The
Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): Can we put this one
to rest? No private company could form a trust. As we have pointed out
on numerous occasions, they will be charitable
organisations.
Sarah
Teather: I accept that point, but that does not mean that
McDonald’s could not set up a trust—that the company
could not set up a charitable organisation and then run schools. That
is the point we are
making. In January, my
hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) tabled a
parliamentary question about whether a range of companies might be
involved in setting up such trusts, such as tobacco companies,
fast-food companies or supermarkets. Again, the Government declined to
answer. Instead, the Minister
replied: “We
welcome the involvement of partners from all sectors of the community
and across the economy”.—[Official
Report,31 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. Column Number
349W.] In March 2006,
my hon. Friend asked the question again, and related it more
specifically to fast-food companies. The answer came back from the
Government that it was not open to any organisation to set up school
trusts, but they did not say specifically whether they had a particular
problem in respect of this point. As I said, we are simply trying to
probe the Government on what they consider to be suitable
qualifications in that
regard. 6.45
pm
Mr.
Hayes: The hon. Lady seems excessively—I was about
to say cautious, but that is the kindest word I can use; one might say
paranoid. The organisations in question would have to establish trusts.
Those trusts would have to be charities and be established under the
normal criteria for any charity. We are not talking
about a supermarket—and I am a doughty opponent of supermarkets,
by the way—setting up a body that does not fit any of the
perfectly proper terms in the legislation, so what is the hon. Lady
really getting at?
Sarah
Teather: I would be delighted to watch the hon. Gentleman
tell his constituents that he would be happy for a fast-food company to
be involved in forming a trust, because I suspect that his constituents
would feel rather differently on the matter. As I have said, the
amendment is probing. These are questions for the Government to answer,
not
us.
Mr.
Clappison: So that we can understand the background to the
hon. Lady’s point, if a person came forward whom she regarded as
being of a suitable character to run a trust, would she allow them to
form a trust and set up a school under the provisions ofthe
Bill?
Sarah
Teather: Those are questions for the Minister to answer,
not me. I shall quote the National Union of Teachers, because I know
that that always gets Conservative Members excited. The NUT said today
that it was particularly concerned about fast-food companies being
involved in forming trusts. The Department for Education and Skills is
on record as describing that as “codswallop”, but there
does not appear to be anything in the Bill that would prevent it from
happening. I merely wish to probe the Government on what exactly they
feel are the boundaries, or indeed on whether they have any boundaries
or any specific concerns at
all. Let me turn to the
Conservative amendments. In relation to amendment No. 24, we will need
to address exactly why schools are underperforming. There is not, as
yet, any evidence to suggest that if a new school is set up under a
trust model, that will raise standards. It is not a question of simply
having that kind of trigger and setting up schools on the back of that
automatic presumption. There is no adequate evidence base. If the
evidence base showed something different, I could see some reason to
support the proposals, but it does
not. Although I have
considerable concerns about the way in which amendment No. 179 is
drafted, I do not wish there to be a knee-jerk rejection of it; there
is the germ of something interesting in the idea of allowing parents,
through a petition, to trigger some kind of response. The question is
what that response should be. Should it be the automatic publication of
a notice and a competition to set up a new school, or would a review or
inquiry, which could take any number of forms, be more appropriate?
That might be something done by officers in the council, or a review
process undertaken by the oversight or scrutiny committees. Any of
those might be another option.
I take the point made by the
hon. Member for Bury, North, that 50 parents is really a very small
number indeed; I have no problem getting 50 individuals to sign a
petition in my neighbourhood on many issues. There is something
interesting in the idea of making sure that petitions trigger some kind
of response beyond a mere press release in the local paper and leaflets
on the back of that. That is an interesting point
that needs exploring, although I would not be prepared to support the
amendment in its current
form. On amendment No.
25, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the
regulations define what is considered to be reasonable. I have no
problem with the term set out in the regulations, so I would not
support amendment No. 27. I feel that my concerns as regards supporting
amendment No. 25 have been adequately
addressed.
Mr.
Chaytor: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for quoting so generously from a
document that I had a hand in writing. When he read the extracts, it
seemed even more balanced and reasonable than when I contributed to
it. I rise to speak
against amendments Nos. 24, 179 and 193. In doing so, I am conscious
that my criticisms might ultimately help the hon. Gentleman, because he
might come back on Report with slightly improved amendments that are
more acceptable. In
amendment No. 24, the arbitrary figure of 35 per cent. of school places
being in schools that are underperforming completely invalidates the
concept for which the hon. Gentleman argues, because he has presented
no evidence as to why 35 per cent. is the magic figure. Nor has he done
the research—perhaps he should take tea at the Savoy—to
tell us how many local authorities would fall into the relevant
category. I accept that it would not be the first time that an
arbitrary figure has appeared in legislation, but the hon. Gentleman
does not do his argument much credit by simply plucking that figure out
of the air. If he could tell us that at 25 per cent., x number of local
authorities would be brought into the threshold, and that at 35 per
cent., y number of local authorities would be brought into it—if
he could give us some reasons for the figure—his argument might
be more valid.
Mr.
Hayes: The point is surely the principle. My hon. Friend
made it clear that there is no magic number, but the principle of that
sort of popular engagement in the process is one that we could usefully
debate. Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle of the community
playing a role in that way? Does he think that there should be a
popular element triggering the
process?
Mr.
Chaytor: I support the principle underlying the basis of
our democracy: local decisions should be made through the ballot box,
not through an arbitrary proportion of individuals triggering actions
that could have untold consequences.
That leads me to amendment No.
179 and the figure of 50 parents. As I said earlier, 50 parents could
represent 25 families. Indeed, in some parts of the country, with some
minority ethnic groups in which the extended family is still dominant,
it could mean one family. I can think of one or two large extended
families in my constituency that could summon up 50 parents, all of
whose children could, theoretically, go to the same school, and they
could trigger the process. Clearly, that is a nonsense. I am sure that
the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members would realise
that it is a nonsense if they thought about it a little more. If they
were to propose a higher figure, there might be the germ of an idea
there, but I reiterate my point that if we are to set in motion a
process of change to deal with underperformance, it is better to do
that through normal democratic procedures and the ballot box than
through the action of a small number of people. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton tried to draw an analogy with other services that
local authorities provide or a complaints procedures—saying that
x number of people can trigger a formal complaints procedure—but
those are utterly different processes. The consequences of closing
schools and opening new schools, and of changing the ownership and
management of schools, will go far wider and impact on far more people.
The effect is not limited simply to the number of people signing the
petition calling for the
change.
Mr.
Leigh: It is a noble concept that people can use the
ballot box to change things, but when people in Bury, for example, go
to vote in a few weeks’ time—if they are going to do
so—and there are Labour, Liberal and Conservative candidates,
does the hon. Gentleman really think that the particular problems of a
particular school will make any difference to their vote in that huge
election? The matter is far more local than that is it
not?
Mr.
Chaytor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that
point, because it touches on an issue in my constituency involving a
school closure. I am confident that the issue will be resolved through
the ballot box on Thursday 4 May. In my constituency and in the
constituency of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend
the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), two school closures have
been passionately opposed by a small number of parents. Those two
high-profile campaigns generated a lot of noise and much passion and
anger. The question is to what extent campaigns by comparatively small
number of parents are representative of the parent body as a whole. It
seems that the only way to get an answer to that question is through
the collective voice of the people of Bury, North and of Bury, South in
the municipal elections on 4 May. I am confident that the people will
endorse the local authority’s proposal, which will settle the
matter—if not once and for all, at least for the immediate
future. It is important to support the normal procedures of democracy
rather than invent devious ways to subvert them.
Amendment No. 103 deals with the
definition of underperforming. It is important that the Bill should
define it. We—I mean the Government, Ofsted and we as Members of
Parliament—use the term “underperforming” rather
loosely, as we do the concept of a “good” school. It is
important to have criteria. The question is whether the criterion of a
school appearing in the
“fourth quartile of value added
measures” for the previous
academic year is in itself an adequate definition of underperformance.
I do not think that it is, and I mention two points in support of my
contention.
First, there are all sorts of
reasons why a school that has been in the first, second or third
quartile for several years might slip into the fourth quartile for one
year. Those reasons could range from a change of management and
leadership at the school to problems with a particular cohort in one
year, and all kinds of external circumstances. Choosing the year
immediately previous before as the single reference point is not
adequate. Secondly, there is the nature of a quartile. It is in the
nature of quartiles that one group of schools will always be in the
fourth quartile. It does not necessarily mean that, by being in the
fourth quartile, a school is
underperforming.
Mrs.
Dorries: The hon. Gentleman has said he does not think 50
is a representative number of parents in a school and that he does not
agree with the criteria to determine which schools are underperforming.
What number would be a good number of parents; and if he does not agree
with Ofsted, what would he class as an underperforming
school?
Mr.
Chaytor: My point is that there is a needfor a
serious debate about what constitutes underperformance in schools. This
is the moment for it, but it is not necessarily for the Committee to
determine today. It should appear in legislation at some point, but to
pluck an arbitrary criterion out of the air and try to insert it into
primary legislation is not the way forward.
My next comments apply as much
to amendment No. 193 as to amendment No. 24. The difficult with such
arbitrary thresholds is that they are easily manipulated. For example,
for a director of children’s services or the chief executive of
a local authority faced with the prospect of 35 per cent. of its school
places being in underperforming schools, the easiest way to avoid the
action that the Opposition want to trigger would be to manipulate and
increase the number of school places, thereby bringing the local
authority below the threshold. That is a simple example of how such
things can be done. Although the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton focused on the value added measure rather than the raw
scores of league tables as his criterion for underperformance, I am
absolutely confident that, as the value added methodology becomes
established, it will be subject to the same kind of subtle manipulation
as the raw scores in leagues tables are now. For those reasons, I
oppose the amendments.
Further consideration
adjourned.—[Mr.
Cawsey.] Adjourned
accordingly at Seven o'clock till Thursday 20 April at Nine
o'clock.
| 
