Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I hope that he has not gone to the knacker’s yard, anyway. I am pleased to say that the human noble Lord, Lord Adonis, managed to negotiate the first, second and third fences. Sadly, he fell at the fourth. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that. The first fence was Amendment No. 82B and I thank the Minister for being so clear that SENCOs will not only be teachers but part of the leadership scheme of the school and will have a proper programme of continuous professional development. That will move us even further in the right direction. The second fence was Amendment No. 81, and I welcome what the Minister told us: that Ofsted has been asked to do a thematic review of the training journey that those teachers will have to take. I look forward to seeing that report. On Amendment No. 82, on the duty to secure a range of provision, I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation and telling us where we find the information. I just hope that local authorities will be influenced by looking at the range of provision of some of the best local authorities and tailor their practice towards that. On the fourth fence, we are at Report. Because of that, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, cannot reply for himself to the Minister's comments on his amendment, so I hope that he will forgive me for having the temerity to say one or two things about it. The Minister said that the Government cannot accept a blank cheque, but what he did not say is that the Government do not mind passing that blank cheque to local authorities, with liabilities of up to £150,000 a year per pupil. The Minister said that he fears that local authorities might make perverse decisions to place children in more expensive provision because they might get some of the money back from the Government. I think that that is extremely far-fetched and ignores the fact that the very carefully worded subsection (3) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, makes quite clear that the costs would be shared. Should the local authority place the child in more expensive provision, it would be paying more. The Minister's objections to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, do not hold any water. Having said that, the glass was three-quarters’ full today, so far as I am concerned. I am happy with what the Minister has had to say about my amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 82 to 82B not moved.] Clause 56 [Meaning of ““maintained school”” and ““eligible for intervention””]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c966 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Admissions Curriculum Discipline Ballots Carers Closures Community schools Cooperation Collective worship Education Governing bodies Foundation schools Languages Parents Local education authorities Membership Public appointments Pupils Standards Schools Teachers Special educational needs Training Young people Sixth form education Trust schools
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk