| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The recommendation from the Procedure Committee was generally approved in the consultation and the responses to the questionnaire. Ten o'clock is late enough to be doing very important work. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, about the importance of the work. Important work of scrutiny and revision is not best done by people who are exhausted.
Lord Lucas: In that case, I find the noble and learned Lord's rejection of my Motion earlier today puzzling. He said that the idea that this House should close its consideration of this business at 11 o'clock was to invite the whole notion of the guillotine into this House. Yet now the noble and learned Lord is saying that it is impossible to move beyond 10 o'clock in the ordinary way.
It is clear that if we end our sittings at 10 as a matter of general course, we shall have to sit many more days. That may suit some people or it may not. It does not suit me and it seems a matter for your Lordships to decide which they prefer. Are we a House who would rather sit until 11 and have fewer days or would we rather sit until 10 and have more days?
One of the difficulties of generally sitting until 10 p.m. is that the supper break comes between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. Everyone returns rejuvenated and spends the next hour and a half making long speeches. It is only after 10 p.m. that one again gets down to the ordinary pace of business of the House. Therefore, in a way, that is a very inefficient cut-off time.
A Noble Lord: Speak for yourself!
Lord Lucas: I am speaking for myself. If we were to agree to a cut-off time of 10 p.m., then perhaps we should consider other changes, such as moving the dinner hour business to the last hour of the day's
business. The few who wanted to stay late for a particular debate could be there from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. The business attended by people who were hungry for supper would be dealt with rather faster and more efficiently than it would by those who had just been fed.I have received much support on this matter but am anxious not to waste the time of the Committee. I should very much like to listen to the voices by hearing the Deputy Chairman call for a response. If there is much support for my amendment, I shall press it to a Division. If there is not, I hope we shall remain silent and the Deputy Chairman will declare otherwise.
8.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 132.
Astor, V.
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chadlington, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Colwyn, L.
Crathorne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Gilbert, L.
Glentoran, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
James of Holland Park, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Liverpool, E.
Lucas, L. [Teller]
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mancroft, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Monson, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Pym, L.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strange, B.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Vivian, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Borrie, L.
Brett, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Erroll, E.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grabiner, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jeger, B.
Jones, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lipsey, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Nicol, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Orme, L.
Pendry, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L. [Teller]
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Renwick of Clifton, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Serota, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that further consideration of the Procedure Committee report be now adjourned and that the House be resumed so that we can consider further the Education Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
8.31 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 Commons amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland,)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12Leave out Clause 10.
The Commons insisted on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 12 but proposed the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement—
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 13F to 13M.
With the leave of the House, I begin by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, an extremely happy birthday today. Were we doing something different, it would have been my great pleasure to invite her for a glass of champagne. The night is young and, who knows, we may yet have that opportunity. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my heartfelt good wishes and those of the many who over the years have had the privilege of working with her in education.
I shall give a short explanation of why we have brought back this issue to your Lordships. We have reflected on the lengthy and extensive debates that your Lordships have enjoyed on this subject and we have considered thoroughly the many points put forward. I can fairly say that we have addressed all the questions directed to us. Apart from the answers that my noble friend Lord McIntosh and I have given in debate, we have issued policy statements and corresponded with noble Lords on the issue.
I believe that we are not talking about points of principle here. We all want our schools to be able to innovate, to work in new ways and to engage in partnerships. We believe that this proposal is
The object of groups of schools forming companies is to provide opportunities for schools. We want to prepare our schools for the challenges and opportunities that they face. Allowing them to choose this option will provide exactly that—a simple opportunity that they may elect to take to help them as they face the challenge of raising standards even higher throughout our system.
We have encountered some puzzlement as to why we should allow schools that power. I do not believe that any noble Lords need be puzzled about this proposal. There is no puzzle or mystery about company status. The formation of a company is simply a means of enabling schools to carry out activities by establishing a single legal identity. It is not an end in itself. It is a convenient way of carrying out activities. If schools want to exercise a more convenient way of carrying out activities, we should not stand in their way.
I do not propose to repeat in detail the further advantages that company status brings. I spoke yesterday in your Lordships' House of the way in which it allows liability to be limited. I also explained that the company is a very well understood and trusted model. I reiterate the point that we are not debating an issue that would somehow allow schools to lose track of their main objectives—a point about which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is concerned. We are debating a proposal that will allow schools to exploit a simple, convenient vehicle to provide services or purchase goods, where they see fit.
In a nutshell, the proposal would allow groups of schools to form companies to purchase services or facilities for their members or to provide services or facilities to other schools. It is about schools being allowed to flourish, not about restricting opportunity. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested yesterday, about handing over the duties and responsibilities of school governors to school companies. Nothing in these clauses affects the duties and responsibilities of a school governing body, set out in Clause 20, to conduct a maintained school. Nor does anything in these clauses subvert the duty of a governing body to conduct a maintained school with a view to promoting high standards of achievement at the school.
I hope noble Lords will appreciate that throughout the Bill we are concerned with high standards of achievement. It may be that initially only a very few schools will take advantage of the power for groups of schools to form a company. I hope that they may lead the way for others, but at first we may see only a few schools trying it out. But it surely must be the Government's responsibility to look ahead and consider what in the future may be helpful to schools in their goals of reaching and maintaining high standards. That is what these powers propose.
Yesterday, I gave an example of schools forming a company to provide language services. Let me give another example today of what a service delivery
We want schools to work together. We except company activity to be led by educational institutions. In the context of the built-in safeguards that we have, we want to trust schools to make rational decisions that will benefit them and their fellow schools. I do not believe that participation in school companies would create a distraction from the core goal of educating children and helping all children to achieve the best they can. We believe that this proposal would help individual schools and by allowing schools to group together, freeing up resources and sharing purchasing as they do so give other schools the benefit of their expertise.
I turn briefly to the amendments proposed today. It has become clear that there is some concern that schools could somehow get involved in setting up companies without knowing the precise details of the operations in which they would be involved. We therefore believe that it would assist schools to provide guidance on certain aspects of running school companies. The employment and involvement of teachers in school companies is a subject that has been raised many times in your Lordships' House. That is why I am introducing this amendment, which would enable the Secretary of State to support schools in that area.
We realise that many schools that form companies will examine the same issues over teacher involvement, such as the balance between working for the school, the top priority, and perhaps working, if appropriate, for the company. The guidance will also give schools a greater understanding of the use of short-term secondments to the company. I am aware that noble Lords may be concerned about whether such guidance is necessary. But I am sure that noble Lords would not want to put schools in the position of being unclear on any aspect of staffing, and we have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said in that respect. If schools do not want to set up companies, this guidance would not trouble them.
We bring back today amendments that place on the face of the Bill provisions for companies to be limited by shares or guarantee under the Companies Act 1985. Currently, the Bill states that regulations may provide for school companies to be limited by guarantee. When we decided to offer choice as to the type of limited company, we thought to deal with that in regulations. Following debate, much of it in your Lordships' House, we agreed to make matters clearer in primary legislation that schools will have the choice.
Our amendments also place on the face of the Bill the requirement that only those specified in regulations may join companies. I explained to your Lordships' House yesterday that we wanted to ensure that we put in greater protection. We intend to state in regulations that people joining school companies may include governing bodies, local authorities, independent schools, private companies, further and higher education institutions and individuals not excluded by the regulations. We will not allow to join companies those who currently are not permitted to be school governors or to be teachers.
One of the concerns I have heard expressed in debate is that we are in danger of letting schools get into trouble in setting up such activities. Through these amendments I want to go a step further to ensure that we are all absolutely clear that the supervising authority has a crucial role in the operation of these companies. These amendments will make it mandatory for the Government to regulate certain matters concerning the supervising authority; that is, that it must ensure three things: first, that regulations provide for a local education authority to be designated as a supervising authority; secondly, that they will specify who the supervising authority is; and thirdly, that they will spell out its duties. It will provide extra reassurance for these regulation-making provisions to be mandatory. We have made this change to meet the concern expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place that companies need a secure framework in which to operate.
The other provisions of Clause 11(5) for companies to provide information about their financial affairs to the supervising authority, for the supervising authority to give directions to a governing body and concerning the procedures for such a direction, remain, as they were, discretionary, although I can say that we would intend to make regulations on those matters.
In making these amendments, we are providing further safeguards for those involved in companies. I believe that they clarify the position your Lordships have sought for those wishing to get involved in using this power while still ensuring that we are able to empower schools to explore new ways of working and assist in creating further forms of collaboration within the education system. This proposal, as I have said in your Lordships' House many times, is about leading change and exploiting new opportunities where schools see fit. I commend the amendments to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Baroness Blatch moved, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E, Amendment No. 12F:
12DPage 7, line 12, at end insert—
"(6A) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) the governing body of a maintained school shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales.".
12EPage 7, line 16, leave out from second "company" to end of line 17 and insert "registered under the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) as a company limited by shares or a company limited by guarantee".
8.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page