Basis for the terminology used in the draft Order

15.  Matters 5.12 to 5.14 deal with further education and are relevant to the proposed Order in that they cover similar although not identical subject matter and employ terminology that is likewise similar but not identical. Essentially, Matter 5.12 covers the conduct and functions of further education institutions, their property rights and liabilities, and their governance and staff. Matter 5.13 allows for securing collaboration between them and other bodies with education and training functions, and for the establishment of bodies to support such collaboration. Matter 5.14 is concerned with the provision of financial resources for further education. The terminology used in this proposed Order has been chosen with the aim of achieving consistency with Matters 5.12 to 5.14. However, that does not necessarily make other considerations such as self-consistency and clarity unimportant, and we had those in mind too when we examined the appropriateness of the language used in the draft.

Proposed Matter 5.2A: Governance and conduct

16.  As noted in the Explanatory Memorandum (which also sets out the relevant statutory sections),[8] current primary legislation on governing bodies deals with topics including:

• the constitution, functions and membership of governing bodies;
• the means by which they may collaborate or federate, including collaboration with further education institutions;
• the governing body's responsibility for the conduct of the school and to promote high standards.

17.  The Explanatory Memorandum refers to studies recently commissioned by the National Assembly Government on school governance. Those studies found that the effectiveness of governing bodies is variable and that availability and take-up of training is uneven.[9] The report by the Assembly's Enterprise and Learning Committee in July 2009, entitled The Role of School Governors, highlighted the need for improvements in governance and in training of governors. The recommendations of that report were almost all accepted or accepted in principle in September 2009 by the then Minister for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, Jane Hutt AM. Specific recommendations included:

• governor participation in shared training sessions with school staff;
• provision of guidance to governing bodies on how to engage more effectively with local communities;
• improved communication on what governors should be doing; and
• consideration of compulsory training, particularly where governing bodies are not meeting statutory obligations.

18.  Improving governance is important if we are to achieve advances in education. Recent research has linked certain models of governing body—from the merely deliberative to those with a more executive function—to performance outcomes. It appears that the more "involved" governing bodies, and those that hold their staff to account, are more likely to be associated with better school performance.[10]

19.  The proposed Order would allow the Assembly to legislate on the constitution and membership of governing bodies; in other words for the decision-making structures of schools and the quality of their decision making.[11] The Explanatory Memorandum states that "[t]he Assembly could pass legislation in relation to the creation (or abolition) of, and the allocation of functions amongst, bodies responsible for school governance."[12] This was elaborated on in the 20 October 2009 plenary statement by the then Minister when she observed that the Welsh Assembly Government already has executive powers in some aspects of school governance, but that they are limited and rigid because they are circumscribed by the existing legal framework on governance as set out in Part 3 of the Education Act 2002. She explained that the Locally Managed School Model does not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for governance arrangements to support policy intentions and initiatives.

20.  In its first evidence session, with the then Assembly Minister, the Assembly Committee asked why legislative competence is needed. They asked what cannot currently be done that the proposed Order would permit. The Minister responded as follows:

The Education Act 2002 restricts us to a particular model of governance, and the regulation-making powers that it provides are limited to that model. Competence would allow the National Assembly for Wales to make substantial changes to how school governance works. For example, it could put more emphasis in the law on particular aspects of governance or how governing bodies go about their work, or put in place other models of governance.

21.  A number of witnesses who appeared before the Assembly Committee supported the case for using legislation to support improvements in the area. However, in written evidence to the Assembly Committee, both the NASUWT and the educational charity SNAP Cymru were concerned about possible removal of responsibility from local authorities. Estyn articulated a further concern, held by some others, by saying that "in any…legislative changes being considered, it will be important that the changes do not dilute the important link governors have between schools and their local communities."[13]

22.  When we asked the Assembly Minister whether there were plans to transfer powers to or from local authorities, he explained that this was not the underlying purpose behind transfer of competence, but that the aim is to facilitate the creation of frameworks of governance that permit collaboration. He emphasised that there are no proposals, at least at this stage, that would contradict the notion of keeping close accountability links between governing bodies and those who rely on them.[14]

23.  Having considered the evidence, we are convinced that legislative Measures in the area of school governance will enable policy objectives to be pursued more effectively and robustly. We are satisfied that it is right to grant legislative powers in relation to school governance. We note the concerns of a number of parties that certain new governance models might diminish accountability and create distance between governing bodies and their parents and/or students. The National Assembly will need to design Measures in ways that avoid such pitfalls.

THE ISSUE OF STAFFING AND FUNDING

24.  The Explanatory Memorandum states rather elliptically that "substantive changes to school finance and school staffing are not within the competence that would be created by this LCO. If new governance arrangements were created under the LCO, some linked changes to the persons or bodies with functions relating to staffing and finance would be required and so, to that extent, staffing and finance matters are within competence."[15] Not surprisingly, this opaque language caused confusion as to whether the proposed Order does or does not cover only peripheral staffing and funding areas.

25.  Equally important was the point made in evidence to the Assembly Committee that governance inevitably involves an element of decision making in relation to staffing and funding, for example in the appointment and dismissal of individual staff members and in the setting of school budgets. Indeed a natural reading of "governance" would include those areas, and that would be in conflict with what is said in the Explanatory Memorandum. The Head of the School Governance and School Revenue Branch of the Welsh Assembly Government agreed in the 12 November Assembly Committee evidence session that "[I]t is a very complicated area, and it is quite natural to think that staffing and funding would be part of governance, because governing bodies have functions in respect of those, and it is an important part of their work."

26.  In her plenary statement to the Assembly on 20 October 2009, the then Welsh Assembly Minister, Jane Hutt AM, explained that certain staffing functions such as teachers' pay and conditions are not devolved to Wales. It was these, rather than the more on the ground governors' decisions on staffing and funding, that were intended to be outside the scope of the Order, she said. Following the evidence session on 12 November, her letter of 25 November to the Chair of the Assembly Committee reiterated that position.[16] The letter pointed out that "governing bodies do have some flexibility and discretion to determine specific pay ranges for their school and head teacher within the agreed framework, but they cannot amend or alter the framework or work outside it."

27.  The pay "framework" referred to here is:

• Pay and allowances for Head Teachers, Leadership Groups, teachers and classroom assistants;
• Conditions of Employment for all heads, deputies, assistant heads and teaching staff; and
• Framework of professional standards. [17]

28.  The difficulty around the scope of "governance" has arisen because of a conflict between perceptions of what governors do and attempts to build the language and intention of 5.2A around that used in the Field of education at the present time. Matter 5.12, which covers governance in further education, includes references to "staff", while Matter 5.14 expressly deals with funding of further education institutions. The argument is that proposed Matter 5.2A successfully excludes teachers' pay and conditions because of the absence of certain language that is employed elsewhere in the Field. The problem is that "governance" might still be argued to include staffing and funding notwithstanding that absence. We consider that the proposed Matter can be made much clearer while staying within the constraints of existing language.

29.  In our oral evidence session we asked why the proposed Order could not be made clearer on the question of staffing and funding by setting out the precise exclusions and the precise matters within scope. Our point was that, otherwise, the Order would risk having to be construed by reference to extrinsic statements such as the 25 November 2009 letter. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary agreed that the language could be clearer. The Welsh Assembly Minister agreed that the Explanatory Memorandum could be amended to include the explanation set out in the 25 November letter. We consider that the letter is clear, and that its incorporation into the Explanatory Memorandum might achieve some de facto clarification of what is intended. However, we believe it would be far more satisfactory for Matter 5.2A to be amended so that its intended inclusions and exclusions are apparent without a need for interpretation or exegesis.

30.  We recommend that Matter 5.2A be amended so that it is clear on its own terms as to the exclusion of teachers' pay and conditions and the inclusion of those staffing and funding matters that are a normal function of governors. An absence of language to cover appropriate "staffing" as well as school budgeting matters would leave the proposed Order defective. It would be a second-best solution for the Explanatory Memorandum to include the explanation given in the letter dated 25 November from Jane Hutt AM to the Chair of Assembly Legislation Committee No. 4.

31.  We recommend that future drafting of Matters should be self-standing, and clear in its own terms as well as taking account of the constraints of terminology used elsewhere in the Field or in other legislation.

32.  The Assembly Committee heard arguments both for and against the inclusion of teachers' pay and conditions as a devolved matter. The Association of School and College Leaders Cymru observed that the existence of a cross-boundary labour market in teachers—particularly in the eastern parts of Wales—can present a risk to recruitment of best-quality staff. This can be a two-way process, but in general it is safe to assume that the removal of a threshold—essentially a minimum standard—would be bad for Wales. Union bodies expressed similar reservations, and Governors Wales also favoured leaving pay and conditions out of the equation. Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru (UCAC, the National Union of Teachers for Wales), favoured a wholesale transfer of powers including in relation to pay and conditions but this appeared to be argued on the basis of principle rather than for specific benefits.

School change of status

33.  Matters 5.1 and 5.2 already grant the Assembly legislative competence with respect to provision about categories of maintained schools, the establishment and discontinuance of schools maintained by local authorities, and their change from one category to another. Nevertheless, the Assembly Committee heard fears that Measures made under the proposed Order might in some way inhibit the ability of a school to apply for change of status. In her statement to the Assembly on 20 October 2009, the then Minister Jane Hutt AM confirmed that the Matters in the proposed Order do not extend to granting competence to repeal the existing statutory provisions that allow governing bodies to apply for foundation status, and that was followed on 25 November 2009 by a letter from her to the Chair of Assembly Legislation Committee No. 4[18] which sought to clarify that there is already competence in the area of establishment and discontinuance of schools or their change from one category to another.

34.  We asked both the Assembly Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whether the draft Order could allow for changes in relation to a school's right to alter its status, for instance, by diminishing the powers of governors. We also asked about concerns raised before the Assembly—in the light of the Explanatory Memorandum's mention of surplus capacity[19]—about whether existing powers under Matter 5.2 or new powers under the proposed Order could be used to close schools with overcapacity. Both Ministers confirmed that the National Assembly for Wales already has power to legislate in relation to changes of status. They told us that the draft Order does not add to or alter those powers. We are content with that explanation. In addition, the Assembly Minister referred us to a statement concerning procedure on school closures which is reproduced with the evidence from our inquiry.

35.  Given that the Assembly already has powers over school establishment, change of status and closure we are satisfied that the proposed Order does not raise additional concerns in these areas.

Proposed Matter 5.2 B: Collaboration

36.  The Explanatory Memorandum sets out the Assembly Government's commitment to 14-19 Learning Pathways as a Wales-wide initiative in which all learners aged 14 to 19 will take part, the intention being to provide parity between vocational and academic learning.[20] It explains that the success of 14-19 Learning Pathways very much depends on schools, further education institutions and other learning providers working together, with learners sometimes attending several establishments, and refers to the need for collaboration stressed by the Webb Review on the mission and purpose of further education in Wales [21] for delivery of post-14 learning. We note that the Webb Review also highlighted the value of potential new governance arrangements between schools and further education institutions.

37.  The Assembly Government's Skills that Work for Wales strategy has likewise identified the need to change patterns of collaboration among education providers in the post-11-year-old age group.[22] In her plenary statement of 20 October 2009, Jane Hutt AM cited the example of collaboration between Coleg Menai and all secondary schools in Ynys Môn in delivering a BTEC engineering certificate. She also referred to the exemplary best practice of collaboration between a cluster of primary schools: Dewi Sant, Croesatti, Llanfairpwll, Penybryn and Cae Top. Nevertheless, in the 12 November Assembly evidence session she pointed to the need for a "legal stimulus to ensure that collaborative working takes place".

38.  The Explanatory Memorandum points out that proposed Matter 5.2B would complement existing Matter 5.13 on collaboration at the further education level, which similarly employs the term "securing collaboration" (rather than other more permissive language such as "facilitating", "procuring" or "enabling" collaboration). Evidence to us from Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru expressed some concern about the directive tone of the word "securing", and the UCAC witness to the Assembly Committee explained that UCAC objected to mechanisms requiring specific collaboration arrangements. The NASUWT was likewise concerned about the potentially coercive nature of the term "securing", although among other parties this particular issue did not appear to be high on their agenda.

39.  The main issue with respect to Matter 5.2B is whether voluntary collaboration would be more effective. There are also greater difficulties in securing collaboration in Wales compared with England, for reasons of geography and language. These concerns were expressed in evidence to the Assembly Committee from Cymdeithas Ysgolion Dros Addysg Gymraeg (CYDAG, the Association of Schools for Welsh-medium Education).

40.  As with changes to governance models, redefining and redistribution of functions have a potential to cause confusion. Issues that will need to be resolved are the identity of the employer, how to allocate resources and whether collaborative arrangements change the link between school and community.

41.  In evidence to the Assembly Committee, the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru expressed concern that transfers of responsibility could divert those concerned into complex new sets of rules (demarcating functions) that nobody fully understands. This was a point elaborated on by the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru in oral evidence to the Assembly Committee, whose witness, the Chair of the Secondary School Committee said:

There are stringent divisions of responsibilities between governing bodies and headteachers, as some can act alone while others can be devolved to committees and so on. We would have to be most careful to ensure that that is written into legislation in precise terms so that we are not diverted into a complex new set of rules that nobody fully understands and which will have unforeseen consequences.[23]

42.  In her second evidence session with the Assembly Committee, on 10 December 2009, the then Minister was sanguine about these difficulties, preferring to focus instead on the opportunities that collaboration could present, despite any potential obstacles. We asked the present Assembly Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to give their perspective. The Assembly Minister said that, while a voluntary approach would be ideal, schools have not yet taken advantage of the existing provisions permitting collaboration, and that the purpose behind the proposal was to allow for a legislative backstop while maintaining the preference for voluntary co-operation. He also indicated that there would be wide consultation on any proposed Measures. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary reiterated this perspective, expressing the intention as one of "not insistence, but [a] kind of firm direction."[24]

43.  We note the confirmation given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the effect that Matter 5.2B is deliberately intended to be of wide scope in the classes of institutions it covers and that it could cover collaboration between education authorities. We consider that to be appropriate, given the proviso that collaborating persons and bodies should have functions relating to maintained schools.

44.  In light of the policy intention of legislating to achieve greater collaboration than is occurring voluntarily, and to connect a wider set of bodies than merely schools, as currently permitted in legislation, we are satisfied that that there is justification for the broad scope of proposed Matter 5.2B.

45.  We note the Assembly Minister's confirmation that the proposed Order will give competence in relation to federation, as well as collaboration. The Education Act 2002 treats federation and collaboration under different sections (24 and 25, and 26 respectively). Collaboration enables the governing bodies of two or more maintained schools to arrange for their affairs to be discharged jointly or by a joint committee. Federation, on the other hand, results in the governance of two or more maintained schools being placed in the hands of a single governing body.

46.  There are currently proposals to make regulations for Wales (using existing powers under section 24 of the Education Act 2002) to permit federation of maintained school governing bodies. These are due to be made and come into force in early Spring 2010. The regulations will enable schools to work together closely by permitting them to federate under a single governing body. The constitution and membership of such single governing bodies would apparently be based on the current model set out in existing legislation.

47.  We asked whether there is sufficient clarity about what is intended, particularly given that draft regulations on federation are currently being promulgated under existing powers. We had noted comments in the Assembly Enterprise and Learning Committee's report The Role of School Governors to the effect that:

We feel that there are all sorts of governance issues associated with consortia working that have yet to be teased out and the specific role of governors in the process of federating both governing bodies and schools is not clear. We recommend that the Welsh Government clarify the role of school governing bodies in the federation process and ensure that governors are supported in using their powers positively within the new regulatory framework.[25]

The Assembly Government indicated that clarification would be premature at that point, perhaps because the new regulations were still at the formative stage.

48.  The Assembly Minister agreed that there are issues to be teased out but, referring to the guidance provided to teachers and governors, took the view that the position is reasonably clear. However, providing guidance is a different matter from providing an adequate explanation of change. While the existing guidance provides an indication of who does what under the current position, we question whether there is sufficient transparency around the interaction between currently proposed changes and those that are likely to emerge from the LCO. In particular, it is not clear how any future Measures relating to federation will build on or alter the regulations currently proposed under existing powers.

49.  We are satisfied that the Welsh Assembly Government has made a valid and strong case for having the power through legislation to require collaboration. We note that Ministers stressed a preference for voluntary arrangements and we endorse that approach. However, as Measures and regulations are proposed and taken forward, their direction, purpose and interrelation will need to be clearly explained to those who will be affected. The pace of change in this area could leave those involved in a position of uncertainty unless there is such a high degree of clarity.

Proposed Matters 5.2A and 5.2C: Training and training bodies

50.  The Education Act 2002 includes a requirement for local authorities to provide information and training for governors "as they see fit" in order to enable them to discharge their functions. Proposed Matter 5.2A would allow the Assembly to legislate to require higher standards of training of governors and thereby improve the quality of decision making.[26]

51.  Subject to questions of resource, we consider that improving the availability of training to governors is a useful and important step forward. But that is not the whole story. Care needs to be taken—particularly in respect of existing governors—because the contribution of governors as volunteers is not necessarily recognised in "status" terms. Governors already feel they have huge responsibilities and take on a substantial time commitment. Compulsory training is attractive and it appears to be a good idea, but it might reduce the attractiveness of the governor role and lead to a reduction in volunteer numbers.[27] Careful consideration and research on possible impacts will therefore be needed before proceeding with compulsory training.

52.  This view was supported by the witness appearing for Cymdeithas Ysgolion Dros Addysg Gymraeg (CYDAG, the Association of Schools for Welsh-medium Education) before the Assembly Committee in the oral evidence session of 3 December 2009. He said:

A great deal of work needs to be undertaken if our governing bodies…in Wales are to understand what is being proposed. They need to understand the need for this, and not be blindly compelled to do it. They need to be led by explaining the importance of their role and therefore how important it is that they take advantage of the training. There should be no mention of compelling them to attend training because that has a different psychological impact. That must be discussed in an exceptionally sensitive, education way over a significant period. It will not develop overnight because they are not used to it.

53.  On the other hand, a witness from Governors Wales made the case in oral evidence to the Assembly Committee for a greater element of compulsory training given the rapidity with which change is taking place in schools. He said: "The school effectiveness framework is on our doorstep, yet the number of times that I have talked to governors who know little about it is scary. Anything that gives them a push by saying, 'This is important, and you must do it', will be useful." Similarly, a witness from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council took the view that a Measure flowing from the draft Order would allow the development of a much more consistent approach to training of governors across Wales.

54.  The Welsh Assembly Government has made a strong case for using legislation to improve the provision of training to governors. Given that the training processes inevitably make time demands on those being trained, any Measure that would make training compulsory will need to be sensitive to the voluntary nature of governorship. Ideally, enhanced training would be made sufficiently attractive that compulsion would not be an issue. This will be a matter for the Assembly to consider.

55.  The purpose of Matter 5.2C is principally to enable the creation of bodies to support enhanced training efforts. However, "bodies" are not defined. In evidence to the Assembly Committee on 10 December on the question of what "bodies" would be covered, the then Minister said:

It is difficult to be specific, because that detail will emerge with any future Measure, which would, of course, be subject to scrutiny. I have been thinking about how to clarify this, and when we are talking about types of bodies, that could be a not-for-profit body, or a charitable body; it would have a legal entity, but let us think about these bodies in terms of collaboration and sharing services…The major point to get over…is that this is only in order to facilitate and improve the governance arrangements for a school and give schools and governing bodies more opportunities in terms of perhaps creating a body that can serve their needs.

56.  We note that clarification from the then Minister in light of the fears, strongly expressed by some union bodies, that the proposed Order is about removing power from local authorities and opening up services to greater competition and private-sector input "under a smokescreen of collaboration". The precise nature of any new body will be a matter for consultation at the time that proposals for a Measure are brought to the Assembly. We draw these concerns to the attention of the Welsh Assembly Government and urge that they be addressed specifically when a Measure is proposed.

57.  Turning to the substantive issue of whether new bodies should be created, in evidence to the Assembly Committee, the Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders Cymru said:

We have lost a lot of the specialist knowledge about educational law and the procedures that apply to schools. If this matter enables local education authorities to delegate certain functions to a regional body, which allows the re-establishment of a more cost-effective but high-quality support service, there will be some benefit in it.

He added:

We would have concerns if this is about creating yet another tier of governance. When you pour the funding in at the top, each layer of management or governance that it goes through takes out its stake for administration, which means that less and less gets to the bottom—that is, to the schools. That is where our concern would be.

58.  In written evidence to the inquiry by the Assembly Committee, Governors Wales pointed to the need to address resource and capacity issues at national and local level if the recommendations in the Enterprise and Learning Committee's The Role of School Governors report are to implemented under the draft Order. Furthermore, in its oral evidence session with the Assembly Committee, the Welsh Local Government Association said that it would not want to see any additional bureaucracy or the creation of needless administrative burdens.

59.  There is evidence in favour of enhancing support for those engaged in education through creating bodies to provide services to them. We consider that the Assembly Government has made a valid and strong case for the transfer of legislative powers in this area, although we note the need for Ministers to address the concerns of a number of parties to be assured that such bodies do not result in additional bureaucracy. We note the assurance given by Ministers that any implementing Measures will be subjected to impact assessment to examine potential costs and we underline the view previously expressed by this Committee that such assessments need to be robust and of high and challenging quality in order to establish a sound reputation for "Welsh legislation".[28]

60.  A number of other drafting issues arise in relation to proposed Matter 5.2C. Although part of the provision is limited to maintained schools, there is no limitation to sub-paragraph (i) to education and training in maintained schools. As a result it could include, for instance, provision of services to further education institutions. It seems that this is the intention, which appears to us to be sensible, but that intention should be spelled out clearly and explicitly in the Explanatory Memorandum. [29]

61.  We note that proposed Matter 5.2C sub-paragraph (i) is not restricted to education and training in maintained schools. We are content that this will permit provision of services to other institutions provided this is made clear and explicit in the Explanatory Memorandum and in any final Order.

62.  Secondly, 5.2C(a)(ii) is not confined to functions in support of education and training. When asked about this, both the Assembly Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that, because the provision speaks of exercising functions on behalf of local education authorities, those functions must be education and training functions. We are not convinced. Local education authorities exercise a number of other executive functions that are ancillary to their main educational function, and the provision could therefore cover bodies performing such ancillary activities.

63.  We urge the Assembly Government to review the scope of Matter 5.2C in relation to non-education and non-training functions by considering whether other functions might unintentionally fall within it and whether additional limiting words should be added.

64.  Finally, the word "involvement" is not defined and is an unusual term to use in legislation. The word "participation" is more commonplace. This was raised by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers Cymru in written evidence to the Assembly Committee. The union expressed concern that lack of clarity in Matter 5.2C could permit the introduction of Measures that give excessively wide powers to the Executive. While we are satisfied that the intention is to cover bona fide involvement, we suggest that the more usual word "participation" could be used. Indeed, when questioned on the point, both Ministers explained involvement in terms of participation.

65.  We recommend that the Assembly Government reconsider the language used in 5.2C(b) to ensure that it does not unintentionally cover activities outside the intended scope of the Matter.

9   Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 15 Back

10   See Farrell, C.M., 'Governance in the Public Sector - the Involvement of the Board', Public Administration, 2005, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 89-110 and Ranson, S., C. Farrell, N. Peim and P. Smith, 'Does Governance Matter for School Improvement?', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2005, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 305-325 Back

11   See Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 26 Back

12   Ibid. Back

13   See Estyn evidence to Legislation Committee No. 4, paragraph 11 Back

14   Q 7. See also Q 20. Back

15   Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 26 Back

16   A copy of the letter is reproduced at Ev 15 Back

17   Ibid.  Back

18   Already referred to in paragraph 26; see Ev 15 Back

19   See Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 12 Back

20   Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 11 Back

21   http://www.lluk.org/documents/promise-performance-rev2-e.pdf Back

22   Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 13 Back

23   See 26 November Assembly Committee evidence session at paragraph 14 Back

24   Q 37 Back

25   See recommendation 17 Back

26   See Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 26 Back

27   Ranson et al., op. cit. Back

28   Q 44 Back

29   Qq 22 and 41, and see also Explanatory Memorandum paragraph 28 Back