Educational Governing Bodies

HL Deb 25 April 1990 vol 518 cc580-606

2.59 p.m.

Baroness David rose to call attention to the case for balance on the governing bodies of places of education; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing the debate on governing bodies I should like to look back in history to the 1944 Act so that we can appreciate the enormous changes that have taken place in the composition of those bodies and their vastly increased importance and responsibilities.

The 1944 Act was not prescriptive. LEAs could do pretty well as they chose provided that they allowed minor authority representation. A research study in the 1960s showed that only about one-third of schools had their own governing bodies. In 20 cases the borough councils simply nominated a single governing body to act for all their schools. In one borough there was a single body of managers for all primary schools and a single body of governors for all secondary schools.

The need for change and balance was forcefully made in the 1977 report, A New Partnership for our Schools, chaired by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. I am glad that he will be speaking today. Paragraph 4.6 of the report states: the means by which governing bodies could be made more representative should be based on the recognition first and foremost that each of the four main interest groups

that is LEAs, staff, parents and local community, can contribute towards the establishment of a partnership based on their common interest in the welfare of the school; second, that no one interest group should play a dominant role; and, third, that between them, members of the body should be able to speak with knowledge and experience over the whole range of matters which are likely to come up for discussion".

The Government made two attempts to write the partnership principle into law. As regards schools, the principle was included in the Education (No. 2) Acts 1980 and 1986 but they ignored it in regards to the governing bodies of further and higher education colleges and polytechnics where business interests predominate and the principle of balance has been lost. The Education Act 1988 set up their governing bodies.

The 1980 Act ensured that each school had its own governing body and that there should be minority authority representation. Voluntary aided and controlled schools had their foundation governors. The 1986 Act made more changes which are in force today. It does not provide for the full and equal partnership proposed by the Taylor Report. The size of the governing body is determined by the size of the school and it varies from nine to 19 members. There is an equal number of parent and LEA governors (between three and five); one to two teacher governors and the head if he or she so chooses; and three to six co-opted governors. The scope for co-option in voluntary controlled schools is reduced to one with the balance of places going to foundation governors. The rules for voluntary aided schools are less precise. There should be governors from the various categories but there needs to be a majority of foundation governors.

Clearly, the representation of foundation governors in voluntary controlled schools introduces a complicating factor in terms of achieving balance. The need to recognise the interests of the foundation is understood but it produces a contradiction in the approach. In the case of a voluntary aided school proprietors are given a legal majority over the governors. A school in which the LEA is in effect the proprietor has minority representation balancing that from the parents. It is an illustration of the complications and untidiness that inevitably exist in a mixed system. Indeed, it is indicative of the diminishing role of the LEA.

As regards LEA schools, one can make some criticism of the current prescription through legislation. One accepts the balance between parents and the LEA but prescribing the actual size of the governing bodies gives rise to some oddities. In the smallest school the governing body will outnumber the staff. In the largest school there may well be a case for increasing the teacher representation or introducing representation from other categories of staff. Where a school has been designated a community school surely there is a case for direct representation from the wider community which uses the facilities controlled by the governor. Under present legislation one can look only to governors to recognise that through co-option. We would argue for more flexibility.

Another problem, particularly for county councils, is the cycle for the appointment of governors as determined by the 1986 Act. The governors are appointed for a four-year term in the year immediately preceding county council elections. Within a year those appointed may cease to be properly representative if the electors change the composition of the council. Councils can remove their representatives and appoint new ones but that is not the happiest way of proceeding. Continuity is important.

It would be much better if there was provision that allowed councils to match the cycle for governing bodies with that of the council. That is not an argument for securing representation from a particular political party. I emphasise the fact that we do not support LEA governors being appointed to secure representation only for the majority party. I shall return to that issue. Nor is it an argument about representing the LEA at governors' meetings. Governors will want their LEA representatives to be able to take back their concerns to the authority. I consider that to be one of the most important aspects of LEA representation. Even though not all the LEA appointed governors will be councillors I believe that, for the reason of reporting to and from the education committee, it is important that a majority should be.

I return to political balance. The Government's attempts to achieve balance in the composition of governing bodies through legislation sits oddly with their opposition to using legislation in order to achieve a political balance in the representation of the LEA. A number of LEAs have appointed only members of the majority party and every political party has been guilty of that; for example, Barnet, Wandsworth and Kent for the Tories, the Isle of Wight for the SLD and Manchester for Labour. I believe that some pressure has been brought to bear, and in his reply the Minister will perhaps enlighten us about the latest position.

In an oral Question tabled on 17th January this year my noble friend Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would amend the Education Reform Act in order to ensure fair representation of local opinion on governing bodies. The answer was no. I was sorry about that because I believed that it would be at least appropriate for guidelines to be issued. I wonder whether in his reply the Minister will tell us of the most recent government thinking about that.

On 7th February this year my honourable friend Mr. Jack Straw introduced a Bill to ensure fair shares between the political parties in the LEA appointments. It will place a duty on each appointing LEA to ensure that the political balance of governing body appointments proportionately reflects the party balance on the appointing body. It is the first occasion in recent memory on which the Official Opposition has introduced a Bill.

Of course a balanced school governing body cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Questions must be asked about the ratio of men to women. Is the ethnic composition of the community which the school serves reflected? Are governing bodies dominated by education or by other professionals and businessmen? Questions have been asked about the appropriateness of teachers being appointed as parent governors.

There is also the question of students. During the passage of the Act we tried hard to secure student representations but we failed. I still believe that that is very misguided, particularly in schools where there are sixth forms, in sixth-form colleges and tertiary colleges where students may well be old enough to vote in local and national elections. After all, they are the consumers. My experience as a governor—that was before the implementation of the Act when we had student governors—was that they made useful, enlightening and refreshing contributions. Now we must make do with having them as observers.

The National Foundation for Education Research carried out a survey for the DES on membership. The report, entitled Reconstitution of Governing Bodies, was published last August and revealed serious under-representation of manual workers, ethnic minorities and women. Of all the co-opted governors there are 1,037 men to 489 women, only 55 places for manual workers, and almost three times as many for retired people. Maybe that reflects the increasing workload. The predominant group totalling 754 is from industry, business, the professions and education. I do not call that exactly balanced.

I now turn to further and higher education. In the PCFC sector of the independent nominees appointed by the Secretary of State—that is 50 per cent. of the body —more than two-thirds are company directors, managers, or from the professions. Of the 12.5 per cent. from the public sector, which would include educational interests, only 13 of the 72 have any direct contact with education. Of the rest, the LEA is entitled to between one and three places. I understand that in fact it is usually only one. Students are allowed one place, teachers one, general staff one, and up to two academic nominations from the academic board may be made. I think that that is shocking. Their input is of vital importance. As yet, there is little feedback about how the balance of representation is viewed by those directly involved with the colleges but the lack of educational input seems unfortunate to say the least.

As regards the FE colleges maintained by the LEAs, the ERA required the establishment of new governing bodies—the maximum size to be 25. In practice, in approving the instrument of government, the Secretary of State has mostly insisted on a maximum of 20 with just enough exceptions to be able to demonstrate that he is not automatically substituting that judgment for the provision made in the Act.

Apart from that, the basic legal limitations are that at least half of the governors should be representative of the world of employment or co-opted governors largely from the same sphere. LEA representation should not exceed 20 per cent. The effect of those factors has been to limit the scope for any very strong representation of other interests. It will be common for there to be only one trade union representative, staff representation will be limited and there are problems finding places for all the varying interests which may exist depending upon the particular role of the college.

The thinking behind the legislation has not been to achieve balance but to create employer-led governing bodies with the minimum necessary representation from other key interests. Surely greater flexibility is needed to reflect the particular role and nature of individual colleges—and they vary considerably —particularly now that the employer-led training and enterprise councils have been set up. It seems to me that there may be some duplication.

I have dealt with the composition of governing bodies and I now turn to their responsibilities particularly as regards the local management of schools and colleges. They now have much greater powers and burdens and of a different sort from before. With reference to the National Association of Governors and Managers, I agree that it is a mistake for governors to assume executive responsibility. They should be the channel through which the institution is accountable to the community it serves. Management must be undertaken by the head and senior staff. The governors set the rules and principles within which that management is conducted.

The direct executive role should come into play only when there is a need to intervene. If governors were to be regarded as the executive, that would place excessive demands on the time of lay people performing a voluntary task. There is considerable anxiety that governors are being overloaded. Meetings are longer, often going on for three hours. More sub-committees are being set up —for example, finance and appointments. Governors have to supervise the budget, appoint and dismiss staff and have responsibility for the maintenance and repair of buildings. They have to absorb an enormous amount of material. There have been more than 20 circulars in the past 12 months. Governors also have responsibility for creating a school's policy on sex and religious education and have to attend annual meetings of parents.

That service is voluntary. Many governors are finding that the out-of-pocket expenses are making it almost impossible for them to continue. The question of payment for loss of earnings or travel is left to individual local authorities and many do not pay. Therefore, bus fares, baby sitting fees and other costs can prove too expensive. There have been rumours of a large number of resignations from governing bodies because they find the job too much, because it is too expensive or they are dissatisfied with the budgets allotted to their schools. I have not found any solid evidence of that and there are conflicting accounts. However, perhaps the Minister has some figures on that.

To sum up, there have been efforts to achieve a balance on school governing bodies although women and ethnic minorities are seriously under-represented and the numbers allowed may restrict some representation particularly of the local community. The smaller body may give rise to some difficulty with the larger task which governing bodies have under LMS. In the further and higher education sector, I consider that the industry business employer interest has been carried too far, important though it is, and, that the educational contribution is not adequate. After all, primarily those are educational establishments.

When she replies I hope that the Minster can tell us that the work of these bodies will be monitored and that we shall have a report on them in the future. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.15 p.m.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady David, for introducing this debate. It is rather like old times for me. We have had many long and happy arguments across the Chamber on this subject. Whatever we have said to each other during the debates, we have always ended up as personal friends. There cannot be anything very bad about a person who spends a lot of her time in the Yorkshire Dales. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, also knows much about this subject. I have always forgiven him for the fact that he comes from Lancashire. Nobody can be perfect in this life.

There was a time shortly after local government reorganisation when I could probably have gone into the Guinness Book of Records as sitting on more governing bodies than anybody else in the country. I was chairman of the then schools sub-committee of the North Yorkshire County Council. As such, I was an ex officio member of every maintained secondary school governing body in the country. The point of that was that if a crisis arose at a school, there should be somebody in authority from county hall who could go along and try to defuse it before it got out of hand. That was quite useful and I enjoyed it. I did not know a number of the schools, although I tried to attend the meetings of as many governing bodies as possible. I seemed to be going to meetings of governing bodies morning, noon and night, day in and day out. In the course of my office I tried to attend all of them but I did not manage it.

For that very reason I was also co-opted, not by the LEA but by the governing bodies themselves, on to all the voluntarily aided and direct grant schools in North Yorkshire. I was a member of the special services sub-committee in North Yorkshire which meant that I was an ex officio governor of all special schools in the county. I was a governor of Atlantic College, that excellent and unusual establishment in South Wales, because we were one of the first authorities to send children there. For good measure, I was also a manager of the two local village primary schools, a governor of an agricultural college, an outdoor education centre, two teacher training colleges, two further education colleges and two independent schools. I do not believe I quite made the ton but I very nearly did. I am quite certain that that is now illegal under the new legislation, which is probably just as well because no one can do all that. However, I have attended a few meetings of governing bodies over the years.

I should like to say a few words about political bias on governing bodies. To a certain extent I suspect that that has always been the case. Long before the 1944 Act, when the churches ran all the schools, I can imagine that the vicar invariably would have been the chairman of the governors or managers and would have invited the squire to join him along with a few other benefactors. I suspect that at that time the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. Even in those days, most of the governors or managers would have had the same political views.

It was certainly true in the early 1960s when I was first elected to the county council that local county councils had responsibility in their area for nominating managers of the primary schools. I certainly never asked anybody or tried to find out what political party they supported. However, among friends, neighbours and acquaintances in the villages, most tended to be conservative, at least with a small "c". Things have gone downhill since then as regards political bias. I shall return to that in a few moments.

It was rather intriguing that at that time a new secondary modern school opened in the local market town. There was great excitement. I was not a governor from the day it opened but I was so appointed very shortly afterwards. That was splendid. I forget exactly how the governors were appointed but there were a certain number from county hall, a certain number from district councils and some were co-opted. The first chairman was a very formidable lady who rode regularly to hounds. That was rather splendid. There was an absolutely unwritten rule that the governing body or sub-committee should never meet on two particular days of the week because that was the day when the Bedale Hunt met.

On the question of political bias, I do not want to be too controversial but I shall be delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady David, says regarding the official policy of the Labour Party being not to insist that members of a governing body belong to one particular party.

I had a very interesting experience. The only maintained school of which I am still governor—in fact I am chairman of the governors, and am very pleased about that—is a special school. I do not like the word "special", but it is a very special school. I was involved when the school was planned and it was at the time when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, produced a report on which there was perhaps more unity than there was on one or two of her later reports. That was a report on special education.

The school in question took all the ideas from the Warnock Report and incorporated them. It is now one of the leading schools of its kind in the country. On our governing body, which was formed by appointing so many representatives from each political party, we had the most delightful Labour Party appointment. He was attached to York University, a man of very good intellect and particularly interested in the study of children with special difficulties. His contribution to the school was enormous.

Following the next round of county council elections I was horrified to see that he was no longer on the school board of governors. I wrote to him and said that I was sorry that he had felt the need to resign and could not carry on but perhaps I could persuade him to change his mind. He replied that it was nothing like that. He said that the local Labour Party was going through one of its tendencies to the extreme Left and he had been chucked off because he was not nearly Left-wing enough. He was particularly angry about it.

His successor arrived, who was obviously very good politically and very far to the Left. He appeared for one meeting. He had no interest whatever in education, especially that of disadvantaged children. He saw that that particular governing body and the school were not the seedbed for some form of revolution and never attended another meeting. We managed to co-opt the previous Labour member back on to our governing body. He has been on the board for many years; sadly, he retired earlier this year due to lack of time. I thought that that was pretty disreputable behaviour and I am delighted that the party opposite has changed its policy in that regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady David mentioned the increased duties and responsibilities assigned to governors. That is a good thing. They are governors and it is a good idea that they should govern. The Government made a good job of the various pieces of legislation that they introduced. I must admit that when it was going through I had some personal doubts as to the wisdom of the provision allowing so many parents to be on governing boards. I admit that I was bigoted. I thought that they would be interested only in their own particular child, little Johnny or Sarah, and would not have a lot to contribute to the actual overall running excellence of the school. I am delighted to say that from my experience I have been proved totally wrong. The parents appointed to the boards have been extremely sensible, extremely helpful and not just interested in their own children. They have made an enormous contribution.

One of the most important responsibilities, with all the extra duties, is to ensure that correct training is given. I hope that what I am about to say will receive some publicity, not because I am trying to boast, but because it is a very good idea. Radio York put on for the Yorkshire area a series of radio broadcasts for new and more experienced governors. I took part in the first broadcast. There was an opportunity for people to listen to the series of weekly broadcasts and they could then write in. It ended with a general phone-in and certain people answering questions. I thought that that was a very good way of training people. If that were done on a nationwide scale it could have very good results.

The governing bodies are in pretty good heart at the moment. I listened to the list of grievances given by the noble Baroness. I am sure that my noble friend, when she winds up the debate, will answer most of them. Governors are doing a very good job. I was delighted to be proved wrong in my heart of hearts regarding parents on governing boards, and I believe governing bodies have an exciting future to look forward to.

3.25 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady David this afternoon. I am also delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, taking part. It is like old times. We have been through many arguments and discussions; we can now look at the situation with different eyes and see what progress, if any, has been made.

There are one or two points I must take up with the noble Earl regarding the political position. It has been the policy of the Labour Party for many years—not just recently—to try to ensure that there is no single political party on a governing board. What happens in local parties is no concern of the national party. It is up to local individuals to decide. It is sad when there are people of high calibre leaving the boards of special schools, or any schools. We could recite cases of that kind throughout the country happening in Conservative Party areas. We do not want to enter into that debate this afternoon; we want to look at the balance within the schools.

I was asked in the early 1970s to chair this committee because of my feelings and because my views had been made known to various Secretaries of State and Ministers of Education as regards the political imbalance in various governing bodies—or rather they were called managers in those days. Like the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I was very worried because I was the chairman of a county education committee. Being chairman of that committee meant that I was also chairman of 27 school boards. It was impossible to do justice to individual schools, being chairman of so many. We had managers' and governors' meetings approximately once a quarter, if that, though we were supposed to have them once a quarter. I sat in the chair with my vice-chairman, who was a Conservative, sitting at my side. The governing body comprised one-quarter of the education committee. The head teacher would come in and present his or her report. There would perhaps be one question put forward and the next head teacher would come in from the next school. Matters continued like that. It was a real farce.

I am pleased to say that all that has now changed. My committee chose the title A New Partnership, for the report. We were trying to get out of the political rat race which many authorities found themselves in. We wanted to strike a balance and a partnerhsip within the community. Our recommendations were that one-quarter of the board should be drawn from the LEA, because we acknowledged the work and the responsibility of the LEA. We wanted one-quarter of the board to be drawn from the staff, because, again, we acknowledged and recognised the work and contribution that the staff could make. When I say "staff I am not referring to the teaching staff alone, but also to the ancillary staff within the schools. We also wanted representatives of the community to comprise one-quarter, because the community has a lot to offer.

Schools can play a vital role in the community, especially in small rural areas, where they are the centre of all the local activities. Even in urban areas the community can be involved. People from the industrial organisations, trade unionists and various other prominent individuals can contribute a great deal to schools. We also wanted to involve the parents.

In our recommendations in the report we emphasised that we did not want any one particular body to be in complete control. In producing those recommendations we felt that we had obtained the right balance to help the school. We wanted people in the school with whom we could work. We also tried to do away with the situation in which both I and the noble Earl found ourselves by stipulating that nobody should serve on more than three or four governing bodies. We felt that they should perhaps serve on the board of a primary school, a junior school and a secondary school and could go on to part of a college, a technical college, and so on. We found that to be the right sort of balance, again, that any one individual could serve within the community.

We recommended that in order to persuade people to serve on these governing bodies one must give them a reasonable job, some work to do, so that they felt than they were bringing in their expertise. One cannot expect an industrialist, a trade unionist or a parent to attend a meeting where the only subject to be dealt with is the head teacher's report and the date of the next meeting. People will not attend meetings for that alone. Therefore we recommend to the Government—I am glad the recommendation was accepted—that more authority and responsibility should be given to governors. Now we have governors with more responsibility for the finances of the schools and other matters. The committee was not unanimous about that recommendation. A minority report said that it should not be done. Nevertheless, it came to pass and fortunately the Government accepted it.

These matters are important. We find in the polytechnics that there is not the balance that we had hoped for when the legislation was going through and they were taken out of the hands of the local authorities. We find also that my recommendations were not accepted in full because in some cases too many parents were on the boards and in other cases too many politicians. Nevertheless, we must let matters lie for a while and see how they work out. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness whether she can bring us up to date on how matters are working out, because one hears all kinds of stories.

One recommendation that we made—I am glad to say that it seems to be working in some parts of the country, though not in others —was on the training of governors. Many people misjudged our wishes in regard to training. They felt that we wanted governors to go in for a bachelor of education degree, or something of that nature. That was not the idea. We wanted something simple. I give an illustration which I believe sums up the position. When I was first appointed a magistrate about 27 years ago I was invited to sit on the Bench with no training whatever. Fortunately I had a wise old chairman who said, "Just sit back and listen to what goes on. You will find that after a while you will gain some experience". Of course, that has now changed and magistrates are trained. Now we are training governors.

It is important that governors should be trained because so much legislation has been enacted over the years. They do not need to be fully aware of every little dot and comma in the legislation but they should get to know the principles of it and become aware of their duties and their role.

One aspect which frightened us in the early days was whether we could convince people that the governing bodies were not set up to teach or to interfere but to assist. We recognised the professionalism of teachers. We recognised the work they do and the contribution that they make. We also realised that many teachers need assistance. They need assistance today probably more than ever before. Some of the best teachers I ever appointed came out of the services. Those people have had some experience of life and what goes on outside the teaching profession. They knew exactly what they wanted to get over to the children in their schools.

Unfortunately—I say this with the greatest of respect—what often happens these days is that people enter the teaching profession having gone from school to college and from college to university and then into teaching. They do not know what is going on in the world outside. Therefore, I should like to see more training of teachers in the activities of commerce and industry so that they can take that knowledge back into the schools. I believe that to be important.

If that experience cannot be obtained it can be acquired by having governors within the schools. They can impart that knowledge into the schools. I am not suggesting training for jobs because I do not believe education is training for jobs, especially at the secondary level. I believe education is training for life and that training for jobs comes later. Governors with that expertise are able to assist the teachers and tell them what is going on. They are industrialists and trade unionists and people from within the community. Parents, of course, can give their point of view, which is all part of the system.

Training is extremely important and I am glad that it is being carried out. Of course, there are areas like my own in Lancashire where there is a great ethnic community. It is important that ethnic communities should play a role within schools. They can do that by having their members co-opted on to governing bodies or elected by the parents' associations.

I am pleased that schools now also report to parents on what is happening in the schools. At one time schools were a closed book. Often an autocratic head teacher would not even allow parents to go beyond the school gate. However, much of that has been wiped away and parents are encouraged to go into the schools.

On the whole, I am pleased at the way governing bodies are moving forward. I am not satisfied, but I am pleased. I shall never be satisfied as I still want more. I shall always want more and I hope that I shall get more as time goes on. However, there is an enthusiasm that I have not seen for many years in many places throughout the country. I hope that local political parties will realise that there is this enthusiasm and allow the governors to govern. I hope that the Department of Education and Science will realise—this is equally important—that there should not be too much bureaucracy from the top.

I hope there will be a period of stability because over the past decade there has been far too much legislation on education. Time should now be allowed to let the dust settle and see how matters are progressing. We should not be constantly digging up the roots to see how the plant is growing; let it go its own steady way for a while and we can then perhaps rectify the wrongs of the 1980 and 1986 education Acts.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister's reply. I am grateful to my colleague and noble friend Lady David for initiating the debate.

3.36 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lady David for introducing the debate and for the comprehensive way in which she did so. I have read the Department of Education and Science document School Governors: A New Role which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to send to me. The new responsibilities are daunting and it does not surprise me to learn that the AMA regional meetings in March found that education officers were reporting an unusually high number of resignations from governing bodies.

I cannot equal the record of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but I served on four governing bodies simultaneously. Those covered three different age groups in the state system and a grant-aided school containing many private pupils. I therefore had a wide experience, but endeavouring to do those four jobs together was difficult. If I had to do that under the new rules I am sure that I could not cope—at least, I would not be able to do justice to each school. However, it was a rewarding experience.

As my noble friend Lady David pointed out in her informative introduction, very few of us who served at that time in the 1970s would have had the time to devote to detailed administration and the fine control of finances which now seems to be required. There were many excellent governors and their contribution to the educational and community life of the schools was beyond price. I hope that under the new regime such people will still be found. I am optimistic that they will.

The new responsibilities need first-class people who are able to give sufficient time to the job and who are fully committed to the success of our schools. As my noble friend said, a school is important to the whole community. It is part of the local scene and should be supported and cared for by all the political parties, no matter which party is in power in the town hall.

Concern for education is common to us all. I go further than my noble friend Lady David. I believe that minor parties which fail to win seats but which attract support from a significant section of the population should not be kept off governing bodies. The local authority appointing governors should take that into account. I understand that that has happened in some areas and not just involving one party, which would be the one-party approach.

School governing bodies are not intended to be political battlegrounds. Elected councillors have a part to play but neither they nor their officials should expect to dominate. From my own experience, though we were political appointees in a sense we were mixed appointees. I believe that without exception we all left our politics at the door except in the sense that one joins a political party because one thinks in a certain way. That way of thinking goes through everything that one does. That element of politics is valuable. It helps to achieve that balance that we all hope will continue.

The role of the local education authority is that of a facilitator which guides and advises. Since the schools are no longer run by the LEA after the 1988 Act, councillors should be using their influence to help the schools along rather than attempting to retain their power covertly. One of the tasks of the governors is to oversee the national curriculum. There is a danger that the school may concentrate on foundation subjects to the detriment of broader matters. The performing arts, environmental concerns and an awareness of the structures and problems of the local community and of society as a whole could be neglected if the right balance on the governing body is not achieved.

A briefing note from the CBI which many noble Lords will have received seems to attach overriding importance to the inclusion of industrial and commercial governors. Financial expertise is useful. In the past, industrial governors have given excellent service to many schools, but their expertise should not be allowed to obscure the priorities of education. My noble friend said that teachers should get industrial experience. They certainly should. It has been said to me on occasion in the past by head teachers that the commercial representatives do not appear to be nearly so willing to learn what is going on in education. It should be a two-way process. When people come from the CBI or any other organisation they should be prepared to learn at least the elements of what they are supposed to be doing.

A school is there first and foremost to provide a well-rounded and balanced programme to fit all of its pupils for the whole of their lives thereafter. Job training comes later, but training for life starts at school. It cannot and must not be run as a small business with emphasis only on the financial outturn. I fear that that may happen if we are not very careful. There are other balances to be achieved. A mixture of male and female governors is obviously desirable.

My noble friend Lady David told us that that is not happening in some governing bodies and I regret that.

Though I am a great supporter of the idea of the equality of the sexes, there are differences of approach between the male and the female. Both should be represented on school governing bodies to bring their different approaches to the problems. It probably goes without saying that, so far as is reasonable, the religious and cultural backgrounds of the pupils should be reflected in the composition of the governing body. That may not be so easy to achieve but it is a matter which should be attempted especially where there is a large balance of pupils in one direction or the other. It will not be easy to find enough people of ability who can give the time for what is now an exacting task. Attempting to achieve a healthy balance of the necessary attitudes will make it even harder. The future well-being of our children is one of the most important aims of our society and we cannot afford to fail.

3.44

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I also add my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for introducing this subject which is a very important one. I came prepared with certain things to say on the subject of balance. However, the noble Baroness has said them so well that I feel my job has been done for me. Instead I wish to say a few words about governing bodies in general and in particular to relay to your Lordships two conversations which I have had during the past week with people in key positions.

The first conversation was with the officer in charge of governing bodies in East Sussex which is my home county and home area. Both he and the other person I spoke with were, to my surprise and pleasure, extremely optimistic about the way in which governing bodies were proceeding. I thought that I would help to cheer up noble Lords this fine spring afternoon by relaying these conversations.

I certainly echo what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said about the fears of some of us in the early days that parents might not make the best sort of governors; that they might be too diffident or unconcerned to come forward and offer themselves. Possibly worse, they might be too exclusively preoccupied with the interests of their own children so that they would not be sufficiently disinterested in the governorship of the school.

I am assured that neither position is the case in East Sussex. Apparently, there is emerging a general willingness to serve on the part of the right kind of parent; namely, those who are prepared to shoulder the new burden of work and responsibility, the prospect of which is proving a salutary deterrent to the wrong kind of people. Parents are not being regarded as delegates to give voice to the complaints or dissatisfaction of other parents. They are sitting on governing bodies to give expression to their own free opinion in their capacity as elected representatives.

There is no evidence of political manipulation. A feeling of partnership is developing in many governing bodies based on the unspoken consensus that the matter of supreme importance is the welfare of the children. Such is the unbiased impression of a public servant.

I spoke next with a lady who heads a special unit set up by Lewisham Council. As noble Lords will know, Lewisham is one of the 13 London boroughs that has had to devise its own education service within a very limited length of time in view of the demise of the ILEA. Lewisham Council has set up a special unit with special responsibility for the advice and support of governing bodies throughout the borough. I was interested to know how an urban area would compare with my predominantly rural one. To my surprise, the lady gave a similar report on the situation in Lewisham and, as far as she knew, in other London boroughs. She knew a good deal.

By and large parents are coming forward although the number varies from one area to another. I assume that there will be less willingness to serve in areas of deprivation or those where there is a high black or Asian population. In that situation parents may very often feel themselves too unfamiliar with the language and with the system to offer themselves for election as school governors.

The lady described the political aspect as not really being an issue. The real issue was getting the right kind of people into the job. I understand that the boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark are having difficulty in finding enough paid-up party members to fill the large number of vacancies for their own nominees. The borough of Islington is considering adopting a policy of nominating non-paid-up members if necessary. That is in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said just now: that there seems to be a very promising relaxation of the intense pressure to get party members into governorships. That is good news for all of us.

That relaxation of pressure will give greater opportunities for ethnic minorities to have adequate and fair representation on governing bodies. I repeat that the all-important point is to get the right kind of people; namely, those who are prepared for the work and the responsibility; who want to do the job; who have not been coerced on political grounds and who are dedicated to the best interests of the children. I speak with humility before the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have made references to the vast number of governorships that they have had in the past. Perhaps they would not be so ready to take on so many governorships these days. The lady I spoke to said—

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I was not boasting about the number of governing bodies. I was trying to make the point that it was a damned stupid system.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, the noble Earl's comment is amply confirmed by the lady I was speaking to who described as "outrageous" the idea of anyone serving at the moment on more than at most two governing bodies. That was her word. The permitted number is four but she considered that two is the maximum permissible in view of the new responsibilities.

Governing bodies are encountering plenty of problems. It occurs to me that with their new importance central government may have to listen to them. The first and most obvious example is connected with local financial management. In the London boroughs all present governors who were appointed two years ago will be due for retirement in two years' time, just when local financial management becomes effective in London. That will create problems. East Sussex has been reproved by the Department of Education for being too sensitive to local issues in applying the formula funding. It has apparently considered too closely the particular needs of particular schools. I should have thought it was obvious that schools in deprived areas may require more generous funding than others, but not according to the Department of Education and Science. I shall give one example.

The Moulsecomb district of Brighton is a deprived area. Two or three years ago—I have forgotten exactly when —two small children strayed away from their homes and were kidnapped and murdered in a park nearby. They were on their way to or from the local shop. Since then East Sussex has put extra resources into lunchtime and breaktime supervision in the primary schools of that part of Brighton, as much to allay the anxieties of parents as anything else. With central funding the LEA had the flexibility to do this. With strictly controlled formula funding such care would be "too sensitive" in the eyes of the department. That protection is no longer offered. My hope is that the governing bodies of the schools will be able to make themselves heard where the LEAs have not been able to.

This Government have not listened for 10 years but they have now created governing bodies with parent power which I sincerely hope will make a thorough nuisance of themselves. Is it too much to hope that where the Government turn a deaf ear to local authorities, to HMI and to the teacher unions, they may have to fit a hearing aid to their own creatures, the newly formed governing bodies, when they protest about the state of our maintained schools, which were described only yesterday, by the chairman of the headmasters' conference no less, as "scandalously underfunded"? What machinery will there be for the new governing bodies to voice their concern and demand some satisfaction? I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point.

3.53 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I too have served on a number of governing bodies of both schools and colleges, though I cannot begin to compete with him in terms of the number of schools or colleges on whose governing bodies I have sat. Indeed, I wonder how he finds time for anything else in his life. Perhaps he sleeps rather less than the rest of us. But what both he and the rest of us taking part in the debate must remember is that since the Education Reform Act 1988 the powers of school governing bodies have been greatly increased. My noble friend Lady Nicol referred to daunting new responsibilities. That seems to be an apt description.

The introduction of local financial management means that governors now have to take decisions about school budgets and how they should be spent. They also have much increased powers with respect to the employment of teachers and other staff which previously resided with the local education authorities. These changes give the governing bodies of schools an importance which they did not have in the past. There have also been changes in the powers of polytechnic governing bodies as a result of the removal of the polytechnics from the local authority sector, and in the powers of college governors, again as a result of the devolution of financial management from the local authorities to the colleges. These changes greatly increase the need to ensure that there is a proper balance on governing bodies of the various interests which ought to be represented. Governing bodies can now influence what happens in the institutions for which they are responsible far more directly than they could in the past.

During this debate we have focused mainly on primary and secondary schools. In replying for the Opposition, it is only right that I should do the same. I shall not go into the details of the 1986 Act, nor will I comment on or describe the recommendations of the report by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. However, I should like to say how delighted I am that, as one of the acknowledged experts in this area, he has been able to contribute to the debate.

While focusing on the schools, I want to say something about the post-school sector. In passing, I should also like to record that there are some 600 nursery schools in England and Wales, and that they are not required to have governing bodies. I am puzzled as to why this should be the case. Why have they been excluded? Many of those schools are larger than a good many rural primary schools. I know that LEAs usually make some kind of informal arrangements for their governance. However, surely there should be a requirement for them to have governing bodies. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply can say whether the Government have any plans for rectifying this rather odd anomaly. And if they do not have any such plans, why not?

The first concern about balance involves the representation of local education practices of some authorities in appointing to these positions only members of the majority party. I should like to restate what has already been said by my noble friends. We deplore this practice. Fortunately, nearly all authorities have now come into line, partly because of the campaigning of the Opposition spokesman in another place, Mr. Jack Straw. I am glad to say that the remaining Labour authority guilty in this respect, Manchester, is about to reconsider its policy of excluding Conservatives from LEA governorships. However, my understanding of the latest position is that the London borough of Bamet is still turning its face against changing its policy of making all LEA governor appointments from the ranks of the local Tory Party, even though 30 per cent. of councillors are Labour—the figure will be a good deal higher after 3rd May—and 5 per cent. are Liberal Democrats.

Is it not rather surprising that the Government should have let the Tories get away with this in the Prime Minister's own constituency when both the Secretary of State and his predecessor have said that this practice is quite unacceptable? If Labour were to gain control in Barnet—admittedly something of a tall order, because it would require a swing of more than 13 per cent., but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility —how would the Government view the wholesale replacement of all Conservative governors by Labour governors? I hope that a Labour-controlled council in Barnet would not do that. However, the Tories' provocative behaviour could evoke a tit-for-tat response. Conservative councillors in Barnet clearly do not have the interests of pupils at the forefront of their thinking. If they did, they would have conceded long ago the need for balance. This is not the best way of ensuring some continuity on governing bodies when there is a change in control after local elections.

I have some sympathy with the Government's wish to avoid legislation on this matter. In some ways it would be taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Moreover, local authorities may wish to make some appointments of people with no political affiliations but with relevant expertise and commitment to do the job properly. As the noble Lord; Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has already said, it would certainly be wrong to insist that LEAs make political affiliation an essential requirement for appointment to school governing bodies. However, my noble friend Lady David is surely right to ask for guidelines on this somewhat vexed question.

As has already been said, there are a number of other questions of balance besides political affiliation. It is obviously desirable that the composition of governing bodies should cover a broad cross-section of the community. Indeed, so far as. possible they ought to reflect the community which the school concerned actually serves. It is particularly important that there are substantial numbers of black and Asian governors in areas of high Afro-Caribbean and Asian populations. The ethnic minorities are currently under-represented according to research carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Perhaps in her reply the noble Baroness can say what steps the Government might take to encourage higher participation from the ethnic minorities. For example, could LEAs be asked to nominate from the ethnic minorities where they are under-represented?

As my noble friends Lady David and Lady Nicol said, it is also rather disappointing to discover that there are many more men than women on governing bodies; for example, 58 per cent. compared to 42 per cent. according to the NFER study. That is in spite of the fact that women form the majority of parent and teacher governors. However, even in those categories they are in the minority in secondary schools. But the most serious imbalance is in the co-opted group of governors where according to the NFER study there were 1,037 men to 489 women.

Most disappointing of all is the fact that only about a quarter of women chair governing bodies. It is high time that that situation was changed and that more women were chairing these bodies, whether they ride to hounds or not. That will only happen when LEAs, which take a disproportionate share of the chairmanships, appoint more women and encourage them to chair these bodies. The NFER finding that only 55 out of 1,534 governors were in manual jobs is also a cause for concern.

There has been some concern expressed this afternoon about school governing bodies being perhaps over-full of people who are already in the education industry. If that is the case—and the evidence is rather conflicting—then it could be argued that the Government's intention to provide opportunities for parents and for representatives of the local community to become involved in educational decision-making at the school level has been thwarted.

At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy with the teachers' unions which we hear denigrated in this House rather too often. They argue that it would be quite wrong to deny teacher parents the right to stand as governors like any other parent. Nevertheless, the findings of one study which suggested that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of governors were involved in a professional capacity in education in some way is perhaps a little worrying. It is worrying if we accept —as I believe we probably should—that those from outside education, including parents, have a contribution to make in that it is desirable to broaden the base of educational decision-making at this level. It would be interesting to know how the Government are responding to this genuinely difficult dilemma.

The more successful we are in bringing new people into education decision-making through governing bodies, the more important it is to provide adequate training for them. I was glad to hear both the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn refer to the importance of training. The Government have provided funding for the training of governors through the education support grant mechanism. That was a welcome initiative. However, the need for training will not go away when the ESG runs out in two years' time. Indeed, local financial management, as has already been said, will go on putting increasing demands on governors to deal with a great many complex problems.

Training can help to create confidence, as well as improving the quality of the decisions made. In turn, this should help stem the tide of resignations which some fear are likely because of the demands of local financial management. Can the noble Baroness say what the Government intend to do when the ESC money runs out? It will not do to tell us that the LEAs must do this out of existing resources. We all know just how constrained local authority education budgets have become. We all know that poll tax capping will make matters even worse in some authorities.

At present nearly all government training is done outside the schools. However, the Task Group on School Management set up by the DES has argued that the most effective training of heads and deputies is done within the schools, although some of their training must be done outside. The National Association of Governors and Managers has suggested that the same applies to governors: rather than sending them off in ones and twos to train at outside centres, group training with all the governors working together, using open learning packs which have now become available, ought to be tried.

Would the Government consider delegating some funds to schools, perhaps on a pilot basis, to be spent on governor training of that kind? Would they also consider allowing some bids through the Department of Education and Science local authority training grant scheme for the training of governors? Some joint training of heads and deputies with the chairman and the deputy chairman of governing bodies would be particularly helpful. The local management of schools must be a partnership between heads and government—it might help to forge this partnership with some joint training.

I turn now to the post-school sector. Some rather regrettable decisions were taken by the Government to legislate to stuff the governing bodies of polytechnics and colleges under the PCFC and LEA FE colleges with businessmen and perhaps businesswomen. I have nothing against businessmen; indeed, some of them are very splendid people and some of my best friends are businessmen. However, I cannot see why they should be regarded as so special and their potential contribution so great that they should be expected to take the lion's share of places.

The Government also took the view—again, wrong in my opinion—that FE and HE colleges maintained by the LEAs should also have large numbers of employers on them. Under the Education Reform Act, from the 1st of this month PCFC institutions have to have large numbers of so-called independent governors who come from industry, commerce and the professions. On the other hand, the LEAs which, after all, maintained these institutions before, are left with minimal representation of between one and three governors. I suggest that that number is too small and that it does not create a balanced governing body.

The appointments made to those governing bodies by the Secretary of State have been heavily biased in favour of male middle management so far as concerns employment interests. I regret that fact. Is that really what we want? I do not think so. Surely, just as balance is important on school governing bodies, so it is among the governors of the polytechnics and the colleges. What kind of monitoring do the Government have in mind in relation to the new unbalanced bodies that they have created? I would be grateful for some indication of their intentions in this respect. It would also be useful if a survey, similar to that carried out by the NFER on schools, could be undertaken of the new membership of the governing bodies of polytechnics and colleges.

I shall deal now with the LEA FE colleges. The prescription that at least 50 per cent. of governors should either represent employment interests or be co-optees seems to be heavy handed. The Secretary of State has been in some conflict with LEAs when considering the approval of proposed instruments of government for each college. It would be interesting to see an analysis of his decisions on the composition of governing bodies in this sector. As my noble friend Lady David said, it is unfortunate that education interests have now been neglected and the interests of industry, of commerce and of the professions overstated so far as concerns the governing bodies of post-school institutions.

Last but not least, it is terribly regrettable that students are so poorly represented on the governing bodies of post-school institutions. Many Members from all sides of your Lordships' House questioned the wisdom of restricting the number of places to only one student in debates during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. Those of us with rather more experience of these matters than the previous Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, made it clear that the student's voice is a valuable one and that a minimum of two places for students would have been more appropriate. As in the case of the poll tax, as in the case of an over-prescriptive national curriculum and as in the case of a top heavy system of testing, he simply would not listen. Perhaps his successor will be willing to look again at this matter, as well as the other questions raised in this debate on the very great importance of balance in the governing bodies of our educational institutions.

4.9 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for allowing this very important subject to be discussed. Although few Members have spoken in the debate, it has certainly not lacked quality. As I know most of the speakers personally, I know that the experience they have brought to the debate is considerable.

I think I shall be joined by those who have spoken in the debate if I admit to some degree of relief about the self-condemnation of my noble friend. He took a fairly dim view of a number of governing bodies. It was a pretty impressive list. However, I hope that the days are past when people sat on large numbers of governing bodies when one had to question the kind of contribution they made, not because they were not good people but simply because they were entirely overstretched.

I wish specifically to mention the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The work that he and his committee did in the field of opening up governing bodies was particularly welcome. The thrust of the work of the Taylor Committee was probably rather different from where I stand. Many of us in local authorities welcomed that report. Those of us who already had governing bodies found that what we were doing was underwritten by the report of that committee. However, in many parts of the country there was a chalk mark across the playground beyond which parents and governors had no place. The change was something of a revolution in many parts of the country but was nevertheless welcome.

Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for the note of optimism. There is certainly an air of optimism in our new governing bodies. We have identified much common ground on both sides of the House. The issue before us is not a party political one and I am pleased to note that almost everyone who has spoken has mentioned that.

Before tackling in detail some of the specific issues which have been raised, I should like if I may to reinforce two particular areas of agreement which unite all Members of this House, and then deal with one area of disagreement which the noble Baroness has emphasised but which I do not think is as significant as she has suggested.

The first and fundamental agreement is on the importance of the governing body—implied in the Motion before us and given full expression by your Lordships throughout this short debate. Governing bodies are the means through which we seek to ensure that our educational institutions are not only for their communities but of their communities and answerable to their needs.

A good governing body is close to the institution for which it is responsible and has the best interests of its pupils and students at heart. The new arrangements for school government set in place in the 1986 Act and given full force by the Education Reform Act 1988 allow school governors to exercise significant control over the curriculum, over staffing and over the finances of the school. We have sought to set in place arrangements which will allow these weighty responsibilities to be exercised effectively; for we are clear that it is at school level that they are best discharged, within an overall statutory framework.

We do not accept that the task we have given governors in this context is too weighty for them. However, I note the understandable comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Comparing what has gone before with the present duties of the governing body shows that there is quite a distinction. However, we accept that governors will need help and encouragement to carry out the task effectively. We have therefore made arrangements for training for both college and school governors., We are giving grant in support of some £23 million of LEA expenditure on governor training. We are also offering a good deal of central help, both by producing materials for all governors such as our Guide to the Law and by producing training packages which LEAs and governors themselves can use to develop their skills.

At this point perhaps I may say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referring to her request about ESGs, that I cannot give a specific answer because I do not think what happens when ESGs run out has been considered. However, I can promise that as long as training for governors is considered important, funding for it will be considered in the setting of budgets each year by the department. I can go no further than that.

In offering this kind of help we are also conscious of the need to limit the flow of paper to governors. We aim to send out only material of direct, practical use, written in a clear style and accessible to governors from all backgrounds. The results so far are most encouraging. We have had two surveys of reconstitution of school governing bodies. The evidence is that governors from all walks of life are coming forward willingly to meet the new challenges. This was a point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. The response from business governors who some sceptics forecast would never devote the necessary time and energy to the task has been particularly pleasing. Over 40 per cent. of governors who are employed, other than those elected as teacher governors, are from business and the professions. The signs are equally encouraging for college governing bodies.

Perhaps I may say a word on the fair amount of criticism that has been made about the fact that by and large our representatives in business and commerce come from middle or senior management. For many of us who served in local authorities one of our great criticisms about the representatives from business and commerce was that often they were not sufficiently high level to go back and make practices change in companies. We want the kind of representation from companies whereby the people who are sitting on the governing bodies can go back to the workplace in their companies. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. Those representatives will have an increased understanding of what is done in our schools. They can then make something happen at company level so that full advantage can be taken of it and they can learn from each other.

We are certainly not complacent. We recognise and admit the burdens on governors over recent months. We are therefore carrying out a further survey to see what early evidence of turnover can tell us. But we are confident for the future. The evidence from pilot local management schemes is that once new responsibilities turn from theoretical problems into real opportunities, giving governors and heads the opportunity to control resources and direct them for the good of the school, the effect on morale is powerful and very positive. We expect to see this pattern repeated in the 87 authorities which have delegated at least some budgets for 1990-91.

So on the importance of governors we are all agreed. What about balance? That too is a matter of general agreement. I mean here both kinds of balance—that between the interest groups on the governing body and that among LEA nominees in particular.

The 1986 Act set in place arrangements for overall balance in appointments to school governing bodies. There are a number of important interests which need a strong voice on the governing body and we have secured that. Parents will have a strong voice through their elected representatives. The teachers will have a similar though smaller representation. The LEA will be able to nominate the same number of members as the parents. Those members will collectively co-opt a significant number of representatives of the wider community, in particular local business and industry but also any other groups with whom links can usefully be established.

I return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, about quarters. Looking at the arithmetic for the new composition of governing bodies, the LEA and the parents have one-quarter representation each. The other 50 per cent. is made up of staff and community representation. So we have continued to honour that recommendation of the Taylor Report.

Similarly, we have ensured under the Education Reform Act that college governing bodies have no more than 20 per cent. of their governors nominated by the LEA. Employment interests and co-opted governors make up at least 50 per cent. of each college governing body, with the remaining members representing staff, students and the local community.

This arrangement replaced one in which the LEA had a majority of all appointees on most governing bodies—a system under which the whole notion of independent power for governing bodies would have been no more than a sham. We have not replaced LEA domination with an overall majority for any other group. The philosophy behind our reforms is indeed one of balance, of encouraging dialogue and working together so that the governing body reflects the full spectrum of views inside and outside the school and college and can set a balanced course in the light of competing claims. Again, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, the essence of partnership is very important.

A number of specific points were made. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blackstone, asked about the state of play with the schools in Barnet, Kent and elsewhere. The department can give the House only partial information on this matter for the good reason that those decisions on political appointments have been subject to change and second thoughts, not surprisingly, as time has gone on. I understand that Kent and Wandsworth, to our knowledge at the moment, may have reversed their earlier thinking.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, questioned whether there could be guidelines for making LEA appointments. I am afraid not. We are clear about the issue here. Appointments and elections to those bodies are already governed by regulations made under the 1986 Act. There are no plans to issue further guidelines. I believe it is a matter for local authorities.

The noble Baronesses, Lady David, Lady Nicol and Lady Blackstone, were concerned about the numbers of resignations. In connection with the survey that was mentioned during the course of the debate, I should say that the department commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey of LEAs regarding the reconstitution of county and maintained special schools' governing bodies. That took place during the autumn term of 1988. The results of the survey were published in February 1989 and it is clear that the recruitment of governors of all kinds was generally successful. The number of vacancies at that time represented only 1 per cent. of the total number of places. The NFER carried out a further survey of 500 county schools during the summer of 1989 and the report was published on 19th September 1989. That report showed that the number of vacant places on governing bodies remains at about 1 per cent.

A point was made in connection with women governors. I am pleased to say that the latest figures that we have on the split between men and women on governing bodies show that women account for 42 per cent. of governors while men account for 58 per cent. Further to that, the criticism was made that more women on governing bodies should be chairmen. I cannot be specific about that matter because I do not have figures but I can say that at least three Ladies of this Chamber, including myself, come from a county where there was a predominance of women chairmen of governing bodies. However, I accept that I am only speaking about one authority rather than the majority of authorities. That subject may well form part of another survey.

The other important issue that was raised concerned ethnic minority representation. The survey of schools suggests that ethnic minority representation on governing bodies accounts for about 2.5 per cent. of the total. Of the ethnic minority governors reported on, 13 per cent. were LEA appointees, 36 per cent. were parent governors, 2 per cent. were teacher governors and 49 per cent. were co-optees. The ethnic minority groups covered by the survey consisted of Afro-Caribbean or other black groups, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and the Chinese. I think it is fair to say that where there is a predominance of ethnic minorities in an area, one would expect them to be represented on governing bodies and if that were not the case LEAs would have to be asked why that was so.

The matter of nursery schools was raised. Given that nursery provision is not part of statutory provision, to make a requirement in law for there to be governing bodies for nursery schools is not part of our planning. However, it would be interesting to know whether there is any nursery school in the country that does not have some kind of informal arrangement as regards communication with the local authority.

On the question of college governing bodies, I can assure all those who asked whether they would be the subject of a survey that that will be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, made a point about training. I think those who talk about training can be rather intimidating. Those people who do not have degrees can be put off if they are made to feel that a degree is necessary to be a governor. I feel very strongly that we must not intimidate people or inhibit them from coming forward to be governors. I also think that we should not overtrain governors. The last thing we want to do is to suck governors into the system. They need to be an independent interface between an LEA and their school, not an arm of the LEA. However, they need to understand the job they have to do. Therefore the purpose of training for them is to enable them to understand the job in hand rather than to enable them to act as an extension of the local authority.

I now come to the point of disagreement. I should re-emphasise the fact that your Lordships are united on much of this matter. However, where I differ from the noble Baroness, and must continue to do so, is in whether this issue is capable of resolution by statute. Our only difference lies in finding a means to an end. I am not convinced that this issue can be resolved by statute. I have not been convinced of that during the course of this debate. I believe it would be a victory for those who are seeking improperly to make this a party political matter for us to require it to be seen as such by law. We shall not give them that satisfaction.

Quite apart from this issue of principle there are severe practical difficulties as regards legislating in this way. When the Bill was given a First Reading in another place it did not manage to find a way round the difficulties. We cannot legislate for balance on every individual governing body. That would be a mathematical impossibility given the small number of LEA appointees under the new arrangements. The Bill would also have given the right to appoint governors to any political grouping on the council, however small, without any restriction. The parallel which has been drawn with the requirement for balance on council committees is not a fair one. That extends only to council members who have personally stood the test of the ballot box.

On this issue, which I believe is a relatively minor one, I must beg leave to continue to disagree with the noble Baroness. I hope, however, that she will agree that there is more that unites us than divides us on this matter. The aim we all share is to encourage and support governing bodies of all kinds as they work for better education in their institutions throughout the country, whether they are large or small. We aim most particularly to encourage them to work in the interests of our children.

Baroness David

My Lords, I wish to thank all the speakers who have taken part in this short debate, though there were not many speakers. The quality of the debate has been good and each individual had his or her own contribution to make. It is particularly nice (o be facing my old opponent, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, as we have faced each other across the Chamber so often. I should not imagine that anyone can equal his record as regards the number of governing bodies that he has sat on. He certainly would not be allowed to sit on so many governing bodies now as the maximum number that one can sit on is four. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, pointed that out. However, in view of the new responsibilities I should imagine that to sit on four governing bodies is quite sufficient.

I was interested in the ideas of the noble Earl regarding training. A number of speakers have referred to training, and it is an extremely important matter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that one does not want to overtrain people. One must leave them their individuality. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, talk about his committee. However, we do not have the resources that he suggested. Staff are not available in the numbers that the Taylor Committee recommended.

I was also interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said about parents coming forward. When parents were first elected to governing bodies, it was quite difficult to get enough of them in many cases, The situation is obviously improving, but we must encourage the ethnic minorities to come forward in greater numbers. We must find some way to achieve that.

I am sorry that nursery schools are not to have governing bodies, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggested. I believe it is a pity that they should not be treated like other institutions. However, I was delighted to hear that less paper will arrive on governors' desks. Clearly that has been a matter that has overwhelmed them. I am also glad to hear that there have not been many resignations. However, as the new governing bodies have only taken over their increased responsibilities recently, it will be some time before we shall know exactly what is happening and whether governors can take all they are being asked to take.

I am glad that there will be a further survey. I hope that survey will encompass the further and higher education colleges. That is the area where my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I have the greatest anxiety as the balance on their governing bodies does not seem evident. If a survey is carried out within the next year or so when the new governing bodies have had some experience of their new roles, the results will be extremely interesting. Again, I thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.