---

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has not yet spoken, so let us hear him first.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. When the Minister said that if devolution was good enough for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, why was it not good enough for England, was he not confusing the issues? Devolution for Scotland restored the nationhood to the Scots, whereas devolution in England appears to be taking it away. I should like him to address that point.

My second point is that people in the North East and the North West who are concerned and are perhaps in favour of regionalisation are so in favour because of the Barnett formula. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the Barnett formula would not be altered. In that case, the North East and, indeed, other regions in England would suffer the same deficit as they are suffering now. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point again.

Finally, are these proposals in any way geared to, and associated with, the proposal of the European Union Committee of the Regions and the Commission to have a Europe of regions? The Minister did not answer that question, which I believe was asked in the first instance by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first question was: is this not different from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because it is giving back to them whereas it is taking away from the regions? That is not the right question. The right question is: what promotes good governance? Secondly, has this anything to do with the proposal made by the European Union Committee of the Regions? The answer is no; it has not. The third question was: what about the Barnett formula? I made clear that there are no plans to change that.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I suggested that it was this side first. If we are brief, we should be able to hear both the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and the noble Lord, Lord King. It would be good to hear both.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, although some of us came reluctantly to the concept of variable geometry, it is inevitable? The difference between these carefully

9 May 2002 : Column 1284

thought out proposals and what was happening under the previous government was that, rather like Oliver Cromwell going round with his commissioners, the Banham committee was deciding what would happen in the counties. That happened in several counties in England. There will now be a democratic mandate and this will not happen without a democratic mandate in any part of England.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thoroughly endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea. Underlying the proposals in relation both to any reform of local government in a region where there is to be a referendum, and for there to be an elected regional assembly, there must be the consent of the people through a referendum. We believe that that is the right approach.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with regret, we are out of time. I very much regret that. That clearly signals that we need an early debate on the matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham suggested. Perhaps we could have a word subsequently with the noble Lord, Lord King, to ensure that we are aware of his question.

Education Bill

4.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Deputy Chariman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]

Clause 18 [Governing Bodies]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 93, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 94 to 96.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 93:

Page 11, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

"(a) persons elected or appointed as parent governors,
(b) persons elected or appointed as staff governors,"

The noble Baroness said: I shall begin by explaining the changes which lie before the Committee today in terms of governance. The past 20 years have seen progressive delegation of funding and responsibilities from local education authorities to individual schools. Schools are now largely self-managing, responsible for their own budgets and accountable for all aspects of their performance.

9 May 2002 : Column 1285

The public accountability of governing bodies is an essential feature of current arrangements in which schools, rather than education authorities, are the key unit of delivery. That has brought about a dramatic increase in the weight and range of governing body responsibilities. Concerns about how governing bodies are made up and the role they have played has been debated at length.

That led to a public consultation in November 2000 and to the Way Forward Group, on which all the main national governing body organisations and the churches were represented. It was established in April 2001 and led to the consultation paper, The Way Forward. I shall go into more detail about those arrangements, but I now turn to the amendments.

Amendment No. 93 serves three purposes, which I shall take in turn. First, the proposed changed wording of subsection (2)(a) will allow us to address parent governor recruitment and representation issues. Under current legislation, if it proves impossible to find a parent of a registered pupil at the school, governing bodies are allowed to appoint a parent of any child of compulsory school age. As currently drafted, that option would no longer be available to governing bodies. The amendment therefore allows us to maintain the status quo in that respect.

Secondly, Amendment No. 93 proposes a change to Clause 18(2)(b). Subsection (2) sets out the categories of governor that a governing body must consist of. The amendment prescribes that:

"persons elected or appointed as staff governors"

must be on the governing body. The advantage of the proposed change is that the phrase,

"employed to work at the school"

is not used here. That phrase could be interpreted restrictively to mean only staff employed under contracts of employment, which would be unhelpful and contrary to our intentions. Staff who work at a school under a contract for services, for example, catering staff, are currently able to serve as staff governors and we want to put beyond doubt that such staff will continue to be eligible to serve as a school governor. It is important to have clear definitions in the Bill, and that is what the amendment aims to achieve.

Thirdly, the proposed changes to paragraphs (a) and (b) create consistency in the definitions used in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection, and thus give this provision in the Bill greater clarity and transparency.

I should like also to take this opportunity to alert the Committee to a further amendment, which will be needed and which I shall table on Report. There is a drafting error in Clause 18(2)(d), which relates to community governors, formerly known as co-opted governors. As drafted, it would mean that every school must have a community governor. Voluntary aided schools have never had such governors and we did not propose any change to that in the consultation. I apologise to the Committee. I shall table an amendment to provide that Clause 18(2)(d) does not apply in the case of voluntary aided schools. I hope

9 May 2002 : Column 1286

that the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 93 will benefit governing bodies, and I trust that noble Lords will accept it.

I turn to Amendment No. 106. Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 relates to the powers of governing bodies to borrow money and grant security. The wording of this paragraph is intended to replicate the current provision in Schedule 10 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which currently states:

"The power to borrow sums and grant security mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) may only be exercised with the written consent—

(a) of the Secretary of State, or

(b) if an order under sub-paragraph (4) so provides, of the local education authority".

It was always intended to carry forward the provision that governing bodies would have to seek consent from either the Secretary of State—or in Wales the Welsh Assembly—or from their LEA where an order required that. However, as currently drafted, governing bodies would have to seek consent from the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly as well as from their LEA, where an order requires that under subparagraph (5).

The amendment is needed to make approval by the Secretary of State or Welsh Assembly and approval by the LEA alternative options as we intended, and as is currently provided for in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

---