---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response but I am not entirely happy about it, and other noble Lords have also raised questions. In particular, I cannot see why there seems to be an acceptance that it would be possible to exclude very good head teacher candidates on the basis that they were not of a particular faith. We want head teachers with ability and the necessary professional qualification rather than their necessarily always having the religious one. I am not convinced by the Minister’s response that that would always be the case. There is a great deal of legal uncertainty about the term ““genuine occupational requirement””. It seems that in plenty of cases there would be a reclassification which would have to be tested at an employment tribunal, and perhaps beyond, because the individuals concerned would be relying on the EU non-discrimination requirements and so on. All that would impose on individuals a great deal of difficulty and expense. I am surprised at the Minister’s remarks about the unions. The information I have had over the weekend is that there is a great deal of concern about the amendments to Clause 37. I quoted the general-secretary’s remark that there could well be a ““crisis situation”” because of a shortage of appropriate and suitably qualified applicants for head teacher posts. He asked whether the Government understood that the amendments to Clause 37 would make the situation that much more difficult. In addition, I understand that the GMB is very concerned about the pressure that will be exerted on non-teachers. I am not terribly satisfied about what has been said this afternoon—so much so that I feel inclined to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 175. [Amendment No. 6 not moved.] Clause 38 [General duties of governing body of maintained school]: