| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for eating up those two crucial minutes so that help could arrive, and getting me round that rather sticky corner. I am grateful for her approach, and she is absolutely right—technical amendments
always do raise real issues. As she will recognise, however, we are simply seeking to make the Bill as clear and consistent as possible. Moreover, as she so rightly said, it is often difficult to answer questions on technical amendments.The points that the noble Lord made do not affect the amendments. The amendments ensure that certain definitions here are consistent with those in Clause 118. I believe that the noble Lord will conclude that we have produced clearer definitions. That is why these amendments were tabled.
Lord Lucas: I entirely agree that the wording and the construction are more elegant. However, my understanding of the amendments that the noble Lord introduces is that in this section of the Bill the parts which are to apply to teachers employed at a school enabling the pay and conditions regulations to be relaxed in relation to those teachers will not now apply to head teachers and members of the senior management who do not teach. I should be grateful for confirmation that that is what is intended as that is certainly the effect of the amendments as I read them. It is also the effect of the amendments as I read them that they would not apply to supply teachers. I suspect that that may be right, but I should again be grateful for confirmation that that is what is intended.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I confirm that that is what is intended. The crucial clause is Clause 118 which concerns the power to prescribe pay and conditions. As the noble Lord rightly indicated, supply teachers are under specific contracts. Therefore, the amendment does not apply to supply teachers. The measure applies to non-teaching heads. Subsection (4) of Clause 118 states:
- "A person is also a school teacher for the purposes of this section if he serves as the head teacher of a school maintained by a local education authority".
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise that what we are trying to achieve throughout the Bill is consistency of definitions. We recognise the distinction with regard to supply teachers. I believe that he will accept that the amendment adds to the clarity of the Bill as a whole. If there are outstanding difficulties, I undertake to return to them on Report. However, at this point I cannot see that there is any difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 31.
Lord Lucas: In part I have been motivated in all this by the torrid times given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, over many years on similar groups of amendments when I was a junior Whip on the Front Bench. However, I believe that we have an unresolved point here. I should be grateful for a letter before Report in time to table amendments if that is required.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I give that assurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exemptions available to qualifying schools]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 33:
- Page 4, line 25, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I wish also to speak to the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. These two issues are related. Clause 6(1) states:
- "Regulations may for the purposes of this section—".
The amendment was suggested by the National Association of Head Teachers. Its view is that it has got to have regulations in order to make any applications under the earned autonomy provision. It is impossible for it not to have details of what is needed. What is a successful school, and why cannot schools other than those with a serious weakness be allowed to practise self-management?
The detail of the provisions brings me to the clause stand part debate. I made it clear in my initial remarks on earned autonomy that I am less than convinced that that is a good idea. Many issues arise in that regard. Why should schools have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to exercise earned autonomy? The Minister said that, given the criteria, schools will not know when they apply whether they will be eligible for earned autonomy and that the whole issue will have to be evaluated by the Department for Education and Skills.
We return to the debate that we had at the start of our proceedings on the centralisation of these issues, the degree to which the arrangement is concentrated on the ministry and the degree of micro-management that is entailed. The process seems incredibly bureaucratic and over-prescriptive and it will place a great deal of power in the hands of the Secretary of State.
When we debated Amendment No. 15, I suggested that the one area in which schools wanted a bit of flexibility was in relation to the curriculum, but the Minister replied, "They do not need that because they already have plenty of flexibility in relation to the curriculum". Why are we now proposing that, with regard to earned autonomy, we should give them flexibility in relation to the curriculum? That is a nonsense. I therefore question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: I have a question about our procedure. We will come to subsequent amendments that relate to Clause 6. How can we possibly be debating clause stand part before our consideration of those amendments? Surely, someone or other—I hate to look at the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—must be out
of order. We cannot possibly debate clause stand part before considering amendments that require the clause to still be in the Bill when we debate them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that we can debate clause stand part but that we cannot resolve it until all of the amendments to the clause have been debated. It is perfectly proper to debate clause stand part if the proposer of the earlier amendment wishes to do so.
Lord Peston: I entirely take my noble friend's point, but it seems to be slightly illogical to be debating something without an ability to resolve it. It makes much more logical sense to debate the amendments and then to have the clause stand part debate. But at this time of night it is obviously all getting a bit beyond me.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The reason why I discussed whether the clause stand part was because it is grouped with the amendment on the groupings list. I did a certain amount of regrouping yesterday but, unlike the noble Lord, I did not regroup my amendments to the extent that every one of them would be debated separately.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have much sympathy with Amendment No. 33, which involves the rest of the clause. However, it is very strange that regulations "may" provide—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I regret that we have got somewhat out of order, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We should return to the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness has spoken to the amendment, as has the noble Lord, Lord Peston; I am simply continuing our debate on it. However, what I wish to say involves the clause stand part debate, which is grouped with the amendment.
It is very strange that Clause 6(1) states that:
- "Regulations may for the purposes of this section",
What is meant by those designations? In practical terms, how far will the regulations go in designating parts of the curriculum from which schools may be exempt? Are the core national curriculum and its subjects sacrosanct, or could they come under any of these regulations as providing exemption? This point was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is time that we had some clarification of precisely what is meant by "any curriculum provision" and the exemption that may be provided through regulation on that account.
Lord Lucas: My interest in opposing the Question that Clause 6 stand part is based merely on wishing to find out what Clause 6 is intended to do.
Baroness Blatch: I am sympathetic to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It does seem bizarre to discuss whether the clause shall stand part when there are two pages of amendments yet to come in relation to the clause. I believe that that is probably a fault of the groupings. It is always possible, although highly unlikely, that the Minister will accept all the amendments between now and Amendment No. 43, although I believe that she has already indicated that Amendment No. 43 is not acceptable. We may have a very different Clause 6 in the Bill when we come to agreeing whether it will stand part; or we may know far more about it by the time we reach that point. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are important in finding out what the clause is about and having that on the record. We can then debate whether or not we believe that it should stand part of the Bill. With that, I agree.
However, there is a supreme irony here. In speeches over recent days we have heard Ministers use the language of devolution. That is particularly the case in the health service but less so in the education service, although I have heard it from the Secretary of State for Education. They have spoken of passing more control for public services to local level, with more devolution of management and more ownership at local level. They have spoken of letting go of the reins and of Whitehall agreeing to relinquish its central control.
But this Bill is very centralist. Now, almost everything that happens and almost everything that moves in schools must be approved by the Secretary of State. I believe that that flies in the face of, and is very inconsistent with, much of what is being said. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to persuade her colleagues to say that schools can be trusted. As I said during debate on earlier amendments, schools are highly accountable. They operate in a goldfish bowl; they cannot get away with delivering a poor service without it being noticed and without it being dealt with by some part of legislation.
Therefore, the situation is the reverse of what Ministers are saying. The reality is that the central control is tightening all the time. I hope that we in this House can do something about loosening that control before the Bill goes back to another place.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page