Proceeding contribution from Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Education Bill.
Education Bill
My Lords, unusually, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Murphy, and I do so for three reasons. First, we are talking about consultation, not a power of veto. Secondly, it seems to me only good manners to talk to the sponsoring body, and good manners are not yet wholly absent from public life. Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, I have no doubt that consulting the body in question would enable a smoother transition to the new status because one wants the co-operation of those who have helped to appoint the head teacher and of the original sponsors in order to make the school successful in the future.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 730 c237GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Apprentices Classroom assistants Land Education Faith schools Qualifications Standards Teachers Training Religion VAT Travellers Distance learning Academies Young People's Learning Agency Free schools Maintained schools
- Legislation
- Education Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:10:55 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769453
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769453
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_769453