| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true to say that head teachers and governors up and down the country will not forgive us in this House for failing to support their heartfelt cry to ask the Secretary of State to accept a duty to reduce bureaucratic burdens on schools. Nevertheless, something on the face of the Bill is better than nothing at all. Therefore, we will not oppose these amendments, nor will we oppose the substantive amendments. However, as the noble Baroness has predicted, we shall be watching and waiting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
14BFLeave out subsection (7)
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14BF, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B.
Moved, That Amendment No. 14BF, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B, be agreed to.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 14B, as amended, agreed to.
23Clause 32, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2)
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
We have reflected carefully on the points made at Committee stage about annual parents' meetings. This government amendment ensures that parents will retain the opportunity to hold the governing body to account, but it enables us to relieve schools of this duty where this would genuinely be burdensome and
It is important for parents to have the opportunity to discuss school issues with the governing body, and we are safeguarding that right. But, for certain schools, holding an annual parents' meeting presents particular practical difficulties. For example, at present special schools established in hospitals, or maintained schools where at least 50 per cent of the pupils are boarders, do not have to hold annual parents' meetings if the governing body of the school concerned does not believe that it would be practicable to do so.
The amendment provides schools with necessary flexibility because, for understandable reasons, many such schools would find it extremely difficult to make appropriate arrangements for annual parents' meetings. We do not believe that they should be required to do so in future because they are not required to do so at present. Noble Lords always take a particular interest in special educational needs, and I am sure that the House will want to maintain the current flexibilities available to special schools in hospitals.
The amendment defines the broad purpose of the annual parents' meeting on the face of the Bill to ensure that parents can raise issues in relation to the school at the meeting. We have listened carefully to the case put by noble Lords for deregulating the process of the annual meetings and we agree with the thrust of the argument put forward most forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We agree that governing bodies are perfectly capable of deciding how best to run such meetings. Therefore, we have limited the regulation-making power to exemptions from the requirement to hold an annual meeting, leaving, as was sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the detailed arrangements and process to governing bodies.
The power to make regulations to exempt schools from holding annual parents' meetings in prescribed circumstances enables us to keep this matter under review and to add exemptions if appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on schools and governing bodies. I hope that your Lordship's House will agree that the amendment strikes the right balance between securing accountability, reducing burdens and removing detailed prescription. I hope that the House will accept the amendment passed in the other place in lieu of that passed in Committee.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. However, it proves my earlier point that, despite the fact that the noble Baroness has received parliamentary counsel, it is possible to reduce regulation. I did so through my amendment. The Government did not have to pass this regulation and
I have one question for the noble Baroness. Can I have an absolute assurance, under Pepper v. Hart conditions, that on the face of the Bill the regulations will be absolutely exclusive to one issue only—that is, the exemption from the obligation imposed by subsection (1) to hold an annual meeting of the school?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the amendment. I believe that it provides a very sensible solution. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and commend her resolute action in saying that the regulations are totally unnecessary. Head teachers, parents and governors know perfectly well how to hold meetings; they do not have to be told how to do so. These are an excellent example of the type of regulations that can be disposed of.
I believe that it is useful to set out the purpose of the meeting on the face of the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, there may be occasions when schools wish to claim exemption from holding a meeting. But, on the whole, the fact that an annual meeting should be held by school governors is a good form of public accountability. Therefore, from these Benches we shall support the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the assurance that she requires that the regulations will concern exemptions. Another example that I gave to your Lordships concerned schools which had recently undergone an Ofsted inspection and had held a meeting of all the parents to discuss that. Such a school may, indeed, wish to be exempted and that is another good example. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we have responded well to the concerns raised and that the House will now agree that we have achieved a workable solution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
23APage 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2)The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for discussion of the manner in which the school has been, and is to be, conducted, and of any other matters relating to the school raised by parents of registered pupils.
(3) Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which a governing body are to be exempt from the obligation imposed by subsection (1)."
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof.
27Leave out Clause 41.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27B and 27C to the words so restored to the Bill and to consequential Amendment No. 27A.
As I have made clear in your Lordships' House in the course of our deliberations, we believe that collaboration between schools and education authorities is an integral part of the new funding system. We want that partnership to be as effective as possible across the country.
The debates that we have had during the Bill's passage through both Houses have not changed the Government's view that forums have an important role to play under the new regime. We have always said that we know that effective consultation arrangements are in place on funding matters in some local education authorities. But that is by no means the case in every authority. It is only right that schools have the opportunity to articulate views on financial matters that affect them in partnership with their local education authority.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the context for the introduction of schools forums. In the previous two clauses of the Bill, we make arrangements for a new system in which there is a separate schools budget. That, in turn, is subject to the Secretary of State's reserved power. In that context, we want schools collectively to have a stronger voice on how the schools budget is constructed and allocated. Instead of national controls on delegation, we want schools to give a view on, for example, the correct balance between central spend on special needs and delegation to schools. This is a way ahead which promotes local responses to local circumstances. I hope that all parts of the House would welcome that.
As I have previously stated in your Lordships' House, we have had strong backing for the creation of forums from bodies such as the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Governors Council and other schools organisations. A letter we received from the Secondary Heads Association states that,
Debates on schools forums, both in this House and in another place, have been about two main issues: the way forums are to be constituted; and their functions. As a result of this and the consultation exercise, we have decided to make changes to our thinking about secondary legislation. Our aim is to ensure that
When we considered the Bill at Third Reading, I outlined the much greater flexibility we propose as to the way in which forums may be established and run. It may be useful to remind the House of those because they give much greater discretion to authorities. Forums would have to include both head teachers and governors but the balance would be at the education authority's discretion and the election method determined locally. We would raise the minimum size to 15 members but there would be no maximum. There would have to be regard to proportionality between primary and secondary phases but no elaborate formula imposed nationally. We would reduce the maximum percentage of non-schools members to 20 per cent and these could now include, if desired, elected members of the LEA. The LSC would have only observer status and the forum requirement would be relaxed a little. Most provisions relating to costs would be settled locally. These are significant changes which introduce much greater flexibility and will enable many local education authorities to turn existing local groups into statutory forums.
We have also listened to what has been said about functions of the schools forums. As I said at Third Reading, there was a substantial measure of agreement in the consultation responses that the advisory functions we had in mind for the forum are on the right lines. This confirmed our belief that the forums will become a valuable resource for education authorities. The consultation exercise also showed considerable support for a limited decision-taking function. But we recognise that many have expressed a fear, not least those from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that that function would be expanded over time. That was never our intention. But nor was the decision-making function ever the main point of school forums which are intended primarily to strengthen local partnerships. So we have considered this matter further and in consequence have brought forward the set of amendments approved in another place which are now before the House.
Those amendments restrict the role of the forums so that advice and consultation will be the limit of their function. The forum's advisory role is planned to be much the same as before: the funding formula for schools, service contracts, specific issues such as the balance of special educational needs spending, and arrangements for education otherwise. But there will be no power to take financial decisions. It never was our intention that the forum tells the local education authority how much to spend on schools or even on each expenditure item. But these amendments mean that forums will have no decision-making role. The forum will be a body for partnership and a resource for forward-looking education authorities. It is also a mechanism which will help schools to take a collegiate view of priorities and see each other and the local education authority as parts of a greater whole.
In our recent document, Investment for Reform, we emphasise the need for schools to learn from each other and not try to work in isolation. We believe that school forums will help to make that a reality. They are to be welcomed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27B and 27C to the words so restored to the Bill and to consequential Amendment No. 27A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
27BClause 41, page 27, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
"(3) The purpose of a schools forum is to advise the relevant authority on such matters relating to the authority's schools budget as may be prescribed by regulations under section 45A(3) or by regulations under this subsection.
(3A) Regulations under section 45A(3) or under subsection (3) may include provision requiring a relevant authority to have regard to advice given by their schools forum, or requiring a relevant authority to consult their schools forum in relation to prescribed matters or before taking prescribed decisions.".
27CPage 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 28.
The Commons have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
27APage 25, line 29, leave out from "determined" to end of line 31.
"the overwhelming majority of our Council believes that the Schools Forum proposal should go ahead and we very much hope it does not get lost in the parliamentary process".
The Foundation and Aided Schools National Association has written in the following terms:
"We do see these as a very significant step towards bringing informed professional judgments to bear on local LEA funding ... we have tried to get across . . . how strongly we feel on this".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page