---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 19: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause- ““CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN ENGLAND (1) Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) (co-operation to improve well-being) after paragraph (b) insert- ““(bb) each relevant schools provider for the area of the authority;””. (3) After subsection (5) insert- ““(5A) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a relevant schools provider for the area of a children's services authority in England- (a) the appropriate diocesan authority for any Church of England school and any Roman Catholic Church school in the area of the authority; and (b) such other bodies as may be designated by the Secretary of State. (5B) In subsection (5A) ““appropriate diocesan authority””, ““Church of England school”” and ““Roman Catholic Church school”” have the meanings assigned by section 142(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.”””” The right reverend Prelate said: In moving the amendment standing in the name of my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and myself, I would say that although the Churches pioneered the provision of schools in England and Wales, the so-called ““dual system”” has operated since governments began providing schools in 1870 and the creation of local education authorities in 1902. Church schools coexist happily with schools provided by the local authority, and I believe that that is part of the genius of the British system of education. It has on the whole worked pretty well, though at times dioceses have regretted that local authorities have seemed not to support church schools as actively as they would like, and no doubt there have been similar tensions on the other side. Until the changes in local government following the 2000 Act, the dioceses were represented on education committees by a member or members with voting rights as well as speaking rights. These committees disappeared with the creation of cabinet government. Diocesan representation on overview and scrutiny committees dealing with education has not effectively filled the gap. This has put at risk the political and strategic level of engagement between the dioceses and local authorities. The good news is that the operational level contacts usually remain very effective. We are not opposing the abolition of theschool organisation committee—proposed in Clause 28—created in 1998 to decide locally on school opening and closing and enlargements, even though that is where the strategic partnership between the Church of England, the Roman Catholic dioceses and local authorities has been most apparent in recent years. But we are concerned to maintain a political and strategic relationship between the diocese and the local authority as well as the operational relationship. We would like to see a duty in law on the local authority to co-operate with the diocese. The amendment would impose as a duty co-operation with the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and with other such bodies as the Secretary of State decides, which we would expect to include the Methodists where they have local schools—that will gladden the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno—but also other faith school providing bodies. I beg to move.