LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 23 July 2002)

§ Baroness Ashton of Upholland
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof.
We have reflected carefully on the points made at Committee stage about annual parents' meetings. This government amendment ensures that parents will retain the opportunity to hold the governing body to account, but it enables us to relieve schools of this duty where this would genuinely be burdensome and 254 unnecessary, and it restricts the regulation-making power to exemptions from holding meetings, thereby deregulating the process of annual parents' meetings.
It is important for parents to have the opportunity to discuss school issues with the governing body, and we are safeguarding that right. But, for certain schools, holding an annual parents' meeting presents particular practical difficulties. For example, at present special schools established in hospitals, or maintained schools where at least 50 per cent of the pupils are boarders, do not have to hold annual parents' meetings if the governing body of the school concerned does not believe that it would be practicable to do so.
The amendment provides schools with necessary flexibility because, for understandable reasons, many such schools would find it extremely difficult to make appropriate arrangements for annual parents' meetings. We do not believe that they should be required to do so in future because they are not required to do so at present. Noble Lords always take a particular interest in special educational needs, and I am sure that the House will want to maintain the current flexibilities available to special schools in hospitals.
The amendment defines the broad purpose of the annual parents' meeting on the face of the Bill to ensure that parents can raise issues in relation to the school at the meeting. We have listened carefully to the case put by noble Lords for deregulating the process of the annual meetings and we agree with the thrust of the argument put forward most forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We agree that governing bodies are perfectly capable of deciding how best to run such meetings. Therefore, we have limited the regulation-making power to exemptions from the requirement to hold an annual meeting, leaving, as was sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the detailed arrangements and process to governing bodies.
The power to make regulations to exempt schools from holding annual parents' meetings in prescribed circumstances enables us to keep this matter under review and to add exemptions if appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on schools and governing bodies. I hope that your Lordship's House will agree that the amendment strikes the right balance between securing accountability, reducing burdens and removing detailed prescription. I hope that the House will accept the amendment passed in the other place in lieu of that passed in Committee.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I welcome the amendment. However, it proves my earlier point that, despite the fact that the noble Baroness has received parliamentary counsel, it is possible to reduce regulation. I did so through my amendment. The Government did not have to pass this regulation and 255 they did not have to impose it. If the Bill had been left in its previous state, unnecessary regulation would have been imposed on schools. Therefore, I simply say that parliamentary counsel is not always right. It may be a wise counsel but not in absolutely every case.
I have one question for the noble Baroness. Can I have an absolute assurance that, under Pepper v. Hart conditions, on the face of the Bill the regulations will be absolutely exclusive to one issue only—that is, the exemption from the obligation imposed by subsection (1) to hold an annual meeting of the school?

§ Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the amendment. I believe that it provides a very sensible solution. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and commend her resolute action in saying that the regulations are totally unnecessary. Head teachers, parents and governors know perfectly well how to hold meetings; they do not have to be told how to do so. These are an excellent example of the type of regulations that can be disposed of.
I believe that it is useful to set out the purpose of the meeting on the face of the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, there may be occasions when schools wish to claim exemption from holding a meeting. But, on the whole, the fact that an annual meeting should be held by school governors is a good form of public accountability. Therefore, from these Benches we shall support the amendment.

§ Baroness Ashton of Upholland
My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the assurance that she requires that the regulations will concern exemptions. Another example that I gave to your Lordships concerned schools which had recently undergone an Ofsted inspection and had held a meeting of all the parents to discuss that. Such a school may, indeed, wish to be exempted and that is another good example. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we have responded well to the concerns raised and that the House will now agree that we have achieved a workable solution.