Education Bill [Lords] |
|
Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman suggests a hypothetical situation. I refer him to what I said a few moments earlier: clearly, we want to ensure that a local solution is found. Any responsible LEA working with its schools and the community would want to come forward with a solution. As hon. Members have explained, these are often difficult situations. In extremis, as I said before, the Secretary of State can intervene to bring forward our proposals, which would then be decided by the local schools organisation committee. It is difficult to give a clear answer to a hypothetical situation, and we would have to consider each case on its merits. As I said, the powers have not been used so far, and usually a solution is found. The fact that the Secretary of State has that power is usually good enough to ensure some movement in such difficult circumstances. We think that that is the right approach to these problems, and we do not accept that there should be a free-for-all with schools able to take decisions in complete isolation from the local context of other schools and the LEA. Question put and agreed to. Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 Closure of rural primary schools Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 37. Government new clause 17—Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school. Government amendment No. 31. Government amendment No. 34. Mr. Touhig: Clause 70, which I will invite Members on all sides to vote against when the question is put, is in the Bill following a joint Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment inserted on Third Reading in the other place. Although the protection that it offers is not, in our view, really necessary, since most of it was
The clause requires that before a rural primary school may be closed, parents and district, parish or community councils must be consulted, and the implications of closure for transport and the local community and alternatives to closure must be considered. Legal advice, particularly from parliamentary counsel, is that the amendment is technically flawed and should be recast. New clause 17, therefore, is a version of clause 70 that has been tweaked to make it legally more watertight and workable in practice. This version of the provisions has been accepted by the sponsors of clause 70 in the other place. I therefore commend it to the Committee. Question put and negatived. Clause 70 disagreed to. Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 12 School organisation: further amendments Amendment made: No. 37, in schedule 12, page 118, line 23, at end insert—
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to. Clause 72 Closure of special schools: statutory consultation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 18—Proposals relating to maintained special school. New clause 11—Closure of special schools: authorisation.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I would like to speak to new clause 18, and reassure hon. Members that we have accepted the intention of their lordships with regard to clause 72. However, as in the previous discussion on
The existing provision on consultation in the case of the closure of special schools is contained in section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as well as in guidance from the Department. The 1998 Act provides that when an LEA or a governing body intends to discontinue a maintained special school or make prescribed alterations to it, it must, before publishing any such proposals, consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate and, in doing so, must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. The proposed Government new clause does not affect the substance of the clause. The requirement for consultation in the clause has been inserted into section 31 of the 1998 Act, where the existing provisions regarding special schools lie. The wording of the new provisions has been made consistent with existing legislative provisions. The provision is restricted to community or foundation special schools in line with the existing wording of section 31 and, indeed, the new clause goes wider than what was introduced by their lordships on Third Reading in another place. It imposes a specific statutory requirement for the local authority or governing body to consult parents of registered pupils and the placing local authority not only prior to the publication of any proposal to discontinue the school, but prior to any proposal to make a prescribed alteration to the school. For example, that would cover a proposal to reduce the number of pupils in a school so dramatically that the school was no longer viable. The drafting makes separate provision in respect of proposals to establish new special schools, maintaining the status quo in this regard, and the wording in proposed new subsection (4A)(a) and (b) is not applicable to new schools. The new clause retains the requirement that in exercising the specific statutory duty to consult, regard must be had to guidance. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that we have made contact with their lordships through the usual channels, and they have said that they are happy with what we propose. I therefore trust that our new clause will have the support of Members on both sides of the Committee. New clause 11 is unnecessary, as the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals submitted by local authorities and the needs of the local community. The new clause would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process in which the existing safeguards are sufficient. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the often difficult, complex, and sometimes emotive issues that can surround the closure of special schools. However, we should also acknowledge that other closures, such as one or more special schools closing to move to a more modern facility, have secured local agreement. I hope that the Committee will agree that
In Wales, any disputed proposals are already referred to the National Assembly for its decision. The new clause would require even closure proposals that are accepted by parents and other local interested parties to be approved by the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. I reassure hon. Members that there is no question of local authorities being allowed to decide to close a special school arbitrarily. There is an established process for formal consultation before proposals are published. After publication, there is a two-month objection period, during which anyone can submit their formal objections to the authority. Any such statutory objections must be sent to the school organisation committee or, in Wales, to the National Assembly. A proposal put to a schools organisation committee may be implemented without reference to any other body if it is approved unanimously. If the committee cannot decide unanimously, the case will pass to the independent adjudicator for determination. Adjudicators look afresh at all cases that are referred to them. They consider each case on its merits and take account of the reasons for disagreement at local level. The adjudicator may reject the proposals, approve them without modification, or approve them with modification subject to consultation. Decisions taken by adjudicators are binding on all involved. They can be challenged only through judicial review. In Wales, the function of assessing disputed proposals on the balance of the arguments and of taking a decision that can be challenged only by judicial review rests with the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. Local authorities are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils and parents in their areas. That is why the Government deliberately strengthened local participation in decisions about patterns of provision. In England, they deliberately removed Ministers from direct involvement in those decisions. New clause 11 would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process. These are difficult, complex and important decisions. Consultation is vital, and concern in our communities is understandable when consultation does not run properly. The provisions that I have outlined are the best way of ensuring that decisions are taken at local level. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause. Angela Watkinson: This is a subject close to my heart. I predicted that the Minister would start by telling me that my new clause was unnecessary, but it seeks to halt the closure of special schools. Since 1997, there have been 70 closures of special schools, yet the number of children in mainstream schools with special needs has risen by 49 per cent. We know that about a quarter of all pupils will have some sort of special needs in part of their school career, if not
The new clause states:
It continues:
4.15 pmThe needs of special needs children are so diverse that it is impossible to generalise. Many children with special needs—with physical disabilities, health problems or other reasons that give rise to special educational needs—do well in mainstream schools. Others do not. Some children with special needs, no matter how sympathetically or well a mainstream school tries to cope with them, need the more protected environment of a special school, such as the smaller classes. Some of those whose needs are profound are unable to cope, so if they were placed in a mainstream school, it would place a huge burden on teaching staff and the time that they would need devoted to them would be detrimental to the other children. We need a balance. We need provision in mainstream schools for special needs students who can cope and with whom the school can cope. At the same time, the demand for places in separate special schools is growing. For example, in the whole of Greater London, only one special school caters for children who are profoundly deaf. Lots of deaf children cannot get a place in that school. It is just one example of a range of health problems that means that children need special school provision. Rather than see any more closures, I wish to see more special schools established where demand has been shown. The purpose of new clause 11 is to halt the closure of special schools and to give us cause to reconsider inclusion, because that is not right for every special needs child. It is right for some but not others. We need to keep the range available, so that children have the ideal provision to suit their purposes. Question put and negatived. Clause 72 disagreed to. Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 17 Proposals for discontinuing of rural primary school
Column Number: 78
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 18 Proposals relating to maintained special school
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 8 Abolition of School Organisation Committee
Column Number: 79
Brought up, and read the First time. Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would abolish the school organisation committees. That is because the Conservative party wishes new schools to be established wherever it can be demonstrated that there is parental demand, and new schools to be opened by faith groups, charities, voluntary organisations, the private sector or groups of parents. In those circumstances, the functions of the school organisation committees would be redundant. Dr. Pugh: I am fairly unenthusiastic about school organisation committees and adjudicators, but I am also fairly unenthusiastic about educational anarchy. Opening schools willy-nilly strikes me as not being the most prudent use of public resources. None the less, it is fair to say that, were the new clause to be passed, some hurried consequential amendments would have to be made in many of the clauses that we dealt with earlier. Since that work has not been done, I throw the ball back into the Minister’s court to respond. Derek Twigg: As the hon. Lady said, and we agree, the new clause would effectively abolish the decision makers for changes to schools in England—the local school organisation committees and schools adjudicators. It would remove the duty on local authorities to establish school organisation committees and the Secretary of State’s power to appoint school adjudicators. In passing, I note that adjudicators decide cases of contentious admissions arrangements that are referred to them, as well as deciding school organisation issues. The new clause would, therefore, disadvantage parties with an interest in admissions in the area, including parents. In particular, it would no longer be possible to refer to the adjudicator objections to school admission arrangements as provided for in section 90 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. As hon. Members know, before the decision-making arrangements were introduced by the 1998 Act, decisions on statutory proposals were commonly taken by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. We took the view that such decisions should be made at local level by the key stakeholders who understand local issues and are able to take a balanced view of the competing arguments. That would also secure local ownership of the important decisions that affect the local community. That local knowledge and the ability to balance competing arguments would be important when it came to deciding between a number of different proposals. The constitution of the school organisation committee was carefully designed to give equal representation to all the local stakeholders—the local authority, which has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places, schools themselves,
We owe it to our children to do our best to ensure that the school system delivers equity and quality for all. The system that has been devised offers a means of achieving that. There is no evidence of a clamour for change, although we are not complacent and will continue to monitor arrangements, taking account of the extent to which they deliver good outcomes for local communities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that some such arrangements are necessary and that it is simply not practical for schools to be set up without proper consideration of their viability and the educational and social needs of an area. Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister therefore wish to retain the surplus places rule, which prevents popular schools from expanding or new ones setting up because there is sufficient capacity in the area as a whole? Derek Twigg: That rule does not exist any more. The Bill enables popular schools to expand. We are keen on that policy. Hon. Members will be aware that, in the contestability arrangements for new secondary schools, we are proposing to extend delegation further to ensure that decisions that, under the present arrangements, are taken by the Secretary of State will be taken by the local school organisation committee or, in some circumstances, the schools adjudicator. The sections of the 1998 Act that require the publication of proposals for changes to schools will still remain. They require the proposals to be sent to the school organisation committee for a decision. Those proposing such changes could not decide on the proposals themselves. If the new clause were accepted, no alternative decision maker would exist. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my arguments on that point. Angela Watkinson: I do not altogether accept the Minister’s arguments but, as I am without troops, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 9 Community schools, foundation and voluntary aided schools
Brought up, and read the First time. Column Number: 81 Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would give more autonomy to individual schools if they decided to change their status. Mr. Stephen Twigg: The Government greatly value the historic and ongoing contribution that faith organisations make to the provision of publicly funded education in England and Wales. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches already provide thousands of state schools, but Jewish schools have existed in England on that basis for many years. Since 1997, other faith groups have taken the opportunity to set up schools in the state sector, including Muslims, Sikhs, the Greek Orthodox Church and Seventh Day Adventists. The new clause seeks to make it easier for community and foundation schools to become VA schools. Although not all VA schools have a religious character—that is, they are not all faith schools—the majority do, and of course not all schools with a religious character are VA schools. Foundation schools and voluntary controlled schools may also have a religious character. Under section 35 of the School Standards and Framework Act and schedule 8 to that Act, statutory proposals are required in order to change the character of a school from community or foundation to voluntary aided. Taken together with the Bill, it is not possible for a school that does not have a religious character to acquire a religious character in the course of changing category. To do so, proposals must be published to discontinue the school and to establish a new school with a religious character. I take this opportunity to explain why we believe the acquisition of a religious character is so fundamental a change that statutory procedures should apply. That belief is consistent with existing legislation. First, the acquisition of a religious character will have an impact on the management and conduct of the school itself. A voluntary aided school with a religious character provides religious education in accordance with the tenets of the faith rather than following the locally agreed syllabus. All schools with a religious character may appoint staff on the basis of faith, and they may give preference in their admission arrangements to members of a particular faith or denomination. Secondly, the acquisition of a religious character will have implications for the overall pattern of school provision in an area. If schools adopt admission arrangements that give preference to members of a particular faith, it will obviously have an impact on the exercise of parental choice throughout the area. We believe that all local people, and not only the parents of children who attend the school at a particular time, have a right to be consulted on such a significant change and for their voice to be heard. The statutory proposals process required under the 1998 Act guarantees that. I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that the existing procedures have prevented schools from acquiring a religious character. Column Number: 82 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 23 March 2005 |