Education and Inspections Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Frank Cook, Mr. Christopher Chope

† Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Brooke, Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)

† Cawsey, Mr. Ian (Brigg and Goole) (Lab)

† Chaytor, Mr. David (Bury, North) (Lab)

† Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)

† Creagh, Mary (Wakefield) (Lab)

† Dorries, Mrs. Nadine (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Evennett, Mr. David (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)

† Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

† Hayes, Mr. John (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

† Hillier, Meg (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

† Hope, Phil (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills)

† Leigh, Mr. Edward (Gainsborough) (Con)

† Moffatt, Laura (Crawley) (Lab)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport, East) (Lab)

† Mulholland, Greg (Leeds, North-West) (LD)

† Shaw, Jonathan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Smith, Jacqui (Minister for Schools)

† Snelgrove, Anne (South Swindon) (Lab)

† Teather, Sarah (Brent, East) (LD)

† Wilson, Mr. Rob (Reading, East) (Con)

Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column number: 274

Standing Committee E

Thursday 20 April 2006

(Morning)

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

Education and Inspections Bill

9 am

The Chairman: Before I propose the question, as it is some time since I attended the Committee’s deliberations—if deliberations they are—I remind Members that I am hard of hearing. In any case, it is protocol and proper practice to address comments towards the Chairman. I am sad to tell you that I shall not receive my hearing aid until the day after this Committee ends, so stand up, speak up, and make it clear, please.

Clause 7

Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools

Amendment proposed [18 April]: No. 24, in page 6, line 34, at the end, insert the words—

'(1A) A local authority shall publish a notice under subsection (1) in circumstances where 35 per cent or more of school places are in schools that are underperforming.'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1A) A local education authority must publish such a notice if they receive representations from 50 or more parents of qualifying children in connection with the establishment of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school or an academy.

(1B) In subsection (1A) “qualifying child”, in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.

No. 193, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1B) In subsection (1A) a maintained school is “underperforming” if, in the previous academic year, it was in the fourth quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.’.

No. 25, in clause 7, page 7, line 1, after second ‘a’, insert ‘reasonable’.

No. 65, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, at end insert—

‘(ca) specify appropriate qualifications for persons other than local education authorities wishing to establish the new school,’.

No. 27, in clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert

‘, such time not to be less than a period of two months,’.

Column number: 275

Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): Welcome back to the Chair after the Easter break,Mr. Cook.

I want to reiterate a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made absolutely clear when she spoke to our amendment, which is that it is very much a probing amendment. We simply do not feel that we have got any further forward in trying to establish suitable criteria for the kind of organisations that will set up charitable trusts in order to establish schools under the Bill.

Recently, we and Conservative Front Benchers have moved probing amendments, and we were all pleased that the Under-Secretary responded to them in the tone in which they were presented. He provided the Committee with a lot of useful information that led us to feel quite happy to withdraw them. [Interruption.] I remember that at Leeds city council we were fined £5 every time a mobile phone went off. Perhaps that is something that you would like to consider for the Committee, Mr. Cook, but of course it is a matter entirely for you.

I really do not understand why the Minister for Schools and the Government are being so cagey about the issue. Surely it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to provide an idea of the kind of organisations deemed suitable to set up the charitable trusts to establish new schools. Surely it is vital that we have that information, not only in this Committee but in the public domain, so that there are no issues of confidence, such as there are among the teaching professions—as I am sure the Minister for Schools is well aware—and among sections of the public about the kind of organisations that have been linked to setting up charitable trusts.

I want to ask the Minister a question. Again, we are probing; all we want is to get some idea about the matter. Are there no types of organisation that she would deem unsuitable to set up a charitable trust to form a new school? We have had mention of fast-food and tobacco companies, and also a certain religious sect. The issue is so important because of the influence that those companies have. That is not to say that private companies should not be involved in setting up schools and should not provide some funding; that is a different debate, and not one that we are having now. However, given that the Bill means that they will have influence, surely it is appropriate to specify firm criteria for the kind of organisations that should be involved.

There is also a question about the charitable trusts themselves. There is a lack of confidence that the position of trustees is sufficiently watertight in respect of the people having involvement in schools. It is possible for someone to be a trustee of a charity when they have spent convictions or are a former bankrupt. Can we have some reassurance about that issue? We need to create a framework to ensure that people who set up charitable trusts to run schools are the kind of people that we would all want to run schools.

The Minister will be well aware of the case brought to our attention by the Daily Mirror in which a convicted paedophile set up a charitable trust, so there are issues relating to the Charity Commission. Will she examine the matter and reassure us that the kind of people who set up charitable trusts to run schools are

Column number: 276

those whom we would want to be involved in our schools? Will she give us some information on that point? Will she give us an idea about what she deems to be suitability, above and beyond what is necessary to become a trustee of a charitable trust? That provision is not sufficient to give people confidence that the organisations that will be bidding to set up new schools involve the kind of people that we want to run our schools.

Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I was too late to intervene on my hon. Friend, so I shall make some brief comments on one or two of the amendments in this group—and I shall speak up, Mr. Cook.

Amendment No. 24 is an incredibly blunt instrument. It would mean that even more power would be taken away from local authorities. It is blunt because we know that the value-added measure is far from perfect. Its rigidity means that, as with many targets that we have experienced, which all of us criticise, there would be ways of working around it. That might be to its detriment.

Amendment No. 179 proposes that a notice be triggered if 50 parents petition. We have rehearsed well the arguments about 50 being too small a number. What sort of cost would the measure impose on the local authority? Where 50 parents signed a petition the local authority would have a great deal of work to do. The idea of putting such extra burdens on local authorities and diverting them from what their real jobs should be is worrying.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Would the hon. Lady regard it as an inconvenience to an elected local authority if 50 of its constituents or ward members were to write to it about another issue, for example road sweeping? Would she regard having to respond to those constituents’ concerns as a darned inconvenience to the local authority?

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. I am suggesting that we are not talking necessarily about a call for a locally delivered service to which one would expect an instantaneous response. The proposal would mean a great deal of expense for a local authority. It is not the same as ensuring that the refuse lorry goes down someone’s street next week. The proposal represents a lot of work for the principals involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) said, we think that it is an interesting concept for the local authority to have to review some of its processes or perhaps to convene a committee. However, to start triggering the whole process of setting up a new school is an administrative burden that is a few steps too far.

I should like to be brief. I was moving on from that point and I think that I am delaying the Committee. On the Liberal Democrats’ probing amendment, I should like to convey our real concerns, as we move further through the Bill, about the governance of schools being taken away from the local community. I believe in local decision making. We do not even know

Column number: 277

how far the governance will be taken and in what direction, but it is pertinent, in respect of this clause, to know who will be able to set up a trust foundation and take on the valuable assets of the local authority and the community. As far as we can see, looking at the potential for trustees, there could be mismanagement of those valuable community assets, yet later in the Bill we will see the power to control those taken away from the local community. I want to underline why we have the greatest concerns about the proposals for trust schools.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): May I warmly—and loudly—welcome you to the Chair this morning, Mr. Cook? I shall speak in support of the amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on Tuesday afternoon. The Conservative amendments are good in their own way, and I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously consider pressing them and at least give the Minister the opportunity to reply, because they were tabled in the spirit in which we have given qualified support to the Bill. Even if my hon. Friend chooses not to press the amendment to a vote, it will enable a good debate to take place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I will not follow the same path as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. It is fair to ask questions, as he did this morning, about the character and nature of the people who will run the trusts schools to be established under the clause. Those are reasonable questions, but I am not sure about the background to the Liberal Democrats’ approach to this issue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was anybody the Government would exclude from running the new schools to be established under the clause—and as a result of the amendments moved by my hon. Friend. The real question for the Liberal Democrats, which they have not yet answered, is whether there is anybody they would allow to run such a school.

Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): The question is not about who we would or would not exclude, but about the model within which they would be included. We would not include people in a model where a trust could take over the whole governing body, or had freedom over admissions. We will be dealing with such issues later in the Bill and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to learn something then.

---

Prepared 21 April 2006