text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Education Bill - Control of Regulation
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  
  <p>The majority Content voters passed an amendment to the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/ukpga_20020032_en_1">Education Bill</a>. This vote was about a Lords amendment that had been <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-07-15&number=308">rejected by the House of Commons</a>. It came back to the House of Lords to be debated and voted on again.</p>
  
  <p>The original Lords amendment reads as follows:</p>
  
  <blockquote><p><b>Before Clause 18, insert the following new clauseâ</p>
  
  <p>"Control of regulation</p>
  
  <p>(1) In relation to the conduct of education in schools and nursery schools, the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have a duty to limit new regulation and to control the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers.</p>
  
  <p>(2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report to Parliament, setting out any progress he has made in the preceding year in seeking to control or reduce the volume of regulations, circulars and codes of practice that he or his predecessors have published, and reporting any representations he has received from governing bodies, head teachers or teachers' representative bodies about the burden that regulations impose.</p>
  
  <p>(3) Each set of regulations, circular or code of practice issued by the Secretary of State shall include a statement by him of the time he expects it will take for governing bodies or head teachers of schools, or nursery schools, as appropriate, to read, consider and implement the regulation, circular or code of practice concerned.</p>
  
  <p>(4) In making his estimate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall impose no additional burden on schools or nursery schools to provide him or local authorities with information."<a href="#footnote-1"><sup>[1]</sup></a></b></p></blockquote>
  
  <p>The government minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, then proposed an <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-23a.239.5">alternative amendment (14A)</a>. This was opposed by the Conservatives and Baroness Blatch proposed another <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-23a.243.0">alternative amendment (14B)</a> which kept the same spirit of the original Lords amendment.</p>
  
  <p>Again the government disagreed and proposed amendment 14BA which was the eventual amendment that was voted on. It reads as follows:</p>
  
  <blockquote><b><p>moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B, Amendment No. 14BA:</p>
  
  <p>14BALeave out subsection (1) and insertâ</p>
  
  <p>"(1) In considering whether to issue any guidance or other circular to the governing bodies or head teachers of maintained schools in the exercise of functions relating to education, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall have regard toâ</p>
  
  <p>(a) the desirability of providing information about good educational practice, while recognising the professional expertise of teachers,</p>
  
  <p>(b) the benefits that are expected to result from the issue of the guidance or other circular, and</p>
  
  <p>(c) the desirability of avoidingâ</p>
  
  <p>(i) the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or head teachers, and</p>
  
  <p>(ii) the imposition of excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies or head teachers."<a href="#footnote-2"><sup>[2]</sup></a></p></b></blockquote>
  
  <p>In the debate Baroness Blatch explained why the Tories wanted a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to limit regulation and guidance to governing bodies and teachers as follows:</p>
  
  <blockquote><b>The most frequent reason given by most teachers leaving the profession is the sameâtoo much bureaucracy, too much interference and too many government initiatives.<a href="#footnote-3"><sup>[3]</sup></a></b></blockquote> 
  
  <p>However, Baroness Ashton thought the amendment proposed by the Conservatives might increase the level of prescription that schools face:</p>
  
  <blockquote><b>Through this Bill we have set out to deregulate. We have been absolutely clear about saying that we believe that education legislation is over-prescriptive and that the level of regulation is too great. And in a very consistent way, we have set out in this Bill to begin to change that. The way we have done it is this. We have taken a piece of over-prescriptive primary legislation and repealed it, but taken a power to make secondary legislation. We have made clear that the regulations we will make will be significantly less prescriptive than the primary legislation that has gone before. But the crucial point is that if we cannot make regulations, we cannot deregulate.<a href="#footnote-4"><sup>[4]</sup></a></blockquote></b>
  
  <i><ul><li><p id="footnote-1">[1] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-03a.257.1">Baroness Blatch,</a> House of Lords, 3 July 2002</li></p>
  
  <li><p id="footnote-2">[2] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-23a.245.0">Baroness Ashton of Upholland,</a> House of Lords, 23 July 2002</li></p>
  
  <li><p id="footnote-3">[3] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-23a.243.1">Baroness Blatch,</a> House of Lords, 23 July 2002</li></p>
  
  <li><p id="footnote-4">[4] <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2002-07-23a.240.0">Baroness Ashton of Upholland,</a> House of Lords, 23 July 2002</li></p></ul></i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  