Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may suggest a compromise. We are all facing the fact that it is the middle of the night. The amendments are technical and it is highly probable that a letter would do everything. Possibly we should postpone these technical amendments; it would not affect the Government's business and they would pass without trouble. I am sure that when the arguments are written
down, without the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reading them all through, we are reasonable people on this side of the Committee and we would accept them. I think a letter on the technicalities would solve the problem. I assume, from what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said--which I accept absolutely--these are legal matters relating to property and similar technicalities. But doubts have been expressed; people will worry about them. I suggest a letter. Then assuming that what the Minister said is correct that no whale is hiding behind the amendments, that course is the one we should take. That is what I suggest, otherwise we will be here until 5 o'clock in the morning, and at my age that is more than I can take.
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that. However, in the circumstances, in order to make progress, if we withdraw the amendments for today we could undertake to bring them back at Report stage, following a letter. But we should not then have procedural difficulties in the Government bringing amendments forward at Report stage. If that is understood between us, on that basis I shall not move them, but I intend to re-submit them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Allocation of existing schools to new categories]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 83:
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 83 is
grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 90. They were
tabled because I believe it is necessary to give the
local education authority schools (what will be
community schools) an opportunity to exercise their
choice as to the kind of schools they would like to
be on Royal Assent of this Bill. It is an amendment
which I should still like to succeed. However, I am
much heartened by the previous statements of the
noble Baroness that at least the end is in sight for
local authority schools and they will have an
opportunity to exercise their choice within a
foreseeable length of time.
Baroness Blackstone: I want to clarify a point
I made earlier where I may have given inaccurate
information.
The noble Baroness asked when local education
authority schools--community schools--could change
categories; whether it is a year after Royal Assent. It
is in fact a year after the new framework comes into
force, not a year after Royal Assent. The new
framework will come into force in September 1999,
so it will be one year after that, in September 2000.
But that is quite soon.
Baroness Blatch: That is unacceptable to me, and
I will go back with full force to my amendments.
I do not understand the turbulence argument. There
will not be any ballots; the schools will not have to
go through great procedures; they simply choose
whether they want to be a community or a
foundation school.
The Government's supporting argument for
foundation schools has been that they are part of the
family of LEA schools and it gives them a greater
degree of autonomy--I do not know to what extent
because it is difficult to work out precisely what that
will mean. But I do not understand the turbulence
argument.
I agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord
Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that
the pressure from LEAs was because they did not like
the policy for foundation schools. However, given that
there are going to be foundation schools and given
that grant-maintained schools are to be given the
option to become foundation schools, I see no reason
whatever why community schools should not also be
given the option. It may well be that none of them
wants to take the option; it may be that many of them
do. But there is no good reason why they should be
at least two years away from making that decision.
The schools should be given an opportunity as soon
as the framework comes into being. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: We are all committed to giving all
schools a choice of category. The problem that arises
is the problem to which my noble friend alluded. It
is true that in our technical consultation paper last
summer we proposed that all schools should have a
choice when the new categories of school were
introduced. However, it was quite clear from a large
number of respondents to the consultation that they
were concerned that making all 23,000 schools choose
simultaneously could be extremely disruptive. We
have taken that into account and revised our proposals.
All schools will have a choice of category in the
new framework, but the opportunity to make choices
will be phased. GM schools will have a choice of
category under Schedule 2 at the point when the new
school categories are introduced. That is because the
new framework involves more changes for GM
schools than for LEA schools. Parents were balloted
when most schools became GM, so we believe it is
right for them to have an opportunity to express their
view, through a ballot, immediately.
Conversion of LEA-maintained schools is different.
The new framework will involve little change for
those schools, so they will be assigned to their nearest
equivalent category when it is established. After the
moratorium referred to by my noble friend, any school
will be able to change category under the provisions
of Clause 34 and Schedule 8. That moratorium,
I repeat, will last for one year after the new categories
are introduced, after which community schools will be
able to propose changes to their status at that point
or at any time thereafter. That will give all schools
time to experience their new categories and make a
considered decision as to whether they want to
All schools within the framework, whether they
were formerly LEA-maintained or grant-maintained,
will be free to consider a change after that period. In
contrast, these amendments, if adopted, would force
all 23,000 schools in the system to undertake their
choice and to go through the choice process at the
same time. We do not believe that would be sensible.
We agree with the aim of giving all schools choice,
but we cannot agree with the method proposed by the
amendments. The 23,000 all deciding instantaneously
would not enhance the introduction of the new
framework. A year's moratorium seems to us to be a
sensible process. I therefore ask the noble Baroness
to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that
all schools will, after that moratorium, have the
choice.
Baroness Blatch: It is not surprising that GM
schools are being given that opportunity early. It is
not that they are being given it out of the generosity
of the Government's heart. It is that the Government
cannot wait for the GM schools to disappear from the
scene. They have made no secret of that. That is why
grant-maintained schools are going to be first in line.
Will the noble Lord point me to the specific place
in the Bill where the commencement order for the
framework in terms of the particular date is set out?
Perhaps I may also correct something the noble Lord
said. He said that my amendment would force all
schools on day one to make the choice. My
amendment does no such thing. My amendment and
the amendments coupled with it simply make the
provision available. Schools may not exercise it for
years, or perhaps never. It is simply there as an
option. There is nothing in my amendment, unless the
noble Lord can point me to it--in which case I shall
go away and make sure that it is removed--to force
schools to make a choice to become foundation
schools.
Lord Whitty: On that point, they are not forced to
make a decision. They are required right at the
beginning to decide whether they wish to take the
category of community school or not.
Baroness Blatch: There is nothing in the
amendment to require them to do anything of the
kind. If they do not want even to give a passing
thought to it, they will not have to give a passing
thought to it. But if they want positively to give a
passing thought to taking on the new status, they are
free to do so. There is nothing in my amendment,
unless the noble Lord can point me to it, that requires
them to do anything whatever once the Bill comes
into play. But it would help me to know where in
the Bill I can find the commencement date for the
framework and where in the Bill I can find that one
year after the commencement date for the framework
Lord Whitty: The framework date is the date
designated the appointed day in Clause 20(6). The
moratorium is not defined as one year, but we are
indicating the intention that it would be one year after
that appointed date.
There is at least a passive decision required of
community schools to remain community schools if
the amendment were carried. That is why I am saying
that everyone would have to make a decision. All
23,000 schools would have to make a decision.
Clearly, the vast majority would be expected to take
the decision to take on the community status that they
had been assigned. Nevertheless, they would require
to take that decision. The clause under which the
moratorium date is specified is Clause 34(2).
Page 106, line 14, after ("paragraph") insert ("1 or").
2.45 a.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page