HL Deb 25 March 2002 vol 633 cc25-6WA
Baroness Blatch

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What would be the status of compulsory subjects such as the core curriculum, religious education and daily worship, and citizenship, if proposals were to come forward under Clause 2 of the Education Bill linking the dropping of subjects with the raising of standards. [HL3317]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)

Exemptions under Clause 2 of the Education Bill may be conferred for a temporary period only, and only for the purposes set out in Clause 1. That is, exemptions may be conferred only "to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may—(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England, or (b) in the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales contribute to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in Wales". The Secretary of State would have to approve any such proposals, and would do so only if she were convinced it would lead to higher educational standards.

Baroness Blatch

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What would be the liability of governors, head teachers and other partners if a company, set up under Chapter Three of the Education Bill, were to fail; and who would be responsible for assessing risk. [HL3318]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

In the event of a school company failing financially, we would expect the liability of each company member to be limited to a nominal sum. In the case of a company limited by guarantee, this would be the nominal guarantee figure of perhaps £10. In the case of a company limited by shares, this would be any amount outstanding on the shares, which we would anticipate to be a nominal sum. For member schools, the liability would not rest with individual governors or the head teacher. We expect joint venture companies to operate under the same principles as school companies.

Other partners could include other company members whose liability would be limited in the same way as school company members. The situation of LEAs would differ depending upon the type of company. Just as schools spend their delegated budgets as agents of the LEA, so a purchasing company, when spending those delegated budgets, would also be acting as an agent of the LEA. This would not be the case for service provider companies, who would be spending income from contracts.

It would be up to a school governing body to assess operational risks before deciding whether or not to join a school company.

Baroness Blatch

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In the light of the Education Bill, which Criminal Justice Act would require amendment in order to extend parenting orders. [HL3319]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

The powers relating to parenting orders are contained at Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is the Act that would require amendment in order to extend these powers.