| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We on these Benches support the amendment. I cannot add to the extremely comprehensive speech of the noble Baroness. I agreed with every single word, and I shall therefore sit down and let the Minister respond.
Lord Skidelsky: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the provisions of this part of the Bill from coming into effect. However, it is hard to understand the mechanism. The Bill provides that,
- "the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report".
Who will compile the report? Will it appear by magic from somewhere? It is a vague phrase and there is no elucidation.
The amendment provides for good practice. Is there an assumption that there is a single good practice which will be contained in the report? There are many types of good practice. The way it is used here suggests that there will be a national inspection of good practice, as though that were an uncomplicated concept.
As regards the areas to which the statement is to refer, the provisions combine extreme vagueness with the assumption that local education authorities are the only guarantors of local education provision. Every single subsection mentions local education authorities as though they must have the sole responsibility for education provision in their areas. The Bill and the whole thrust of the Government's reform has been to challenge that.
Local education authorities already have a great deal of power over individual schools, unless the school has opted out. They are there the whole time. On the whole, governors are not well equipped and well briefed and governing bodies need to be strengthened. These are modest provisions to strengthen the powers of governors against local education authority control, as the noble Baroness said.
It seems to me symptomatic of the attitude of the Opposition that any increase in flexibility and in the freedom of schools to decide their fate, and any increase in the definition of local education provision, produces united opposition in defence of local education authority monopolies. I hope that the amendment will not be taken to a vote. Leaving aside any ideology, the clause is badly drafted because of its vagueness and unclarity of intention.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to rise because of the lateness of the hour, but I feel that I must. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Minister will respond positively to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The noble Lord asked how the Secretary of State will produce the report. That suggests a poor perception of his Government if the Secretary of State cannot produce a report on education in the different localities in the country when it is the Government's plan to charge the Chief Inspector of Schools to examine a number of LEAs and to report back on how they are performing.
Logically, this amendment is building on what the Government are already proposing. Far from the Government not being able to produce the report, they are planning to do just that. I felt that I had to say that because I am sure that the Government would not have argued against the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in favour of this amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Henley: I may need certain things at certain times. One thing I do not need is advice from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, as to how to reply to my noble friend. I shall do that in my own way in my own time, as is appropriate. However, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that we have every intention of bringing in the inspection of LEAs by Ofsted, as is right. I believe that that has been accepted by his own party, although I never quite know, because his party's policies change so quickly that even the noble Lord probably finds it difficult to keep up with some of those policy changes.
The noble Baroness expressed the matter in terms, "rumour has it that", and then went on to fantasise about what might or might not be in my party's manifesto. The Committee will understand if, at this time of night on day of the week, I do not expound what might or might not be in my party's manifesto. I merely throw the question back at her and ask when the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Morris will respond to the question which I have put to them on a number of occasions as to what is their policy in relation to selection for specialist schools, now that they have finally come round to welcoming that concept.
Let us look at the new clause. At first sight, it looks like a red herring or yet another device to delay the implementation of important parts of the Bill which Members of the Committee opposite particularly dislike. We know that they dislike selection, or, at least, we think we know that they dislike selection because that is what they say some of the time, though some of the time they say otherwise. I suspect that there is more to it than that and, as the amendment concerns the role of LEAs, I shall deal with that issue because that is what the noble Baroness focused on.
The Government's views on the role of LEAs was set out in our White Paper of June of last year about the self-governing of schools which my noble friend has beside her at this moment. I shall clutch a copy as my exhibit number 1. Our starting point was that LEAs should perform only those functions which schools cannot perform for themselves. The White Paper identified seven main functions for the LEAs. They are: (a) organising education which takes place outside school, including units for excluded pupils and the Youth Service; (b) planning and regulation, and that includes securing the supply of school places alone or in conjunction with the Funding Agency for Schools and dealing with appeals and complaints against LEA schools; (c) allocating and monitoring LEA-school budgets; (d) providing pupil-specific services such as home-school transport or special educational needs support; (e) supplying support services for schools such as professional advisory services and in-service training
for school staff; (f) quality assurance, which, for the great majority of schools, should be confined to supporting self-improvement; (g) co-ordinating networks such as School Business Links.It is clear that some LEAs do those things much better than others, and I shall not refer for the umpteenth time to Islington. But I do not think we need a survey to tell us that. We need a mechanism for improving the performance of LEAs which do not support schools and pupils effectively. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Clauses 54 to 57 of the Bill, which provide for the inspection of LEAs deal with that. It is that, rather than a survey of good practice, which I believe will drive up standards. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the noble Baroness implied that I said earlier that grant-maintained schools were better governed. I am not sure that those were my precise words but I shall look extremely carefully at what I said. In the main, I imagine that most of them are better governed, but the point that I was trying to make was that grant-maintained schools have greater freedom; that is, greater freedom to control their own affairs. For that, they should be grateful. That is why we are pleased that so many schools have gone grant-maintained and why we hope that many more will follow that process in the future.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. We have reached the stage in our deliberations tonight when people say, "I didn't say that or, if I did, it wasn't what I meant to say". Perhaps, therefore, the Committee will forgive me if I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that I can only think that I intended to say "control" with reference to the Government's attitude towards local education authorities and schools. It has certainly never been my
belief, my policy or my interpretation of the facts that LEAs control schools. Long before the Government's proposals began with regard to changing in statute the role of governing bodies, the authority in Lancashire County Council, for example, had parent governors. Indeed, we believe in co-operation and partnership.It is perhaps too late for the Committee to wish me to go through a detailed debating session with the Minister. I certainly feel tonight that our policy on these Benches does not change as often as the Government's legislative proposals are turned down by this Chamber. However, having said that, now is not the time to start to deal with that aspect.
In the list contained in the Government's document I was struck by the item that deals with their perceived role in local government and with LEAs having a responsibility for planning and dealing with school places and adequate provision thereof. The proposals in the Bill will affect the capacity of LEAs to carry out that planning in the same way as happens at present; or, indeed, as was happening at the stage when the Government produced the report.
It is extremely important to recognise that we are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, implied, seeking to prevent the operation of this part of the Bill simply by requiring a report to be made to study the impact that the Bill's proposals would have on the role of the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the DfEE's willingness to consult, I am quite certain that it would be able to produce a report very speedily for the Secretary of State and Parliament to consider, before further changes are enacted. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |