising from information published by the Audit Commission. In addition, the governors would have to have regard to matters considered relevant by the local education authority.
I believe that that is pretty prescriptive. It is asking a lot and is setting down a great deal on the statute book which is unnecessary. I believe also that it introduces unnecessary extra bureaucracy. We believe that governing bodies are best placed to identify and be responsive to local needs and relevant factors. They do not need those factors spelt out in detail on the statute book.
I believe also that it undermines an important principle by which we set much store, although Members of the Committee obviously do not; namely, the principle of giving more responsibility to the schools themselves. Governing bodies are best placed to assess just how their schools should develop. It would be perverse to prescribe that long list of factors which governors should take into account when considering whether selection is right for their school and the parents whom they serve.
Moreover, as I implied earlier, it undermines the theory that governing bodies know best. The form which the annual consideration of selection should take must be a matter for the governing bodies themselves. Governors are in the best position to take an informed view of the wishes of local parents. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we can move on swiftly to other amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press him on one matter which concerns me. It seems to me that as things stand, a governing body is able to take decisions which have financial consequences for others, in particular local authorities. I find that to be a disturbing principle. That matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I am not sure that the Minister addressed that question.
Lord Henley: As I said, governors will obviously consult and talk to local people. If others have a view
that serious financial consequences may arise, that is something which can be taken into account. But I do not believe that it would be right to undermine the right of governing bodies to consider those matters. I believe that those matters can be adequately considered and on some occasions--and I take the example of school transport--costs might rise on the one hand but diminish on the other.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not I should withdraw the amendment, is not the Minister concerned about the questions raised by the Audit Commission and its recommendations in Trading Places, which has been referred to before this evening? It recommends that, to make the current approach work better, central government should restate their support for local efforts to manage the supply and allocation of places; should encourage and support effective relationships between the LEAs and other bodies; should, to change the current approach, reconsider the existing policy framework by reviewing the consistency between existing policies and procedures; should consider options to give more effective powers to local agencies to plan provision, and so on. Can the Minister really ignore the whole of that?
Lord Henley: We have not ignored it. We dealt with Trading Places earlier today. I made it plain that we have seen quite a large fall in the number of surplus places in schools. We accept some of the points which the Audit Commission put to us. Obviously, we should like to see a further fall in the number of surplus places but, as the noble Lord knows full well, one can never totally eradicate the number of surplus places because it is right that there should always be a number of surplus places to cope with the degree of choice and selection which is required. As I made clear earlier, the Audit Commission's report raised very interesting questions and we shall consider those as appropriate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord for quite a long, detailed and sadly unsatisfactory reply. I shall need to look at it carefully. I shall read it tomorrow morning to see whether it reads as I have heard it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) Before determining whether to implement proposals to which by virtue of section 1 and Schedule 1 the publication procedure does not apply, the admission authority for a county or voluntary school shall give notice of them to every parent of every registered pupil at the school, such other parents, governing bodies of the schools affected by them or other persons as appear to the admission authority to be concerned.
(2) The provisions of this section shall apply in addition to requirements as to consultation in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1.
(3) Where the admission authority receive within two months of the date of notification objections exceeding in number a minimum which the Secretary of State shall specify in regulations it shall cause to take place a local public inquiry to be chaired by an independent person of suitable standing, and such an inquiry shall, after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, prepare and publish a report making recommendations as to the proposals to which the admission authority shall have regard before determining whether to implement them.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. The purpose of the amendments is to put in place of the weak consultation requirements in the Bill a new and different procedure requiring admission authorities and governing bodies to notify parents and other interested persons and, where there is a significant number of objections, to cause a local public inquiry to take place on them.
The consultation requirements on admission authorities and governing bodies are quite astonishingly light under the terms of Schedule 1 and Clause 5. An admission authority or a grant-maintained school governing body seeking, for example, to increase selection up to its threshold need only undertake, as we have heard several times,
As was argued in relation to Amendment No. 29, for example, those consultation requirements have the serious effect of cutting parents out from a proper voice in changes which will be of great importance to them.
The proposed new clause seeks to set out a better process whereby interested parties--and I mean all interested parties--starting with all parents of pupils at the school concerned, receive notification as to the changes which the admission authority may wish to make. That requirement is explicitly an addition to the weak requirement for consultation contained in Schedule 1.
As with the present procedure for the publication of notices, it is suggested that there should then be a two-month period within which objections can be lodged and, where these exceed a minimum prescribed by the Secretary of State--we do not wish to lay that down; indeed, we are quite content that the Secretary of State shall make a sensible and reasonable decision--then, and then only, should there be a local inquiry chaired by an independent person which can make recommendations. This is a different procedure from the status quo in that the Secretary of State does not determine the proposals to which these amendments apply. On the other hand, the proposal for local public inquiries is aimed in particular at giving parents and the local community the maximum opportunity to make their voice heard and for representations to be received from them. It seems only fair that the community's voice should be heard in a matter of this sort.
Without a provision of this kind in the Bill, the parents and the community at large will be seriously disadvantaged both in understanding the future character and shape of the school system and in acting for themselves and for their children in this extremely sensitive area to secure changes where proposals are
No one who has been involved in such discussions can be in any doubt that the parents of the pupils in the schools concerned, and in the feeder primary schools and others in the area, feel very strongly indeed on such matters. Such feeder primary schools are extremely important to them because these people are looking for the schools to which their children will move on. Many of those people feel very strongly indeed about many of the proposals.
Therefore, the proposal for local planning inquiries is deliberately designed to enable views and expertise--indeed, often great expertise--to be deployed at the local level where they may most effectively be able to influence decisions of schools and of admission authorities. I beg to move.
"such consultation (if any) as appears to them to be appropriate".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page