Education Bill

Baroness Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Murphy]

126:, page 44, leave out lines 24 and 25

[Baroness Murphy]

I shall move Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I should apologise to the Committee for not participating in debates because I was abroad at the end of last term, so this is my last appearance, as it were, before the windup.

I return to the issue of faith schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have an important group of amendments that we shall come to later in relation to the employment of teachers in faith schools, but this little one has been taken out and put on its own, which is the right thing to do.

I would like to say a little about where I stand on faith schools. I shall not launch into a Second Reading speech on the divisiveness of faith schools because it is important that we offer some choice and that the wishes of parents can be best articulated in those schools which have a faith-based ethos and come within the ambit of the general system of inspection and inclusion, which takes place under the national curriculum, and so on. I also declare that I understand completely the vital and proud role that the Church of England voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools have played right from the early 19th century. They have been socially inclusive and have integrated with the local community. They have also been very broad about their employment policies and so on. I have enormous admiration for some of these schools, but I am concerned, as many people are, about the rise of some of the rather more eccentric-based faith schools and about this small issue which we have tabled here.

In Part 6, this is an amendment to Clause 54 to reverse the increased role for religious bodies in the academy conversion process. The Bill introduces a new requirement for the Government to consult with the appropriate religious body when converting a maintained school with a religious character into an academy, despite an existing provision to ensure that trustees and others in charge of the management of the school will be consulted. This clause serves exclusively, it seems to me, to hand further control of education to religious authorities and stands in stark comparison to the lack of provision to consult with the wider community when transforming a community school into an academy or opening a free school or academy. This amendment simply removes that new requirement. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her generous comments about the inclusive nature and history of our Church of England schools, and for affirming the importance of our continuing to offer choice. While I have some sympathy with what she is saying with regard to some of the risks that might be involved with some of the newer faith schools that might be planned, the difficulty that her amendment presents for the Church of England is that it would take out the requirement for consultation with our diocesan boards of education. They may or may not be the trustees but they are nevertheless the religious authority for our Church of England schools. In trying to address the issue that the noble Baroness has raised, it is of the utmost importance that we do not sideline the Church of England boards of education. They play a role across all the dioceses.

In my own diocese of Hereford, which covers Herefordshire and south Shropshire, we have 84 church schools. The boards of education are involved in appointing the head teachers, supporting the schools and in policy-making in conjunction with the schools, trustees and governors. They have a key role as far as the local authorities are concerned in that they can relate to the diocesan boards of education. That does not mean that they do not relate to individual schools but that, corporately, they can relate to the boards as a whole. That is a real plus and a virtue. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the issue that the noble Baroness is trying to address with this amendment, I caution that, as worded, it would have an unintended consequence. We should not allow that to happen and should ensure that our diocesan boards of education continue to have the recognition and, indeed, the requirement that they are consulted in the way that exists at present. If I may say so, we are back to the “as is” issue that has been mentioned in Committee on a number of occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy]

I thank the Minister for that. To be honest, I am convinced but I would obviously like to talk to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, before deciding whether to return with another question on this. I am particularly fond of good manners. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the right reverend Prelate have reminded me that consultation and asking people is no bad thing under any circumstance, as long as we can be reassured that there is no veto and that it will not extend the influence over the decision-making process any more than an expression of an opinion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 126 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

There is even some doubt about whether the opinion would ever have seen the light of day if we had not become aware of its existence and applied pressure for its publication. Since it entered the public domain, it has been drawn to the attention of Ministers and every interested agency, including those in the European Commission responsible for directive enforcement. I ask the Minister to let us have copies of the correspondence that has ensued between EC officials and his department since then. Yesterday, I notified the Minister's office that I would refer to the matter in the debate. I hope that he has come armed with a full reply. Perhaps the best way forward now—I bow to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment to see whether she endorses it—is for the Minister to let us have the detailed point-by-point response called for by an analysis that makes shocking charges of lawbreaking against the Government. Before Report, we should sit down with the Bill team and our advisers to see how we can best rescue the Government from a disaster of their own making.

[Baroness Murphy]

I shall speak to Amendment 133 in the group. It has very similar effects to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Clause 58 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to override by order the rules that have been imported governing the employment of teachers at voluntary-controlled and foundation schools with a religious character, which allow discrimination on religious grounds in favour of reserved teachers. Of course, Clause 58 allows new and wider discrimination, so that the academy school may apply preference to the appointment, promotion or remuneration of all teachers at the school in accordance with the tenets of a religion or religious denomination. This has the potential for many thousands of teachers to be implicated in changes of rules.

I understand that the Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb, has said that, as with maintained schools, the Secretary of State would allow this change only where a strong proposal was made and a thorough consultation had been carried out. However, it seems extraordinary that any state-maintained school should be able to discriminate against teachers or staff on grounds of religion. There is no statutory guarantee that future Secretaries of State will not simply allow all schools to make this change under Clause 58. It seems strange to allow this new and potentially wide discrimination against teachers in an academy school that has transferred from a voluntary controlled school with a religious character. Amendments 133 and 134—the latter is perhaps a little weaker in terms of the consultation that it asks for—basically ask the Government to withdraw this. In the light of the discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the legal implications, I wonder why Clause 58 is in the Bill at all.

[Lord Peston]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I take it for granted, somewhat cynically, that religious schools will be biased in favour of appointing and promoting people of the same religion. That is part of human nature and it is how people carry on. I do not need to remind noble Lords that I am not qualified in the law. However, I am absolutely horrified to hear what both my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have said about the legal advice they have been given from lawyers, who are certainly well qualified to give such advice.

I have a couple of points for the Minister. First, do we have any data on what actually goes on in these religious schools? They are financed using public money but do we have data on the religious mix of their staff and of who gets promoted and who does not? Are there any facts at all that could guide us? Secondly, if the law is being broken, I am not clear who is breaking it. I would have guessed that it was the schools that were breaking the law but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seemed to suggest that it was the Government, so I am a bit lost on that. I wonder if the Minister could tell us something about that as well. I assume that for one lawyer who you could buy to give you one opinion, the Government could buy another one to give them a different one. That adds to my cynicism. Finally, I hope that the Minister is not going to go through a legal document sentence by sentence, otherwise we will be here past 10 pm.