---

Baroness Blatch: I have a number of concerns about the amendments. First, I am concerned that if Amendments No. 93 and 106 are accepted—we know that the noble Baroness will ask that they are—there will be no debate today on the inclusion of teachers in the governing bodies. I think that that is monstrous. For that reason I want it to be recorded that, by their amendments, the Government have made it impossible for us to discuss what the nature of staffing members will be.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the Committee. Until the Deputy Chairman said that, that was not my intention. My intention was, indeed, to debate the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. I am completely in the hands of the Deputy Chairman. That was not my understanding of what would happen if we agreed to the amendments. Had I known that, I would not have asked for them to be debated in this order.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness would not have had any choice about debating the amendments in this order because they come in this part of the Bill. I do not know how many officials are helping the noble Baroness on this matter. It is not the Deputy Chairman who should have enlightened her as she stands up in the Chamber; her own officials should have enlightened her. I believe that they are remiss. This will inhibit debate on the composition of governing bodies as regards the nature of staffing members, which is monstrous.

9 May 2002 : Column 1287

Even with the letter received from the noble Baroness and the explanation we have had today, I find it difficult to understand the technical difference between persons who at the time of their election are parents of registered pupils at the school or persons elected or appointed as parent governors. One way or another they will be parents. They usually are parents of registered pupils at the school. If they are not, there is always a fallback position as with other statutes. There is no reference in Clause 18, and certainly no reference as far as concerns the two amendments, to that applying specifically to voluntary aided schools. The noble Baroness referred to an amendment which will be tabled on another day. However, we are talking about the words of the amendment today. I find that particularly disturbing.

I refer to a letter received from the noble Baroness. I suspect that anyone else with any involvement in the Bill has also received the same letter. The part which refers to Clause 18 states:

"The amendments to Clause 18",

that is, Amendments No. 93 and 106,

"concern the definition of parent and staff governors".

Simply to say,

"persons elected or appointed as parent governors"

does not make it any clearer. So the idea that this is the better definition of parents and staff governors is wrong. It does not do that. It continues,

"Current regulations state that parent governors should be drawn from the parents of children at the school. When that is not possible,"—

as I hinted earlier, there is a fallback position—

"current regulations allow the governing body to appoint a parent of a registered pupil or where that is not possible a parent of a compulsory school age child".

It then states:

"The latter route is not available to Voluntary Aided schools".

What tells us that it is available to voluntary aided schools in the amendment? I certainly do not see that in the amendment. It continues:

"Partners"—

I assume that the partners are Church communities—

"have raised this issue and, on reflection,"—

that is to say, the Government have reflected—

"we think it sensible to provide that VA schools also have this option".

I have no objection to that. In fact, I wholeheartedly support voluntary aided schools enjoying that if that is what they want. I also hope—although I cannot presume because it is not in my field—that voluntary aided schools would want the staff to be represented by teachers in the school. Again, we shall not be free to have that debate today. That is unfortunate.

9 May 2002 : Column 1288

The Government then say that they have taken the opportunity to clarify the definition. I do not believe that they have done that either for parents or staff. It continues,

"(the definition of staff governor having also been the subject of representations to the Department), following advice from Parliamentary Counsel that this would provide greater consistency with the rest of that clause".

I think that they have failed on all counts in these amendments. I just lament the fact that we shall not be able to discuss our amendments about the nature of the staffing members, including teachers.

Lord Peston: I am slightly appalled and I am also a little taken aback because if Amendment No. 93 were grouped with the remainder, we could debate them all together. I do not understand why we just do not group the amendments together. That would solve the problem. It would not distress either the Minister, the Official Opposition or me—me counting a great deal in this regard.

I have one or two points to make. But perhaps I may first inquire whether we can group the amendments so that we do not ruin our whole afternoon's proceedings.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister answers that, perhaps I may make another suggestion. If she does not move Amendments Nos. 93 and 106 today they will both be left on the table. It would leave us free to discuss all the other amendments in their normal groupings.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston. I should prefer to take these amendments with the bigger group and have the kind of discussion which the Committee would welcome on the whole area.

Lord Peston: If that is agreeable to Members of the Committee, perhaps I may proceed as if we were in the group. However, I want to talk about Amendment No. 93 for the moment.

My difficulty, to which I hope my noble friend will reply, is that the amendment does not do what I thought it would. In particular, it does not make sure that the parent governors are parents of children at the school, or that the staff governors—and we shall define the staff in more detail later—should be staff at the school because it says,

"elected or appointed as".

My understanding of the English language is that anyone could be "elected or appointed as" and then told, "Well, you are the staff governor". It does not say that,

"a member of staff should be elected or appointed as",

and it does not say that

"a parent in the school should be elected or appointed as".

I know that the parliamentary draftsmen are fantastic people. We may well be told in due course—as I have been when dealing with many other Bills—that the English language seems to tell us something completely different, but it means what I have just said

9 May 2002 : Column 1289

that it should mean. Subject to that, we need some explanation that the amendment does the trick. Certainly, in terms of ordinary parlance, it does not do the trick. It does not remotely tell us that the staff governors will be staff and that the parent governors will be parents.

Amendment No. 93 is not in the large group, but none the less I think that it would be helpful to debate it as an amendment in the group. I shall certainly, as will other Members of the Committee, be talking about other amendments in the group in due course.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 97 which I now understand are in the group. The amendments seek to ensure the representation of both teacher and staff governors. As the Minister wants to amend the clause, the Bill would only require,

"persons elected or appointed as staff governors".

It is not stated on the face of the Bill that we have both a teacher and a member of the support staff as staff governors. The Explanatory Notes state in paragraph 73:

"The regulations will also establish a single staff governor category . . . and . . . within that category one place should be reserved for a teacher".

From these Benches, we believe that teacher governors are very important to the deliberations of governing bodies. A well-informed governing body, which listens to the professional views of those responsible for its pupils, is less likely to make mistakes on decisions relating to the curriculum and the morale of the school.

The status quo allows for representation of both teacher and support staff on the governing body. Indeed, it is not long since support staff gained the right to sit on governing bodies. In my personal experience, they make a very important contribution. They have a completely different perspective from that of teachers. Therefore, I believe that it is important to ensure that both those categories of people employed at the school are represented on the governing body.

All members of a school community should be represented on the governing body and be able to contribute to the improvement of their school. However, simply replacing one category of governor with another is not the way to ensure an inclusive and representative body. So, whatever the Government's reasons for the amendments, I believe that it is essential that when changes—in particular, to the curriculum—are proposed the role of both teaching and non-teaching staff is protected.

---