 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee EThursday 20 April 2006(Afternoon)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Education and Inspections BillAmendment
moved [this day]: No. 26, in clause 7, page 7, line 15, leave out
from second ‘school' to end of line 18.—[Mr.
Gibb.] 1
pm
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following amendments: No. 66, in clause 7, page 7, line
16, leave out ‘with the consent of
the Secretary of
State,'. No.
76, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at end
insert— ‘(5A) The Secretary
of State shall only consent to the publication of proposal under
subsection (5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or community
special school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretary
of State that the establishment of such a school would lead to
substantially better academic results than would be the case for a
foundation or foundation special
school.'. No.
180, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at end
insert— ‘(5A) The Secretary
of State may not refuse consent under subsection 5(b)(ii) in any case
in which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to be
supported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may be
prescribed by
regulations.'. No.
21, in schedule 2, page 113, line 23, leave out from ‘section'
to ‘and' in line
25. No. 182, in
schedule 2, page 113, line 35, at end
insert ‘and (c)
preventing further consideration of any proposal made pursuant to a
notice under section 7 without there having been first conducted by the
relevant authority a ballot of such category or categories of parents
as may be prescribed in which a majority of those voting have given
their approval to the further consideration of the proposal under this
Schedule.'. Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Before
lunch I was saying that I hoped to see the Liberal party join the
emerging consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties on how
to tackle underperforming schools. I will leave the hon. Member for
Brent, East (Sarah Teather) to explain amendment No. 66, but suffice it
to say that if she decides to press it to a vote we will certainly
oppose it, as what it proposes is outwith the spirit of the White Paper
and the Bill, both of which we
support. Amendments
Nos. 180 and 182 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North
(Mr. Chaytor), who is not joined on this occasion by his partner in
crime the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). Durham
is a beautiful city; although it is one of the few places where I did
not go to school, I did go to university there. The amendments appear
to contradict the hon. Gentleman’s views about giving
certain groups of electors rights over and above the rights of the
electorate as a whole, which he expressed in relation to amendment No.
179 and the proposal that 50 parents should be able to trigger a notice
under clause 7. The
amendments state that the Secretary of State may not refuse consent for
a local authority to establish a community school in circumstances
where the local authority can demonstrate that such a proposal is
supported by a certain number of parents. Well, how about 50 parents?
Did the hon. Gentleman have such a number in mind when tabling his
amendment? Amendment
No. 182 would impose the requirement for a ballot among certain
categories of parents wherever there are proposals under clause 7 for a
new school. Would not that create special rights for those electors
over and above others? That should be the hon. Gentleman’s
objection to his own amendments. My objection is that the amendments
will thwart the objective of trying to create a more diverse range of
schools by turning every new proposal into a major political campaign,
the threat of which would put many groups of parents or others off
venturing down that route in the first place.
The Conservative party agrees
with paragraph 5.14 of the regulatory impact assessment, which
states: “Through
the clarification of the local authority role in relation to school
organisation, and the provision of a decision-making framework which
supports diversity and innovation, more schools will have a character
that supports the development of an individual ethos and enables them
to take responsibility for their own future progress. This will
increase the range of choice for parents and the potential for
innovation and improved
standards.” The
amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled will jeopardise or slow
down the implementation of that approach, which we believe is the
correct one. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the
amendments.
Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): I shall speak to amendment No.
66, but I shall also comment on the whole group. The hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that the amendments and
the clause go to the heart of the Bill. I would say that the amendments
do something much more profound and go to the heart of our
understanding of the nature of the relationship between central and
local government. The presence in the clause of the phrase
“with the consent of the Secretary
of State” says something
profound about the Government’s understanding of their
relationship with local government. The fact that the Conservatives
want to remove local authorities’ ability to have a role in
providing education says something similarly profound about their
relationship with local government.
What should local government
be? Is it an arm of the Government’s public service delivery, or
a discrete, autonomous, directly elected tier of government, able to
make its own decisions, accountable to the local community, free to
pursue local policies relevant to local people, and—this is the
key point—free to disagree with central Government? That thought
should be at the heart of our consideration of the relationship between
central and local government.
Are we prepared to give those in local government the right to disagree
with central Government policy because that is what is wanted by local
people, who elected them, on the basis of their manifesto, to do
something that was important for them in their own area?
The Government like to pay lip
service to the idea of localism, but whenever they are presented with
an opportunity to legislate, they cannot resist centralising powers. As
we have heard, the clause contains one of 60 mentions in the first 70
pages of the Bill of action by the Secretary of State. Subsection
(5)(b)(ii) demonstrates that even when the Government are prepared to
devolve with one hand, they centralise with the other. That is not good
enough. It is worth
looking at some of the conflicting statements that the Government have
made. For example, the 10-year plan of the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister contains a local vision. When I looked at that pretty flimsy
document, I did not think that it was much of a vision. Nevertheless,
one of the objectives it lists
is “devolution and
delegation to the front line, giving local leaders responsibility and
accountability and the opportunity to design services around the needs
of local people”. In a
previous sitting of the Committee, when we were discussing clause 1,
the Minister for Schools said,
“I am not arguing that
locally elected politicians do not have difficult decisions to make
about local priorities. That is what they are elected to do and that is
an appropriate role for local government.”—[Official
Report, Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c.
107.] Later, she said,
“Local authorities have
an important role to play in school organisation in the broadest sense.
The legislation will increase that role.”—[Official
Report, Standing Committee E, 30 March 2006; c.
120.] I am not sure that clause
7 supports that view. Later still, the right hon. Lady said,
“local authorities should be able
to determine their own arrangements to make sure that they work for
their parents and their community.”—[Official Report,
Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c.
153.] That is the heart of the
issue. Are we prepared to give local authorities the freedom to make
decisions based on what local people want or are we
not? The Conservatives
also have conflicting views on localism, as I know from having
discussed such matters privately with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton. He is not entirely sympathetic to his party’s
current fashion of going local—perhaps he will intervene on me
if he disagrees—but the leader of his party has
stated: “We
believe that government should be closer to the people, not further
away. We want to see more local democracy, instead of more
centralisation.” If that
is the Conservatives’ view, why would the hon. Gentleman vote
against our amendment, which would ensure far more local accountability
and less centralisation? That is what his party leader is advocating as
one of his latest new policy wangles.
The group of amendments goes to
the heart of our understanding of the proper relationship between
central Government and local government. The hon. Member for Bury,
North, who will speak to his own amendments, has attempted to fetter
and define the
Secretary of State’s discretion. I am sure that that will at
least narrow the scope for the Secretary of State to intervene, but
that is not good enough for us. This is a matter of principle, and we
will pursue it.
Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): I shall speak to
amendments Nos. 180 and 182. Amendment No. 182 would amend schedule 2,
not clause 7, but that does not matter for now because its spirit is
identical to that of amendment No. 180.
I have some sympathy with
amendment No. 66, which is why I put my name to it. It is important in
that it has enabled us to explore the arguments for and against the
Secretary of State’s veto. I am far more concerned about arguing
the case for amendment No. 180, which makes the point that if the
Secretary of State is to be given the power to exercise a veto, there
would be a contradiction with the spirit of the White Paper and the
Bill—which give greater emphasis to the voice of
parents—if that veto were exercised when a significant number of
parents wished their children to attend a new community school. At the
heart of this group of amendments, and the other two groups of
amendments to the clause, is the precise relationship between the roles
of parents, the local authority and central Government. It is misguided
to characterise this as a debate between those who are utterly
centralist and those who put the voice of parents at the forefront of
every decision about the future of our schooling system. I do not see
it that way. It is a question of striking the right balance between
parents, the local authority and central
Government. Without
revisiting the debate on the previous group of amendments, specifically
amendment No. 179, my argument with the arbitrary selection of 50
parents as an automatic trigger for a new school is that it ignores
certain practical realities. For example, if there were another group
of 51 parents who campaigned vigorously against the opening of a new
school, how could it be logical to allow the voice of the 50 to have
priority? If those 50 parents happened to have children in year 11 and
were unlikely to have any future interest in the school, how could it
be logical to give them the key power to influence the building of a
new school? I said in
our debate on the previous group of amendments that I was fearful that
the Opposition might take on board some of my criticisms and thereby
improve their amendments, but I am now relaxed because it is clear that
they have not. If they wished to improve the amendment, it would surely
make more sense to establish a percentage of the eligible body of
parents as the threshold figure to trigger the request for a new
school. Fifty parents in a rural area with a small school may be an
overwhelming majority of eligible
parents.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 21 April 2006 |