| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am glad to see this amendment before your Lordships today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for the practical considerations they have put before the House. I wish to underline what seems to be the principle here. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, describing the words of the noble Lord the Minister in which he said that a governing body can take account of consultations. I suspect that what the Minister meant to say was that a governing body may take account of such consultations or conversations. Frequently we use the word "can", especially in the process of speaking quickly, when we should use "may". I should be interested to know the Minister's view of that.
In any case, neither of those words is the same as "shall". The amendment says that a governing body,
- "shall have regard to any financial consequences".
This is a question of principle--and a very important principle--that governing bodies are being encouraged to act responsibly. They are being encouraged to take responsibility for the life of their schools. However, in doing so they must surely also act responsibly in relation to the community in which they are set and in relation to the effect of their decisions on others. If it is the case that a decision taken by a governing body means that other people have to pick up the financial costs of it, surely that is something a governing body ought to have regard to. I believe that it is right that this should be on the face of the Bill and that the word "shall" should be included here. I should like to underline what I believe to be the very important principle behind the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on my earlier remarks. He is being somewhat premature in getting into the most intricate detail of how the consultation may operate. The department is rarely criticised for being less than comprehensive in drafting guidance and circulars. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall be as thorough as he would wish in drafting and consulting on our guidance on
consultation and will then take account of the specific points raised. But I do not think that they are necessarily suitable matters for the face of the Bill because we do not want to prescribe precisely the factors which governors should take into account when considering whether selection is right for their schools and for the parents they serve. We believe that the governors themselves are best placed to assess just how their schools should develop and they will take into account all relevant factors in reaching that decision.When the governors of a county or controlled school decide that they wish to introduce or extend selection and the statutory proposals are necessary, the LEA, as the relevant admission authority, if it is the relevant admission authority, will consider any financial implications in deciding whether to publish proposals. The same will be true when an LEA considers a request for the introduction of selection when the statutory proposals are not required. Where the governing bodies of voluntary aided or grant-maintained schools decide to introduce or extend selection, Clause 7 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill will place them under a duty to carry out consultation as appropriate--that is the reason for the distinction between those schools and the others--even where statutory proposals are not needed. I certainly believe, as I think I said on an earlier occasion, that if there are any financial consequences for the LEA arising from any proposed change, I am sure that the LEA, as the admissions authority, would make the school's governing body more than aware of that fact during consultation.
Perhaps I may also go back to the possible costs of selection and to the example given on a previous occasion--transport. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, put it, that transport is a major figure in the accounts of local education authorities and is a major concern for a number of parents. However, I do have to say--and I repeat what I said at an earlier stage--that there is no reason to assume that more selection will necessarily lead to an overall increase in the costs of home-to-school transport.
In some areas the introduction or extension of selection may mean some pupils travelling long distances to schools. But the Bill does not change the rules on home-to-school transport in any way and pupils will continue to be entitled to free transport to the nearest suitable school, as the current legislation puts it, at which places are available if that is beyond the statutory walking distances of two or three miles, depending on their age. That means that some parents whose children would have been entitled to free school transport to the nearest non-selective school may forgo that right in order to send them to a selective school further away. That, in effect, was the example given by the noble Baroness. That could certainly offset any extra transport costs which might or might not arise from other pupils acquiring an entitlement to free transport because their nearest suitable school with places available was now further away.
I have to say, therefore, that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I would not deny for one moment the assiduity with which the Department for Education and Employment carries out its consultation exercises. We had an example of this so recently as last Thursday when across this very Dispatch Box the noble Lord and I discussed the Deregulation (Provision of School Action Plans) Order. That order was an eye-opener to me because I had not realised the extent to which consultation over tuppence ha'penny could extend. It was a small matter. It was not an earth shaking issue. However, the consultation list was enormous and the cost of that consultation staggering.
The extent of consultation in this area is something about which I would have no worries. Guidance, on the other hand, is something about which I would not feel the same way. Guidance can be given but guidance is not law. The Minister said that a local education authority could make its views to the governors very clearly heard. It could indeed. The LEA could squawk very loudly. But am I not correct in saying--before I make a final decision as to whether I shall withdraw the amendment I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me on this--that the governors could, if they wished--if this was no more than a matter of guidance--turn a deaf ear to the loudest noises made by the LEA, however many times they were made? They could indeed extend the two fingers of scorn to the LEA and say, "We shall have nothing whatever to do with this".
I am reminded of that moment in Act IV of The Merchant of Venice when Portia says,
- "Then must the Jew be merciful".
- "On what compulsion must I? Tell me that".
Portia has no answer to him and has to say,
- "The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven",
which has nothing to do with what has been said and is no answer whatever to the question. If the governors say,
- "On what compulsion must I? Tell me that".
Lord Henley: My Lords, there would be LEA governors on the governing body of the schools, because we are talking about county schools on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Minister assures me that that would be ample justification and that there would be enough to force that decision, I hear what he says and must consider it more carefully. But I have the greatest worry about leaving a matter of this kind in the area of guidance. I would be much happier if it were not there. However, time is getting on. We must be aware of the fact that there is a great deal ahead of us. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 11:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the duty on governing bodies of county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools to review their selective admissions policies at least once every school year; to conduct a secret ballot; and to explain their decisions in their annual reports. I mentioned earlier that last week I attended a governing body meeting of the junior school of which I am a governor. It was the meeting at which we were required to go through our annual ritual of deciding whether this junior school wished to start the process to become grant maintained. Although it is by no means the first year that we have had to do it, my fellow governors were still puzzled as to why we were required to go through this ritual. The decision took almost no time at all. If it is of any reassurance to the Minister, they were not in the least bullied by an LEA. Neither myself nor the Conservative nominee had any need to say anything at all. All the governors were convinced that it was a pointless question and that they had no need whatever to be grant maintained.
What took the time was thinking up additional reasons to those that we gave last year. The reasons given last year were basically to do with the excellent relationship and partnership that they had with the LEA and the other schools which they did not want to put in jeopardy. If I remember, five reasons were given last year, and they felt that this year they should find at least two more reasons to re-emphasise the point that they wished to stay with the LEA. As I said, that was done with absolutely no bullying at all from the LEA; nor do I believe that that happens with the overwhelming majority of schools when required each year to consider this matter.
The purpose of my mentioning this is because this Bill has yet another requirement to make governing bodies consider something which they may not wish to consider, but which is something that they will have to consider in the normal course of events. The Bill places a duty on the governing bodies of the schools to review their selective admissions policy at least once a year.
There are two objections to it. The first is that it is unnecessary. In the case of county schools, the relevant LEA, as the admissions authority, must consult governing bodies every year about their plans for admissions. Any county school governing body which wishes to review the authority's admissions policy in relation to its school has the opportunity to do so on an annual basis. History has shown that very few of them, if ever, wish to consider a selective intake. We have debated selection in this House on previous occasions and I suspect that we may well do so again. It is and remains our view and that of the vast majority of school governors throughout the country, that selection reduces choice for most: it does not increase choice for many.
They are, therefore, able to consider this matter anyway. There is no need for a requirement in the Bill to do so. The same is true of voluntary and
The other objection to the Bill is that it is yet more of an imposition on the conduct of governing bodies and the content of their annual report. In the past few years the Government have pressed many additional responsibilities on governing bodies. Indeed, the fourth edition of the DfEE guide to the law for governors of county controlled and special agreement schools, extends to over 150 pages of extremely helpful advice. Included within this booklet is a reference to the governing body having to prepare and publish an annual report which will explain, among other things, how the governing body has put into practice its plans for the school since the last report. In addition, it must include by law such information as the school's special educational needs policy; national curriculum and GCSE results; details of the further education training or jobs which pupils have gone on to; a summary of the school budget; pupils' absence information; details of governing bodies' discussions on whether to ballot parents on grant-maintained status and so on. This Bill seeks to add a further imposition of what must be included in the annual report and that should be resisted.
The statutory content of annual reports by the governing bodies of voluntary and grant-maintained schools is equally long and, to add one further burden by insisting that the annual report shall give details of the decision taken in relation to the school's admissions policy and an explanation of the reasons for the decision, makes no sense. It also assumes that the author of the report can reflect accurately the reasons why a large number of governors reached a decision through a secret ballot.
These amendments do not seek to restrict the number of occasions on which governing bodies review their selective admissions policies as they already have the opportunity to do so at least once a year. Clauses 2 and 9 are both unnecessary and unnecessarily burdensome. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Leave out Clause 2.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page