| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the amendment is to ensure that any person who is appointed as a ballot observer has appropriate experience and can therefore command the confidence of all parties to act properly as an impartial observer. It also raises the issue of what the role of an observer is expected to be.
I suppose that even at this late stage in the game it is essentially a probing amendment. It seeks to prompt from the Government a clear indication of the kind of people, the arrangement of identification and any appointment they consider to be appropriate to undertake the role of ballot observer.
Previous Opposition amendments which sought to require that ballot observers should be,
a phrase that we used--was summarily rejected by the Government. Although the Minister did not say so in words nor reveal in detail the Government's thinking, in his reply to such an Opposition amendment tabled on 25th February he said that the Government believe that it is too restrictive to limit the Secretary of State's discretion in a way that such a previous amendment would have done.
However, the Minister revealed that the Government believe that it is important that observers should be "of the right calibre" and that officials in his department have been,
Will the Minister tell us now which organisations--other than the ERS--officials in his department have been talking to? Also, if he would be so kind to make us privy to any of the things which were said, it would be extremely helpful to have that on the record.
Will the Minister now clarify precisely what he considers to be appropriate experience for a ballot observer? Does a phrase like "of the right calibre" mean anything at all? If so, what does it mean? If calibre is a criterion, how is it established? How do you avoid the accusation that someone of the right calibre is also "one of us"?
This is an important issue. The House will be aware that the Opposition take the view that the law and procedures governing the conduct of grant-maintained ballots are complex and that it is necessary in our view for ballot observers to have the appropriate experience of the education service or the conduct of ballots to undertake properly the role envisaged for ballot observers. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord,
Without telling us rather more about what is his thinking on this issue, I do not understand how the Minister can convince us that the right kind of people are going to be conducting these ballots.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we discussed a slightly different amendment in Committee. That amendment referred to:
I gave the reasons why I was unable to accept that amendment.
The new amendment appears to accept that argument, for which I thank the noble Lord. The new amendment requires only that observers have appropriate experience. That would undoubtedly provide all the flexibility that one could possibly desire. The problem is that it is now such a statement of the obvious as to be hardly worth saying at all. It cannot be seriously suggested that this Government or any government would appoint people as ballot observers if they did not consider that they had experience which was appropriate in some way to the activities which they would undertake, whichever form that experience might take.
The noble Lord asked who we had spoken to and asked for their views. I have quite a long list of those organisations invited to comment, including the Association of County Councils, the Association of Grant-Maintained and Aided Schools, the National Association of Head Teachers, and going on through the Catholic Association of Grant-Maintained Heads down to the Standing Conference on Chief Education Officers. No doubt I could offer that to the noble Lord in due course if he would like to see all of those who were invited to comment. I could also give a long list of those who responded, including a number of individual LEAs, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Association of County Councils, the Electoral Reform Society, which has been mentioned, Local Schools Information, the National Governors Council, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association. The point behind that is to say that we have invited comments from a number of people and we have in reply received a number of comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how we should select the right people. She is right to identify the importance of getting the right people for the job. The criteria for eligibility would need to be set and we
As I said earlier, the important point is that this Government or any government would always wish to make sure that the appropriate people with the appropriate skills were, the right organisations having been consulted, appointed with the appropriate expertise.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the consultation ended on 31st January, some six weeks ago. Is it possible at this stage to give us at least a hint, a direction or a general flavour as to what the consultees advised? I realise that we are speaking on Report, and I should of course give way as the Minister wished to intervene.
The key point is that the role of the observer is growing from being simply a ballot monitor to being a leader or the chair of the process which goes beyond the function in the Bill. The job is so important that it is worrying to consider that that expansion or swelling of the role seems to be taking place as a result of a consultation which is still shrouded in the secrecy of the bowels of the DfEE.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I made quite clear, we do not believe that ballot observers will be necessary on that many occasions but, obviously, on the occasions when they are necessary, it is important to make sure that the right people are appointed. That is why we have discussed this issue with a number of people. I cannot give the noble Lord a flavour of the responses from those who have been consulted but I shall consider that further and, if necessary, write to the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that additional piece of information. He still has not explained the role and the thinking about the matter or really what area of experience would be agreed as being appropriate. But I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in correspondence or even at some later stage on discussions of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Provision of advice or assistance by funding authority]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 32:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposal in the Bill would allow the FAS to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, not including financial assistance, and it would give the FAS power
That plainly seeks to put the GM sector on a totally different funding footing from that of LEA-maintained schools. The circumstances in which an LEA can provide similar support without charge to a school in difficulties--and the Bill does not restrict such largesse solely to GM schools in difficulties--are very limited by the regulations governing LMS. Even where that is permissible, the cost of such support would count against the strictly limited percentage of the potential schools budget which an LEA is permitted to retain for centrally-provided services.
The Minister previously responded to the amendment on 25th February by saying that the FAS already provides support without charge to GM schools experiencing financial difficulties and those operating under special measures and that Clause 17 proposed only a modest extension of the circumstances in which non-financial support can be provided. But that is simply not what the Bill describes or would permit.
Whether or not the Government expect many GM schools to be caught by the new provisions, they potentially create a totally different basis for support between the GM and LEA sectors. There cannot be any justification for such a difference. It is merely a further example of the privileged treatment habitually accorded to GM schools. The fact that such a difference already exists by virtue of the current practice of the FAS is no reason to extend it. It is rather like saying that if adultery exists, then it is better to have lots of occasions of adultery. Rather the current practice of the agency ought to be brought within the terms of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. It is difficult for the Government to argue that this is only a small extension of the current powers of the FAS when one reads in the Bill that the agency will be able to provide for free,
The governing body is responsible for ensuring that a curriculum is adopted for the school; it is responsible for the discipline policies of the school; and it is responsible for the financial policies of a school, together with a whole host of other things. If it can get free advice from the FAS on all those matters, it is indeed obtaining something that it is quite impossible for a LEA funded school or a directly funded school to obtain. Earlier today the Minister suggested that GM schools did not obtain any advantages over and above those already enjoyed by LEA schools. I am afraid that the provision is an example of precisely the sort of advantage against which we were complaining.
Page 16, line 31, at end insert--
("( ) Any person appointed as a ballot observer under this section shall be a person who has experience appropriate to the activities which he will be expected to undertake.").
"an independent person who has appropriate experience of either the conduct of ballots or the provision of education".--[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1128.]--
"talking to neutral and well respected organisations, especially the Electoral Reform Society".--[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1130.]
"any person ... who has appropriate experience of either the conduct of ballots or the provision of education".--[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1128.]
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("free of charge or").
9 p.m.
"advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the governing body of any of their functions".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page