| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 48 to 51, 31, 65 and 70 to 75.
Mr. Byers: These are all technical amendments affecting voluntary schools. The vast majority of voluntary schools have foundations, but a small number do not. As the Bill is worded, a school would need to have a foundation to join the voluntary category. The amendments ensure that, if a voluntary school or a former grant-maintained school wishes to become a new voluntary aided school, it can do so without the procedural necessity of creating a foundation. The amendments do not more than that, and I hope that they will be agreeable to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 48, in page 19, line 13, leave out 'and'.
No. 49, in page 19, line 15, at end insert
No. 50, in page 19, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert--
No. 51, in page 19, line 20, leave out from 'if' to end of line 22 and insert--
No. 31, in page 19, line 37, leave out
and insert
No. 65, in page 20, line 13, at end insert--
No. 70, in page 20, line 18, at end insert 'and'.
No. 71, in page 20, line 19, leave out from 'section;' to end of line 22.
No. 72, in page 20, leave out line 24.
No. 73, in page 20, line 30, at end insert--
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 22, line 9, at end insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in clause 25, page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 23.
No. 162, in page 23, line 9, at end insert--
No. 163, in page 23, line 30, at end insert--
No. 142, in page 23, line 31, leave out 'in Wales'.
No. 143, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'in Wales'.
Mr. Dafis:
The amendments that I have tabled in this group--Nos. 161 and 163--should be considered with amendment No. 164 and that group of amendments. I shall therefore deal only briefly with my two amendments--as an introduction to the main theme, to which I shall return in our debate on that later group of amendments.
I have tabled my amendments at the request of an organisation called the Third Sector Schools Alliance. I have absolutely no constituency interest in the issue, as I have no schools in my own constituency of the type dealt with in the amendments.
I was approached about the matter specifically because I tabled an amendment in Committee on the Education Bill in 1993, which would have enabled schools with alternative curriculums--such as Steiner and Montessori schools--to enter the state sector. In Committee, the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.
Murphy)--now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office--said that Labour, if elected to government, would support the principle of state funding for that type of school. I hope that Labour in power will maintain that position. A strong case can be made for providing those schools with state funding.
Amendment No. 161 would amend clause 23 by adding to the list of categories from which the regulations require that people are appointed to school organisation committees. The amendment would therefore add
Amendment No. 163 would amend clause 25--which deals with school organisation plans--and require consultation
I shall leave my comments on the matter there for now.
Miss Widdecombe:
I shall address all my remarks to amendment No. 162, which I tabled, and which I shall, at the appropriate place--with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker--seek to press to a Division.
The basis of the amendment is the underlying presumption that, unless something is written in the Bill, it carries virtually no meaningful weight. Undertakings may be given behind the scenes; Churches may be reassured; bland words may be exchanged; very earnest sentiments may be uttered; and intentions may even be perfectly honourable--but the fact remains that, unless something is written in the Bill, nothing whatever will give it binding force. Circumstances change; financial and other constraints appear; Ministers come and go; and, occasionally, even Governments come and go.
There can be no reliance whatever on undertakings given in private, or even on notes in Committee, which do not carry statutory force. They can convey nothing other than a Minister's immediate intention in immediate circumstances.
I have already expressed the Church's broad position. I have had consultations at the highest level--perhaps not the highest level, because I have not been to Rome about
it, but the highest level in this country. From those consultations, I understand that the Church's position is that it supports lowering class sizes, if that is possible. It certainly supports the principle that class sizes should be limited if possible. However, that should not happen at the expense of denying a child--I speak specifically to the Roman Catholic issue--a Roman Catholic education. I am sure that the Church of England would also say that, although it might want to limit class sizes, if parents want their children to have a Church of England education, the 31st child should not find himself or herself denied that opportunity and forced instead to take a secular education.
When I explained the position to Church representatives, first they said, "The Government have promised us that we shall have more denominational places." I have not heard that promise reiterated, but I should be quite interested to hear whether Ministers have made such a promise, or whether perhaps there was a misinterpretation. If Ministers have made such a promise, how will they honour it, and in what circumstances?
If, for example, children are denied admission to the nearest Roman Catholic or Church of England school because class sizes are too big, will other denominational places immediately be created--which would require considerable Government investment? Or will secular schools first have to be filled with surplus students, who will thereby be denied denominational education? Perhaps only after that has been achieved and there are no surplus secular places, a few more denominational places will be included in the creation of more places. Which of those two routes will Ministers go down, to honour what Churches think is a commitment to provide more denominational places?
Church representatives also said to me, "It is all right, because even if all that starts to go wrong and we do not get the new denominational places, Churches have a veto." My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Minister, "What is that veto?" He had never heard of it; there was no veto.
I did a bit of exploration to discover how that misunderstanding could have arisen. It seems to have arisen because there will be representatives of Churches on school organisation committees. In Committee, it was said that there would be a drive for unanimity, and that, if there was not unanimity, the plan would have to go to the adjudicator. From that, Churches deduced that they effectively had a veto. They could always prevent unanimity on a plan that they did not like, and the matter would end up with the adjudicator.
Anyone can see that there is no provision for a veto in the Bill. The drive for unanimity depends only on a note in Committee and has absolutely no statutory force. Therefore, if a committee were not unanimous but had a clear majority, nothing in law or in statute would stop the committee enforcing its view over, above and contrary to the wishes of its denominational representatives.
I am seeking to give statutory force to the undertaking that was apparently given in Committee, but to limit it to denominational schools, because I am very exercised by the consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) raised in Committee. He said that, if one always insisted on unanimity throughout the system, every case would end up before the adjudicator. Therefore, I have sought to limit to
denominational schools the undertaking that the Churches believe that they have been given--I believe that they are mistaken, but I hope that it was not done deliberately--that they will be able to exercise some sort of veto.
'; and
(c) those not falling within either of paragraphs (a) and (b) but having been either of the following immediately before the appointed day, namely--
(i) a voluntary school, or
(ii) a grant-maintained school that was a voluntary school immediately before becoming grant-maintained,
within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
'(i) any body of persons (whether incorporated or not but excluding the governing body) which holds land on trust for the purposes of the school, or
(ii) a foundation body;'.
'(i) such a body of persons exists for holding land on trust for the purposes of the school, or
(ii) the school belongs to a group of schools for which a foundation body acts under this section;'.
'by schools in connection with'
'in connection with schools'.
'(6A) Regulations under subsection (5) may, in connection with any matters falling within that subsection--
(a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;
(b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;
(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.'.
'(9A) Any foundation established otherwise than under this Act which has no property other than the premises of any school or schools falling within subsection (8)(a) shall be a charity which (subject to section 3(5A) of the Charities Act 1993) is not required to be registered for the purposes of that Act (but is not an exempt charity for the purposes of that Act).
For this purpose "premises" includes a teacher's dwelling-house.'.--[Mr. Byers.]
'(d) a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups.'.
'(bb) requiring that agreement of the draft plan by the school organisation committee in respect of denominational school provision shall be by unanimity.'.
'(h) requiring the school organisation committee to consult with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan.'.
"a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups"
to the categories of local education authority members and representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Who in a pluralist society could quarrel with the principle of including persons from other religions and groups in school organisation committees? It is perfectly appropriate, and is at the heart of the amendment.
"with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan."
The amendment would amount to extending the consultation process, to enable people with proposals for new schools to be consulted in the formulation of a draft plan.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |