Guidance Question 1

Please indicate your overall view on the guidance on the new governing body procedures for clerks, chairs, LEAs and other interested parties.


	Very Helpful	X	Helpful	Not very Helpful	Not Sure


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
We welcome the new consistency between the draft Regulations and guidance in the names of office holders. Many of our governing bodies will welcome the move to the terms "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" We are concerned that a number of key long-standing safeguards for the trustees of voluntary schools are missing from the proposals. We had responded to the consultation on the constitution on governing bodies on the assumption that these safeguards would be retained. If they are not to be, then the issue of the adequacy of the foundation majority surfaces again.

Part 2: appointment, function and removal of officers Question 2 (See Part 2)

Please indicate your view on the proposal that governing bodies should have the flexibility to set the chair and vice chair’s term of office between one and four years (as set out in paragraph 2.3 of the guidance).


	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
We consider that the arrangements introduced in 1999 for the annual election of chairman were settling in well. Governing bodies are understandably reluctant to use the power to remove a chairman. It is a much more dignified exit for a chairman simply not to be re-elected. The current provisions are too elaborate and not well drafted, but the opportunity to call for nominations and elect annually is generally healthy. If, however, the regulations proceed in the way suggested, I draw your attention to the lack of a "default" provision for the term of office. If this is the outcome, we suggest that the regulations should provide for the term of office to be one year, unless the governing body determines a longer term up to four years.

Question 3 (See Part 2)

Please indicate your view on the proposal that governing bodies must appoint a clerk to each committee it sets up (as set out in paragraph 2.7 of the guidance).


	X	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	Do not support


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
We welcome this proposal

Part 4: meetings and proceedings Question 4 (See Part 3)

Please indicate your view on the proposal that the single quorum for all governing body meetings must be one half of the complete membership (as set out in paragraph 3.3 of the guidance).


	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
The higher quorum, in voluntary schools, has been part of the safeguarding of the foundation majority and the interests of the trustees. We disagree with its disappearance. If this is to be the case, it is essential that this is coupled with a compensatory increase to the majority of foundation governors. We doubt whether that would be acceptable to the government.

Question 5 (See Part 3)

Please indicate your view on the proposal that governing bodies can vote to suspend a governor on prescribed grounds for a limited period (as set out in paragraph 3.7 of the guidance).


	Strongly support	Support	X	Support in part	Do not support


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
We support the need for some mechanism in respect of "unremovable" categiories of governor. However, we are completely opposed to this power being exercised by the governing body over founation governors. We are unaware of any example where the appointer's existing power of removal has proved inadequate. This power would negate the foundation majority, by effectively removing a governor without creating a vacancy. It should not be applied to foundation governors. If it is, there needs to be some safeguards, such as the power to appoint a replcacement to act during the suspension and the power for the appointer to override the suspension if it is used inappropriately.

Part 4: committees of governing bodies Question 6 (See part 4)

Please indicate your view on the proposal that governing bodies can establish committees as set out in paragraph 4.1 of the guidance.


	Strongly support	Support	Support in part	X	Do not support


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
We are very worried about the proposals to allow the governing body to delegate all functions to a committee of two people. We do not think the power to establish committees should be delegable. We also disagree that matters relating to the dicscontinuance and the change of character of the school should be delegable to a committee of two with no safeguard for the rights of foundation governors. We are also concerned about the delegation of essential characteristics of the school, such as admissions and collective worship. We are concerned about the role to be played by "associate members" under the proposals. Voluntary aided schools do not have co-opted governors in order to preserve the foundation majority. Yet the proposals seem to allow a governing body to get around this by delgating all functions to a committee consisting of the governors plus "associate members". Is that what is envisaged?

GENERAL We would welcome your view as to whether we should be less prescriptive in certain areas of the draft regulations and guidance than we are currently proposing. In particular we would like to know your views on the following questions: Question 7 (See part 3)

Should we deregulate the requirement that governing bodies must hold at least three meetings in a school year (as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the guidance), so that governing bodies decide how often they need to meet?

	Yes	X	No	Not Sure


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
The requirement for a full governing body meeting once a term is a useful prescription to prevent the governing body being sidelined by a ruling clique.

Question 8 (See Parts 3 and 4)

Should we deregulate the requirement that at least seven days written notice must be given for meetings and committees, circulation of the agenda and papers (as set out in paragraphs 3.2.2 and 4.3 of the guidance), so that these matters are decided by the governing body?


	Yes	X	No	Not Sure


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
The power of the Chair to reduce the time is sufficient to cope with exceptional circumstances.

Question 9 (See Part 4)

Should we deregulate the provision that prescribes the voting arrangements for governing body committees (as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the guidance), so that a governing body decides this?

	Yes	No	X	Not Sure


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
Only if it allows governing bodies to build in more safeguards for the foundation majority. We would oppose any removal of the very minimal safeguards already contained in the proposals.

Question 10 (See Part 4)

Should we deregulate the provision that prescribes the quorum for governing body committees (as set out in paragraph 4.4 of the guidance), so that a governing body decides the quorum for its committees?


	Yes	No	X	Not Sure


We would welcome your comments on the proposal or suggestions for improvement.
As above, we consider the proposal to set out an absolute minimum, which should be retained, but we see no reason why governing bodies should not be allowed to impose higher requirements as a safeguard, if they wish.

Question 11

It would be helpful to know if you think there are any other provisions where we can be less prescriptive and let governing bodies decide. We would welcome any suggestions.

We would not wish the regulations to be any less prescriptive.

General Comments

Please use this space for any general comments that you may have, comments on the layout of this consultation would also be welcomed.

Further comments on specific items:

Reg 11 (Clerks) We understand the Department's desire to standardise procedures across schools, but sometimes it may not be possible. The proposed reg. 11(3) cannot apply to voluntary aided schools. In the absence of a delegated budget the regulations can impose restrictions on the appointment or dismissal of a clerk without the LEAs consent, and can impose an LEA direction on the governing body to dismiss a clerk, but the LEA cannot itself have the power to appoint or dismiss a clerk in a voluntary aided school. See 1999 Regs 25(4), which dates back to 1944. We make no comment on the position in other schools.

Regs 15 and 22 (availability of papers). We regard the proposal to drop the requirement for the "official" draft minutes of meetings to be in the public domain to be a retrograde step. We consider the wider public interest is better served with the more open arrangements described in the 1999 Regs 40 and 55. What is the reason for this proposal?

Schedule. We are alarmed at the proposal to drop the requirement that a person should not be involved in the appointment of his or her successor. We have had recent experience of situations where this regulation has prevented an incumbent exercising an unhealthy influence in this process. We strongly wish this provision to be retained. The diocese is willing to give more details on this (or any other aspect) of our response.

Layout of Consultation

We wonder whether some aspects of the consultation could be less prescriptive. For instance, they layout and content of the questions 7-11 could be taken to mean that you are not interested in hearing views (such as our own) that, quite legitimately, consider that in certain respects the regulations should be more prescriptive than proposed. We are sure that cannot be what was intended.

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge individual responses unless you tick the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply				X

Here at the Department for Education and Skills we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be alright if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?


		X	Yes		No


Code of Practice on written consultation

The following seven standards from the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on written consultation should be reproduced in all consultation documents. This is binding on Departments. Ministers’ reasons for any departures should be explained.

All UK national public consultations are required to conform to the following standards:

1.	Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left at each stage.

2.	It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.

3.	A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

4.	Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

5.	Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

6.	Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and the reasons for decisions finally taken.

7.	Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation.

Return completed forms to:						Gary Mead Consultation Unit Level 1, Area B Castle View House East Lane Runcorn WA7 2GJ

Note:	Use:	h	tab key, only to access input boxes;
		h	scroll bar to navigate the form;
		h	mouse to access hyperlink.

The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available on public request, individual consultation responses. This will extend to your comments unless you inform us that you wish them to remain confidential.

Please insert ‘X’ if you want us to keep your response confidential

Name	Paul Barber

Organisation (if applicable)				Archdiocese of Westminster

Address				Vaughan House 46 Francis Street London SW1P 1QN


If you have a query relating to the consultation process you can contact:

Telephone:	01928 794888
Fax:	01928 794311


Please insert ‘X’ in one of the following boxes that best describes you as a respondent.
	Support Staff Member			Teacher

	Governor			Headteacher

	LEA officer		X	Diocesan Body

	National Organisation

	Other (please specify)	4