| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government are behaving in a very strange and illogical way. I say that because, after many years of experience in local government--the Minister has had such local government experience--surely the Government are aware that parents do not think in groups in a discrete way and do not all follow a logical grouping. The result of totally free parental choice without control or planning is that parents demand half a sixth form in
place A, half a sixth form in place B while retaining the choice for the next child in the family in place C. Only two things then occur: either the young people have their resource diminished because--sometimes part way through the year--the range of options is not available to the second-year pupils who started a particular course; or, the amount of money has to be increased at the expense of other parts of the system.The Government's view that parents meet in groups and make logical, joint decisions on their own shows that the Minister has never consulted parents day after day. Schools do not close on their own. Sixth forms do not close on their own. When one or two parents are gathered together, they demand that the resource stays open in terms of choice. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been through that experience. Maintaining choice for the remaining parents and providing an alternative for the rest costs money. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said--and I hope that he will read carefully what we have said on this subject--but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Consultation and notification where proposals do not need to be published]:
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 65:
The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 65 seeks to amend that part of Clause 5 which refers to consultation. I begin by making clear the attitude of the Church of England Board of Education towards grant-maintained schools. We have taken the view that it is not the responsibility of the board to make recommendations about whether it is right or wrong for a school to seek grant-maintained status. That is a matter for the governors of the school. The board's responsibility has been limited to drawing attention to those factors of which a governing body ought to take account and to suggesting that the governing body examines those factors before reaching any conclusion about whether to seek grant-maintained status.
It is clear that those schools which were formerly voluntary schools continue to be church schools after they have achieved grant-maintained status--if that is what happens. A considerable number of church schools have sought and achieved grant-maintained status. Therefore, within the total grant-maintained sector is a group of schools that are still church schools--that is made clear by their trust deed and by the appointment of foundation governors--but those schools have all the rights and privileges that belong to that status.
Clause 5 gives rights of consultation. We have already had considerable debate on that. In particular, we have already considered the provision which speaks of,
In the case of those schools which have grant-maintained status and were church schools, and therefore continue to be church schools, surely it is right that the consultation should always include the appropriate diocesan authority. I was grateful that earlier the Minister referred to consultation, in particular with the appropriate diocesan authorities. The Committee has already heard a description of those diocesan authorities, and I will not repeat it. Surely, it is always appropriate that a grant-maintained school which is a Church in Wales, Church of England or Roman Catholic school should consult the appropriate diocesan authority. I believe it is right that that should appear on the face of the Bill. I shall be most interested to hear the comments of the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We support this amendment and await the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: We do not believe that this is the most appropriate way to approach these matters. I repeat--perhaps for the third or fourth time--that I agree with the right reverend Prelate that consultation is necessary and that the diocesan or appropriate church authorities should be consulted about changes to church schools. However, we do not believe that there is any need to place the requirement on the face of the Bill. Governing bodies will be required to consult having regard to the guidance issued by my right honourable friend. Obviously, such guidance will include dioceses in the case of church schools. I ask the Committee to accept that that is the way in which these matters are normally handled in education legislation. I refer the right reverend Prelate to the present statutory guidance along these lines contained in Circular 23/94. Sadly, I do not have a copy with me, but if the right reverend Prelate wants one I shall ensure that he receives it. We will be issuing guidance and consulting on it in due course. I hope therefore that the right reverend Prelate will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance. I would be glad to receive a copy of the circular, although I suspect that there is already a copy of it somewhere within the board's library. I take the points that the Minister has made and I shall read carefully what he has said. It may be that at Report stage I shall return to the matter with an amendment of this kind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 66:
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 69:
The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 69 gives to the Secretary of State a reserve power in certain circumstances to direct that the publication procedures shall apply to proposals. Surely, there is in principle no hostility to the idea of a reserve power. Indeed, Clause 11 gives such a power to the Secretary of State. We had understood that it might have been slightly wider than that provided by Clause 11. Clause 11 provides that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may designate a particular area as one within which the provisions for overcoming statutory consultation shall not apply. Why is that right for certain areas but not in certain circumstances? Is it not the case that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may need such a reserve power that does not apply to all schools in a particular area but simply to one?
The amendment provides the Secretary of State with a reserve power in the particular case referred to in the amendment; that is to say, when a person gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State and the governing body that he objects to the proposals. The Secretary of State has a permissive not mandatory power. He may direct that the publication procedure shall apply to these proposals. I argue that this is a modest amendment which expands the reserve power already provided in Clause 11. It will provide the Secretary of State with a power that he or she may want to use in the limited circumstances described in the amendment. I beg to move.
Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("and if the school is a Church in Wales school, a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school they shall consult the appropriate diocesan authority unless the implementation of the proposals requires that authority's consent.").
"consultation (if any) as appears to [governing bodies] to be appropriate".
Page 6, line 13, at end insert--
("(2A) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2) above, the governing body shall, before determining whether to implement their proposals, give notice of them to every registered parent of every registered pupil at the school, such other parents, governing bodies of schools affected by them or other persons as appear to them to be concerned, and the provisions of section (Objections on notification
to proposals which do not need to be published) of the Education Act 1997 shall apply to the governing body as though it were the admission authority under that section.").
Page 7, line 10, at end insert--
("Notification of objection.
265E.--(1) Any person who has been consulted by the governing body under section 265C or who has been given notice by the governing body under sections 265C or 265D may within fourteen days of such consultation or notification give notice in writing to the Secretary of State and to the governing body that he objects to the proposals.
(2) Where the Secretary of State receives notice of objection under subsection (1) he may direct that the publication procedure shall apply to the proposals if he considers that the proposals if implemented could be detrimental to the interests of--
(a) pupils attending the school,
(b) the local community,
(c) the local education authority for the area in which the school is situated,
(d) other maintained schools in that area, or
(e) if the school is a Church in Wales school, a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school, the appropriate diocesan authority.".").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page