| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Education Bill
8.31 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 16.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 87:
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any person appointed as a ballot observer is both independent of the particular grant-maintained ballot concerned and can, therefore, command the support and confidence of all interested parties to act properly as an impartial observer, and also to ensure that such persons are appropriately experienced either in the conduct of ballots or have appropriate experience in the provision of education.
The amendment is straightforward and essentially pragmatic. It seeks to ensure that, whatever the process adopted for administering the appointment of ballot observers, the question of the impartiality and independence of the ballot observer should not be in question. It is this issue, which needs to be incorporated on the face of the Bill, which will ultimately determine the extent to which all interested parties in the GM ballot process can have real and well-founded confidence that the introduction of ballot observers will serve genuinely to enhance the procedures as they currently stand.
The role of independent ballot observer is very well established and familiar. The DfEE's December consultation paper acknowledged, in paragraph 19,
as one of the options for sources of suitably experienced candidates for ballot observers. It should not therefore be necessary for us to debate at length the issue of independence nor the specific personal qualities and attributes that any person would require properly to fulfil the role of independent ballot observer under the Bill.
The amendment does, however, suggest that, as an alternative requirement, an independent person should have appropriate experience of the education service. The law and procedures for ballots on GM status are complex. While an independent person with experience of observing ballots in other contexts might reasonably be expected to be able to familiarise himself with the necessary specific knowledge required to fulfil the responsibilities envisaged quite readily--providing there is sufficient training--it is clear that an appreciation of the context in which ballots on grant-maintained status can occur, gleaned from some prior experience of the wider education service, would greatly enhance the observer's ability properly to carry out his duties expected under the Bill.
However, how realistic is it to expect that a lay person, with no experience of the education service, could undertake competently and expeditiously, as would be necessary, the sort of roles envisaged by the Government's consultation paper, particularly where the Government appear to envisage that such a role might go beyond that of monitoring, observing and reporting on the conduct of any ballot? I have in mind the screening/vetting of published written material for parents or intervening to ensure that any misinformation is corrected as necessary if a complaint is received during the course of ballot, and, indeed, the possibility,
Those are examples of where some specialist knowledge of the education service and of the special complexities surrounding the balloting of grant-maintained schools would lead to a greater degree of expertise being needed by the observer. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I express my support for the amendment. It is clearly in the best interests of the smooth, rather than the proper, conduct of the ballot if a properly experienced and qualified person undertakes that duty. It is a very sensible amendment and one which I wholeheartedly support.
Lord Henley: I agree with the noble Lord that it is of considerable importance that observers should be of the right calibre and that they should have the appropriate skills and experience which will enable them to do the job properly. Obviously, the selection of such people will need to be handled with considerable care. Officials in the department have given much thought to the matter.
Having said that, it would be unfortunate if one allowed such an amendment to go through. I say that because it would actually reduce the Secretary of State's discretion by imposing limitations on who can or cannot be appointed as a ballot observer. We have been talking to neutral and very well-respected organisations, especially the Electoral Reform Society which administers grant-maintained ballots. The society has agreed to select observers and make the appointment where the Secretary of State has decided that that is appropriate.
I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is not appropriate for this to be spelt out in legislation. If it were to be, I would not support the particular formulation which has been put forward by the noble Lord. For example, there may be very highly suitable candidates for such a job--I have in mind retired judges--who do not have the experience spelt out in the amendment. I can assure Members of the Committee that we shall continue to discuss these matters with the ERS. I believe that the approach we are proposing is probably a more appropriate one.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I thank the Minister for his reply which seems entirely reasonable. I should point out that the consultation document says in paragraph 20 that candidates would not be required to have prior knowledge of the education service. However, as the Minister indicated, that would indeed be in a person's favour when the Secretary of State is considering who to appoint. In the light of the Minister's response, I feel content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of advice and assistance by funding authority]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 88:
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provision of advice and assistance to grant-maintained schools by the Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) is chargeable to the GM school receiving the service from the agency.
A similar amendment was only briefly debated in Standing Committee D on 10th December when the Government defeated the amendment and made no pretence to debate the issues underlying it. These were that GM schools should be expected to pay for services from the FAS on the same basis that LEA maintained schools pay for a range of advisory and support services provided by LEAs, and sometimes other providers, out of their delegated budgets.
The amendment is proposed on the basis that there should be a fair and consistent approach to GM and LEA maintained schools. GM schools should not benefit from the ever increasing range of support services provided under the auspices of FAS and out of public funds on a "free ride" basis when LEA maintained schools cannot similarly benefit but are expected to pay for such services out of their delegated budgets.
The Minister of State, Eric Forth, refused to address the arguments put forward by Opposition MPs and did not attempt to debate the real issue arising from the powers in Clause 17 which would have the effect of giving the FAS unlimited powers to supply advice and assistance to the governing bodies of GM schools in connection with the discharge of any of the functions of the governing body. The Minister simply argued that the Opposition amendments were unnecessary but conceded that the Bill gives great flexibility to the FAS.
Surely it is not right that within the education system there should be an extension of the powers of the FAS in this particular model and in the way proposed by the Government. The Government make great play with the need for parental choice and with the importance of public accountability for public money that is spent. Yet here we have an example where the Government appear to have denied the argument that there ought to be public accountability and a level playing field. I look forward to hearing the Minister say that the Government have now had time to consider this matter at greater leisure and that he will be prepared to consider approving this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In rising to support this amendment I wish to add another line of argument. After 12 years in local government, where everything one does has to be paid for and accounted for--that includes everything that is done in terms of services delivered to, or required by, our schools--it seems to me extraordinary that side by side with that system, which has been forced on most of the public
Page 14, line 41, at end insert--
("(2A) Any person appointed as a ballot observer under this section shall be an independent person who has appropriate experience of either the conduct of ballots or the provision of education.").
"the existence of the pool of observers of elections abroad maintained by the international side of the Electoral Reform Society",
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("free of charge or").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page