| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Minister replies to the amendment, I believe that part of the problem with this debate and our other Committee stage debates is that we have been unclear as to precisely what the Government intend for the future of local education authorities. Because of that, I believe that, throughout the Bill, a whole series of initiatives are being taken to put in place what are almost substitutes for local education authorities. We have not had a clear view from the Government as to whether, in the long term, effectively they wish to make all schools independent, with no local education authorities at all. Thus, I believe that we are getting the worst of all worlds. From the number of letters and representations that I have received from people involved in local education authorities, the provisions that the Government seek to introduce are certainly perceived in that way. If that is not the intention of the Bill and if that is not the long-term intention of the Government, I believe that it would be helpful for the Government to put that on the record.
I also believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that parents will be looking for a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just said, to ensure that, where there is dispute, a fair and proper means of resolving it exists.
Another theme that has run through our debates is that we should do nothing to dissipate accountability. Local education authorities may have their failings—I was a member of one for many years. Nevertheless, they have virtue because they contain an elected element—most of their members are directly elected local councillors. I believe that the more we diminish their powers, the less people will be prepared to serve on such bodies and, even if it is not the intention of the Government to abolish them, they will simply wither away.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is an interesting way to start this Committee day. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving me the opportunity to talk about local education authorities. There is no question but that local education authorities provide an invaluable role within our school education system. This Government have no intention of seeing them disappear.
We are trying to ensure that we develop our relationship with schools and local education authorities so that each performs the duties, responsibilities and functions most appropriate to them. That means enabling schools to have control over their own budgets, and allowing them to grow and develop for their community. It means ensuring that local education authorities play a strategic role, and it also means that the Department for Education and Skills and, of course, the Secretary of State, have a responsibility and a duty to all our children and all our schools. I set the Bill within that context. We are trying to ensure that each plays the part that we consider to be appropriate and valuable. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord because I know that there are issues to be teased out and debates to be had.
Perhaps, for Members of the Committee who are less familiar with it, I may say something about the role of the adjudicator in general. The adjudicator has two different roles: one is concerned with admissions; the other with school organisation. The first concerns determining objections to admission arrangements. In a sense, therefore, it is an appeal role. With regard to school organisation, the adjudicator determines school organisation plans and proposals where there is no unanimity on the school organisation committee.
Of course, these issues were all debated in the School Standards and Framework Act before I had the pleasure of being part of your Lordships' House. It is my view that the adjudicator process is working in practice. Fundamentally, it is the appeal process.
I believe that the Government are in a type of "cannot win" situation. If we said to the noble Baroness that we would take the view that the adjudicator role was not working and that we would return to the previous position, that would be a centralisation process. It would place decisions firmly back in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is not what we wish to do. We believe that such decisions are best left to an independent adjudicator. He is appointed by the Secretary of State but on the basis of his educational expertise. Members of the Committee will be able to see that process in terms of the people who have been appointed and who, rightly, we are proud to have in that role.
Therefore, we believe that adjudicators are independent. We believe that they should, and can be, challenged through judicial review. That process is open to those who wish to follow it. That would affect not only the cases about which Members of the Committee may be concerned; it would also affect adjudicator decisions allowing mid-year variations to admission arrangements and school organisation decisions.
We believe that adjudicators provide an independent mechanism. They work on a good timescale. Our objective is that decisions should be reached within six weeks. The process takes longer when objections are put forward, in particular, during the school summer holiday period. However, even in
those cases, on average decisions have been reached in fewer than 10 weeks. We believe that the adjudicator performs the role of the appeals process and that, therefore, the provision should stand. We hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that this does not bode badly for the rest of the day. That was the most disappointing answer that I have had. The noble Baroness said that there is no question that LEAs are threatened, but I need some convincing of that. We have learning and skills councils, national learning and skills councils, organisation committees and adjudicators. Sixth-form funding is about to be removed from local authorities. We also have sector skills councils and national sector skills councils, most of which are now regionally based.
The subject of county councils was brought up in a Statement the other day. There is no question that county councils—predominantly those who are responsible for the decisions that we are discussing today—look very vulnerable. That certainly came out in the debate. The Minister who replied to the Statement gave no comfort whatever to this House that county councils would be safe in the future. If one removes local education authorities from county councils, there will be almost nothing left. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness that her answer on that point was less than convincing. Certainly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made is well taken in that respect.
The noble Baroness also went on to say that fundamentally we have an appeals process. The point that I made was not picked up by the noble Baroness. Once the organisation committee has considered the proposition but one vote on that committee has disagreed with it, the adjudicator can uphold the majority decision that has been considered; or he or she can uphold the minority decision that has been considered; or he or she can modify and alter the proposition; but under the law he or she is free to substitute a decision that has not been considered. How can such a situation be democratic? If one person can take a decision, which has not had full consideration by such bodies as the local authority upwards, how can that be democratic?
The noble Baroness considered that it was something of a virtue that such decisions can be made in six weeks. I have been involved in making recommendations to Secretaries of State in relation to decisions on possible school closures, and those who experience the pain of such decisions would like to believe that it would take more than six weeks to consider all the representations and all the aspects of a decision. To boast that all that can take place in six weeks is no answer. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 93.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Biffen, L.
Blatch, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Burnham, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cuckney, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Freeman, L.
Glentoran, L.
Higgins, L.
Holderness, L.
Hooper, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howe, E.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Liverpool, E.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Marlesford, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Moynihan, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbourne, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Quirk, L.
Rawlings, B.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Rotherwick, L. [Teller]
Saatchi, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selsdon, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Vivian, L.
Waddington, L.
Weatherill, L.
Wilcox, B.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Chan, L.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dearing, L.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hattersley, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mishcon, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Nicol, B.
Ouseley, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Puttnam, L.
Radice, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rix, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Roll of Ipsden, L.
Simon, V.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tenby, V.
Thornton, B.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 202A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 4 [Admission arrangements]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page