HC Deb 14 May 1990 vol 172 cc285-7W
Mr. Madden

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what adjustments and flexibility he has approved in respect of the implementation of LMS; and if he will list those local education authorities where such adjustment or flexibility has been agreed.

Mrs. Rumbold

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 8 May,Official Report, column 11.

Mr. Madden

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities implementing LMS in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

Mrs. Rumbold

A total of 87 local authorities' schemes for LMS were approved to start from 1 April 1990. The 87 authorities are:

Avon Devon
Barking and Dagenham Doncaster
Barnet Dorset
Barnsley Dudley
Bedfordshire Durham
Berkshire Ealing
Bexley East Sussex
Birmingham Enfield
Bolton Essex
Bradford Gateshead
Brent Gloucestershire
Bromley Hampshire
Buckinghamshire Haringey
Bury Harrow
Calderdale Havering
Cambridgeshire Hounslow
Cheshire Humberside
Cleveland Isle of Wight
Cornwall Kent
Coventry Kingston
Cumbria Kirklees
Derbyshire Knowsley
Lancashire Shropshire
Leeds Solihull
Lincolnshire Somerset
Liverpool South Tyneside
Merton Staffordshire
Newcastle St. Helens
Norfolk Suffolk
North Tyneside Sunderland
North Yorkshire Surrey
Northamptonshire Sutton
Northumberland Tameside
Nottinghamshire Trafford
Oldham Wakefield
Oxfordshire Walsall
Redbridge Waltham Forest
Richmond Warwickshire
Rochdale West Sussex
Rotherham Westminster
Sandwell Wigan
Salford Wiltshire
Sefton Wolverhampton
Sheffield

We shall continue to work with the 10 authorities, outside of inner London, that we were not able to approve this year, with the aim of getting approved schemes in place by April 1991. We want to keep delays to a minimum and will expect those authorities to phase in LMS according to the original timetable. Those 10 authorities are

Croydon, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, Hillingdon, Isles of Scilly, Leicestershire, Manchester, Newham, Stockport, and Wirral.

Mr. Madden

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which have submitted requests to defer the implementation of LMS by(a) six months; (b) a year, and (c) for any other period.

Mrs. Rumbold

Of the 87 LEAs that have approved LMS schemes in force from 1 April 1990, we have received a representation from one seeking to defer implementation of the scheme.

Mr. Madden

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements there are in cases where a school, under LMS, requires a teacher to accept redundancy to determine who is liable to pay the appropriate redundancy payments.

Mrs. Rumbold

Section 46(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988 specifies that the costs incurred by a local education authority in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of a school within the scope of an LMS scheme shall not be met from the school's budget except in so far as the authority. has good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.

Mr. Madden

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to his duties in respect of implementation of a local management scheme by a local education authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold

The statutory provisions that relate to the duties of my right hon. Friend in respect of implementation of a local management scheme by a local education authority are:

  1. (i) to consider the approval of a scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 33 of the Education Reform Act which—
    2. 287
    1. (a) replaces a previous scheme; or
    2. (b) makes a significant variation to a previous scheme;
  2. (ii) to determine within 2 months of notification, whether a variation proposed by a local education authority as a minor variation, falls within the description of a minor variation;
  3. (iii) to consult the local education authority in question before varying a scheme by direction;
  4. (iv) to consider any appeal made by a governing body against—
    1. (a) the imposition of any suspension of delegation;
    2. (b) the refusal of a local education authority to revoke any such suspension of delegation or any review required;
  5. (v) in the event of an appeal made by a governing body as described in (iv) above; a duty to;
    1. (a) allow or reject the appeal;
    2. (b) have regard to the gravity of the default on the part of the governing body and the likelihood of its continuance or recurrence;
  6. (vi) to make Regulations under section 42 of the Education Reform Act.