LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 21 July 1998)

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 42A. I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 43 to 49 and 43A to 49A. We have listened carefully to all the arguments advanced by those who wish to maintain a system which permits a number of schools to be grouped under a single governing body. Some noble Lords have offered judgments about the appropriate administration of schools. Others have emphasised a wish to maintain the traditional governance arrangements of their local schools. We have thought hard about the points made, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. But I am afraid that we have concluded that, in this case, our wider policy objectives of modernising the role of governing bodies and sharpening their focus on 724 raising standards require us to stick to our guns. I shall be asking the House to confirm that view, as reiterated in another place.
In a system where the governing body is there to take the lead on the day-to-day management of the school, I can see the argument for saying that it is more convenient for some schools which share a site or indeed a common history to be grouped under a single governing body. Our discussion would then be about the best system to facilitate this. However the focus of governing bodies is not day-to-day management, but strategy.
Even with the best of intentions, it is inevitable that a single governing body, with responsibilities for more than one school, may be more easily side-tracked into considering cross-school management issues. We want each and every school to have its own governing body because that is the best way to ensure that the governors focus on our number one objective of raising standards. A dedicated governing body will have more direct responsibility for the performance of pupils of a specific age range and will be able to exercise this responsibility more effectively precisely because they are able to focus on those needs. It will also be more directly accountable to parents and others for the performance of the school.
There is another reason why we believe that grouped governing bodies are an increasingly outmoded idea. The Excellence in Schools White Paper made clear our commitment to strengthening parental representation on governing bodies. I had thought that this was one area where there was a strong measure of agreement between both sides of the House. By definition, a dedicated governing body will benefit from full parental representation; grouped governing bodies can offer only a diluted version. All those are significant considerations, and important reinforcing elements in taking forward the Government's standards agenda.
I have particular difficulty with Amendment No. 45. Subsection (2) of that amendment makes it clear that in the case of a community or community special school the local education authority can propose to the Secretary of State that it should have a grouped governing body with one or more other schools whether or not the school objects. Indeed, if the proposal relates to two primary schools the consent of the Secretary of State is not even required—the LEA can just go ahead. In either case the LEA is required to consult the schools first; but it is not required to observe their wishes on the matter. That is not acceptable to us. We believe that schools are, within the scope of the law, best placed to decide for themselves what co-operative arrangements they should enter into.
We also believe that those who have argued for a different approach have overstated the difficulties our proposals will cause the schools in question. We see no reason why governing bodies should not be able to make their own arrangements for cross-representation and joint discussion.
It has been suggested from time to time that an education action forum in an education action zone would be acting as a grouped governing body for a significant number of schools. I have to say that this is a somewhat bogus comparison. In contrast to the amendments 725 proposed in this House, in an education action zone no governing body will have such arrangements forced upon it. It will determine for itself whether it wishes to contract specific responsibilities or cede the majority of its powers to the forum. It is also the case that these arrangements are not permanent but are limited to the life of the education action forum—a period of three to five years.
I do accept that there is something to be said for maintaining the status quo on this issue. No one has any wish to fix something that is not broken. But on balance we have concluded that grouped governing bodies are a potential inhibitor of the much more fundamental policy objectives which underpinned our manifesto last year and were set out in the Excellence in Schools White Paper. Our priority must be to enable governing bodies to focus on promoting higher standards of pupil achievement; to sharpen their accountability for the performance of their school, and to improve parents' representation on governing bodies.

§ Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I am speaking to the amendment as I moved it in Committee and on Report.
I am extremely disappointed, and despite the eloquent argument from honourable friends in another place, it seems sad that the Government were unable to accept a small amendment. After your Lordships made the decision and sent the issue back to the Commons, the governors, teachers, pupils and everyone else in the community was thrilled. That joy will now turn to sadness. A system which had been in place since Elizabethan days and had served the community well, making a centre of excellence, will now be disallowed. The Government have been mean and heavy handed in their rigidity. They think that they know best. I see it as a sad day for local democracy. However, I do not wish to push the matter further.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I wish to refer to something that was said in the Commons. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, say whether I am breaking the rules?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I am not aware that there is a direct written rule. I think that it is unusual for two people to speak from the Front Bench on the same issue, but I stand to be corrected.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I look to the Clerk for advice. I do not believe that I am breaking any rule.
726 I believe that any person in the House is free to comment on what was said in another place when considering these amendments.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I was relying on advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when I was on the Bench now occupied by the Opposition.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have no wish to break the rules of the House. I wait to be advised. I understand that I am in order.
I rise to defend my noble friend Lady Seccombe. In another place the Minister of State for Education said at col. 467 of the Official Report that he rejected the Lords amendment as it was "wrong-headed and foolish". I do not believe that my noble friend was being foolish. Nor do I believe that the House was being foolish when it passed the amendment. The school to which I refer goes back to medieval times. Two small schools shared a site for a long time, with a single governing body. It was only through the constraints of the site that the school became a separate infant and junior school. They continued with a single governing body. The Minister said: [The amendment] fails to recognise the important role that school governors play in raising standards; not the old approach that governing bodies used to have, but the new approach outlined in the Bill, giving every governing body the responsibility to raise standards".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/98; col. 467.] I understand that this governing body is as responsible for raising standards in one part of the school as in another. It accepts that full responsibility. If Ofsted or some external body found it wanting in its responsibilities, it would be culpable and would accept that responsibility. However, to my knowledge it is an excellent school. It has never fallen down on the job and its primary responsibility is to raise standards in both parts of the school.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the issue of action zones. That has been a criticism. The noble Baroness said that where governing bodies of schools in action zones cede their powers to another body, they do so voluntarily. That is precisely what that school is doing. The two schools wish to have a single governing body. The schools have ceded voluntarily to one governing body. In their wisdom, the Government have decided that they would prefer to second guess what that school wants. In rejecting the amendment the Government have come to the conclusion that they know best for that school.
During the previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about flexibility, local decision-making and democracy. The rejection of the Lords amendment flies in the face of flexibility, local democracy and local decision-making. That is a great pity.
However, I spoke primarily to defend my noble friend and the majority of the Members in this House who voted for the amendment: that they were neither foolish nor unwise in determining that amendment.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I have given a number of reasons why the Government object to the amendment. Those objections were put to another place and were fully endorsed last week. I must now ask this House to agree with that view and support the Government. I therefore ask the House not to insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.