Education and Inspections Bill |
|
Sarah Teather rose— Mr. Hayes: —and even, in some of its quarters, the minor party. Sarah Teather: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: No. 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘schools’, insert
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13. [Division No. 3] AYES Clappison, Mr. JamesDorries, Mrs. Nadine Evennett, Mr. David Gibb, Mr. Nick Hayes, Mr. John Leigh, Mr. Edward Mulholland, Greg Teather, Sarah Wilson, Mr. Rob
NOES Blackman-Woods, Dr. RobertaCawsey, Mr. Ian Chaytor, Mr. David Creagh, Mary Gwynne, Andrew Hillier, Meg Hope, Phil Moffatt, Laura Morden, Jessica Shaw, Jonathan Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) Smith, rh Jacqui Snelgrove, Anne Question accordingly negatived. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Duty to consider parental representations 1.30 pmMr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, after ‘time’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert
Column Number: 138 No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Mr. Gibb: I now realise that amendment No. 6 is a pale imitation of the one I should have tabled. It seeks to define the time within which the local authority has to respond to representations from parents. Some local authorities might simply sit on such representations for months on end and not bother to address parents’ concerns. Clause 3 is excellent and in many ways ought not to be necessary. In theory, it should not be necessary to prescribe that an elected body has the duty to respond to representations, but the reality is that some local authorities have become divorced from society and the concerns of parents, and that they have become nothing more than state-run bureaucracies. This clause is one of many in the Bill that one could describe as prescriptive and centralising. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) has said that the thrust of her party’s policies is against that, but the Bill is full of many similar clauses that do precisely that. This clause forces local authorities to respond within a reasonable time, and this amendment defines that reasonable time as two months. However, having read the illustrative guidance the Minister sent to all Committee members, I have learned that I and my hon. Friends were wet when we proposed that period of two months. Paragraph 23 states:
in other words, in half the time we propose in our amendment. I simply ask the Minister to agree to add to the clause a reference to that four-week period. If she were to do that, that would certainly receive our support on Report. Can she give a commitment now to introduce such an amendment? This shows how useful and valuable it is for the Government to issue such guidance alongside Bills. There are other useful statements in that illustrative guidance, and some of them are so useful that it would be helpful if they were added to the Bill. For instance, there is the issue of what constitutes a parental representation. Is that a letter, or a generalised complaint, or does it have to be a formal representation in some specified form? The guidance points out:
It also points out that
Mr. Chaytor: On the point about three in 10 parents not applying to their nearest school, presumably part of the reason for that is that their nearest school has selective admissions criteria of one kind or another that exclude their children. Does the hon. Gentleman
Mr. Gibb: No. This research says that they did not apply to their nearest school. [Interruption.] No, it does not imply that they applied and were turned down because of the criteria of the school, or because they had been interviewed and found not to be of sufficient calibre to go to the school. These parents decided, on the basis of what they learned and experienced of the school—for example, its results and the behaviour of its pupils as they arrived and left, and what they heard from parents of children who are already at the school, which is the best form of information about schools—that they did not wish even to apply to that school because they were not happy with it. The Chairman: Order. I am concerned that we are getting into a clause stand part debate. This is a narrow group of amendments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will return to the matters that they address. Mr. Gibb: I am happy to do that. I will turn from the point of the hon. Member for Bury, North, but I believe that this is about dissatisfaction with the schools. The guidance states:
That brings me on to amendment No. 7, which specifies that the representations should be considered
and that he or she should sign a document stating that they had “personally considered the representation” and that they had agreed with
Mr. Hayes: This seems to be absolutely vital because it engages politicians in a process that might otherwise be the preserve of officials. From your long experience in local government, Mr. Chope, you will know—as will other Committee members—that too often officials take decisions without the full understanding of politicians. This is an excellent clause in that respect, and I hope that my hon. Friend will make that case rather more fully. Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, many such decisions have been deliberately delegated by the full council to executive officials of councils; the amendment would prevent that from happening. It would mean that the decision must be considered personally by the cabinet member responsible for education. Such an approach ensures that representations are taken seriously by a senior elected official, not just dismissed out of hand by an official lower down the chain. The idea of having such documents signed comes from the United States. There are some decisions about which the US
I fully agree with that guidance, but it would be better to have it specified in the Bill. Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but in my local authority area of Hackney, the council is not also the education authority. We have the Learning Trust, which was set up as the education authority to deal with the day-to-day management of schools. There is a cabinet member for education, but her job, along with the elected mayor, is to set strategic direction of education in Hackney and to take parents’ representations about that issue. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that divide between the political direction and the existing structure for running schools should be broken? Mr. Gibb: Those matters are for locally elected people to decide, but my view is that too often in local authorities, decisions are not taken at the highest level. When that happens there is no mechanism for parental concerns to be reflected in the education strategy of their local authority. It is terribly important that it should do that because otherwise there would be no democratic method by which parents can express their concerns and see action taken. It is that lack of connection between parental concerns and political action that leads to people getting disillusioned with politics and the democratic process. They say, “What is the point of voting? It does not have any effect on the decisions that are taken that affect my life.” We have to ensure that we make that connection again between what people are concerned about and what happens. That is why I mentioned the proportion of parents who do not apply to their nearest school. That relates to dissatisfaction with the quality of the school more than anything else, rather than the school excluding applications from certain categories of children or parents. Amendments Nos. 11 and 8 deal with the issue of repetitious and frivolous representations. The Bill says that the local authority does not have to consider representations from parents that it considers frivolous or vexatious. The dictionary definition of frivolous refers to “trifling; not serious”, while the definition of vexatious refers to “causing annoyance or worry”. The legal case of the Attorney-General v. Barker in 2000 suggests that it may be reasonable to treat as vexatious a request that is designed to subject a public authority to inconvenience, harassment or expense. That could be an open door for a local authority to regard all representations by parents as frivolous because many parents understandably get very emotional about their children’s education. Such representations might easily be regarded by an unsympathetic official as vexatious. Column Number: 141 Mr. Hayes: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Like me, he knows that there are many good local councils and good local councillors, who give their time to the service of their communities. Is it not more the case that local authorities and parents who have a concern might find themselves in dispute? Without clarity in the Bill, we might see an unhappy tendency for cases to be challenged, for matters to go to court and for parents to become dissatisfied. Even when a local authority is doing its job dutifully, the lack of clarity in the Bill might lead to that sort of unhappy circumstance, which is not in anyone’s interest. Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point very well, and I fully agree. Amendment No. 11 insists that if the local authority takes the view that a particular representation is vexatious or frivolous, it has to set out its reasons. There is precedent for that approach in part 64 of the criminal procedure rules:
The judge has to write, saying why he regards the action as frivolous. The same approach should be taken in respect of local authorities that refuse to consider a parent’s representations. Paragraph 38 of the guidance gives a little bit of help:
The guidance says that it is good practice to reply to such a representation, even when the local authority believes that it is unreasonable to determine it. The amendment would also limit the exception for local authorities not being required to respond where the representation came from the same person, or was similar to a representation sent for a different purpose within the previous five years. I hope that that limitation will be too lax and the Minister will insist on two or three years, which would be welcome. In some ways, the guideline is better than my amendment, because it refers to “changes of circumstances” as sufficient reason to allow parental representations of a similar kind. Of course, that could be within a significantly shorter period than five years. The guidance also sets out some helpful expectations about the help that parents can receive from the local authority:
Column Number: 142 decision-making process. Mr. Hayes: That last point is vital. There will be many circumstances where an embryonic school will develop only if it has the sort of advice and support that my hon. Friend recommends. It is right that that provision is included in the Bill, but it needs to be given emphasis and teeth, because where parents and the community are seeking to develop a new school, they will desperately need such guidance if their ideas are to come to fruition. Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. If parents came forward with a representation that was not fully costed and did not have tax schedules or technical specifications, it could be regarded as frivolous. However, that would be wrong. Parents should not have to provide that level of detail; they should express their concern as consumers and users of local facilities. It is right that the guidance sets that out, but it would be nice if we had something of that kind in the Bill. According to the guidance:
That is welcome. The guidance also says:
Local authorities should assist parents with those sorts of things, including locating a site—perhaps one that it already owns, or even an existing school that is underperforming. That information is helpful and needs to be highlighted as much as possible for parents. Perhaps local authorities do not publicise the fact that they are going to offer such assistance to parents who are concerned, but they should. The guidance also sets out a useful complaints procedure:
I think that it means the 1996 Act—
That gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister to say something about the schools commissioner. The regulatory impact assessment mentions the commissioner at paragraph 1.17. It says:
So far as I can see, there is no reference to the schools commissioner in the Bill, yet the post features strongly in the guidance and in the regulatory impact assessment. Will the Minister explain the statutory basis for the commissioner? Will he or she operate under existing law, or will he or she simply be an appointed civil servant in the Department for Education and Skills? Is the commissioner a job description within her Department rather than a new officer with duties to Parliament? Column Number: 143 1.45 pmThe amendments would significantly strengthen the Bill. They operate in the same direction as those provisions that the Government seek to deliver. The amendments would encourage if not force local authorities to take representations from parents seriously, to respond rapidly to them and not to get into the mindset of dismissing such representations as frivolous or vexatious, just because they happened to be inconvenient to local authorities in the conduct of their affairs. We have too many underperforming schools. Some 23 per cent. of schools are underperforming. It is less than but similar to the percentage of parents who do not apply to their local school. That is no coincidence; the two are related. I hope that the Bill will deal with that. The amendments would strengthen rather than weaken the clause. Sarah Teather: This is another set of highly centralising amendments from the Conservatives. I do not have a particular problem with the clause, but it is largely superfluous. I should have thought that any local authority worth its salt would do what is laid out in the clause anyway. There is nothing wrong with it, but I wonder whether we have begun from a perspective of not trusting local government whatever. If local government is not up to the job, it will get voted out. That is the point of democratic accountability. If an authority fails to respond to enough parental complaints, it will get a reputation for it. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are very much in that vein. They attempt to teach grandmothers to suck eggs, and they are entirely superfluous. Amendment No. 8 is largely good practice and it seems to be perfectly acceptable. I do not have a problem with it, but its provisions are common sense. The Conservatives begin from the perspective of wanting to put everything from the guidance in the Bill. The point of guidance is that it is different from legislation. Things can be written into guidance which cannot be in the Bill. I should like to test the Conservatives’ presumption that people are more likely to obtain the information easily if it is in the Bill, than they are if it is written into guidance. We were happy to support amendment No. 9, because it is important that the Government publish their guidance. Personally, I am not bothered whether they stick it in the Library, on the website or anywhere else, but it is important that it is published and that the expectation is that as soon as it is published, it is made available so that people know where to get hold of it. It is important to note that there is a role for guidance. We do not have to have everything enshrined in legislation. It would be highly over-regulatory. From a legal perspective, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether it is possible to act in accordance with guidance anyway. I suspect that from a legal perspective, it is not. The Chairman: The hon. Lady is addressing amendment No. 9, which we shall consider in the next group. Column Number: 144 Sarah Teather: Forgive me, Mr. Chope. You are entirely correct. I think that we have changed the order. I am most terribly sorry—I have muddled all my amendments and have them in the wrong order. We shall return to the helpful point that I was making. On a point of clarification, are we considering amendments nos. 6, 7, 11 and 8 and then stopping? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] That makes life a lot easier. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are superfluous, amendment No. 8 is good practice, and I have a problem with amendment No. 11, which removes power from parents. It is possible that parents will have more than one child at a school and may wish to complain about a systemic failure more than once. Saying that any complaints made more than once
should be treated as vexatious or frivolous is unacceptable and would prevent parents from campaigning to improve standards in their local areas. Therefore, we oppose amendment No. 11. Mr. Chaytor: Clause 3 is important and useful. It is drafted in the context of concern about the lack of responsiveness of some local authorities and the lack of capacity of some to raise standards in their schools. Therefore, the shift towards giving parents greater power and influence is useful. Some of the Conservatives’ amendments are attractive—the ideas to set specified time limits and to have certifying documents signed by local authority cabinet members have some merits. The point is, however, that the shift of influence to parents would take place in the context of the strength of local democracy and the growing disengagement from it of some citizens. I am not sure that under the guise of devolving greater power to parents and enabling them to use other mechanisms to bypass the normal democratic process, we would necessarily strengthen trust and confidence. In reality, we would be encouraging a form of direct action. Although direct action has a place in democratic societies, it should not be allowed to override the normal process of the ballot box. I mention that because it is a risk involved with policy to strengthen the role of parents. Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that we are determined to give parents more authority. The Government share that view. Indeed, when challenged on the contrast between decentralising power through the established mechanisms of local government and giving power directly to the people, the Prime Minister made the case that decentralisation of power can take many forms and that enlivening and empowering people is not necessarily achieved by conventional means. It can be achieved through other means. Mr. Chaytor: I agree completely. Decentralisation of power can take many forms, and I am in favour of diversification. However, giving a smaller number of people the power to achieve change through a mechanism other than the ballot box can undermine the majority of the population’s confidence in the use of the ballot box. I make that point in reference to amendment No. 10, which would— Column Number: 145 The Chairman: Order. Amendment No. 10 has not been selected. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to it. Perhaps he will wish to speak to the next group of amendments because, at the moment, his remarks do not relate in any way to amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 8. Mr. Chaytor: Although I take your point on board, Mr. Chairman, I am trying desperately to find a way round it to allow me to make mine about amendment No. 10. Perhaps I should phrase it in more general terms in regard to amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 8. In the context of parents making representations and the time that local authorities have to respond, we must draw the distinction between a group of parents getting their own way and securing their personal and fairly limited objectives and the community’s being able to influence the shape of the provision of education in the neighbourhood or district as a whole. Mr. Gibb: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, though, that the amendment is about trying to insist on best practice? When he is elected at a general election, he does not just disappear for four or five years and then come back and stand again. During those years, he and I and all members of the Committee spend a lot of time talking to all kinds of people in the constituency to ensure that we are aware of opinion on every subject on which we must debate and vote in this place. The intention of the amendment is simply that that is how local authorities should act, and that in matters of education policy they should, in particular, talk to local parents. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 31 March 2006 |