 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 ETuesday 25 April 2006(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Education and Inspections BillClause 9Publication
of proposals with consent of Secretary of
State 10.30
am Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment No. 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out
subsection
(1).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave
out ‘with the consent of the
Secretary of
State'. No.
28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line
37. No. 77, in clause
9, page 7, line 40, at end
insert— ‘(1A) The Secretary
of State shall only consent to the publication of proposals under
subsection (1) 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.
181, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end
insert— ‘(1A) The Secretary
of State may not refuse consent under subsection 1(a) 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.'.
“A local
education authority in England may with the consent of the Secretary of
State publish...proposals to establish”
a new school otherwise than under clause
7—that is, without a competition or having regard to the other
clause 7 provisions that apply to competitions.
Clause 9 is a repetition of
section 65 of the Education Act 2005, which is more of a safety valve
than a section of real substance or importance. According to the
regulatory impact assessment, the objective of section 65 is:
“To promote diversity
by extending the requirement for secondary school competitions so that
competitions are held whenever a new school is proposed unless the
Secretary of State decides that a competition is not required in an
individual case.” The
section therefore dealt with individual cases and was intended to cover
unforeseen
exceptions. The Bill
repeals section 65 of the 2005 Act and replaces it with clause 9, which
is simply an updated version of section 65, but which relates to
primary schools as well as secondary schools. The regulatory
impact assessment relating to the Bill confirms that point in paragraph
5.20, stating
that: “The
requirement on local authorities to seek the prior consent of
the” Secretary of
State “to propose new
community schools is therefore intended to apply only in exceptional
circumstances. Similar provisions already exist where the Secretary of
State gives consent for the publication of proposals for new schools
outside competitions. The purpose of requiring local authorities and
others to seek consent is to ensure that there is greater
contestability and that local people have the opportunity to consider a
range of proposals from different providers when new schools are to be
established.” That
paragraph refers to clause 7 as well as clause 9, but it is clear that
clause 9 is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances because
the aim of the Bill is to ensure greater contestability when new
schools are being proposed.
We agree with that aim, and
the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to promote that purpose further. If
subsection (1) were removed, local authorities would lose the right to
seek the consent of the Secretary of State to establish a new school
without going through a competition; clause 9 would apply only to
non-local authority proposers of new schools. The amendment would thus
make the Bill even stronger and move it further in the direction set
out by the
Government. In fact,
paragraph 5.17 of the regulatory impact assessment
states: “Under
the extensions proposed in the WP, there might be around 100
competitions a
year” under clause 7,
but “This
would depend on the frequency with which the Secretary of State
exercised her powers to allow proposals for new schools outside a
competition.” I am not
necessarily against the Secretary of State using such powers, but it
would be helpful if the Minister set out the circumstances in which she
envisages those powers being exercised.
Amendment No. 28 is a
variation on the theme of amendment No. 29, but instead of removing the
whole of subsection (1), it would remove only paragraph (a), which
refers to local authorities that wish to establish a new community
school. The right of a local authority to establish a new foundation
school outside of a competition, with the permission of the Secretary
of State, would remain. Again, the amendment would help to achieve the
Government’s objective of achieving more diversity of
provision. Amendment
No. 77 essentially is the same as the amendment that we tabled in
relation to clause 7. It sets out the fall-back position that if the
Secretary of State decides not to exercise her veto, the criteria for
permitting a local authority to establish another community school will
be confined strictly to cases in which there is clear evidence that
such a school would achieve better academic results than a foundation
school. I turn to
amendment No. 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah
Teather) and her colleagues, and amendment No. 181, tabled by the hon.
Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Amendment No. 67 is superficially
similar to the amendment that the Liberals tabled to clause 7, in that
it would remove the need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State
if
a local authority wishes to establish a new community school. I say
“superficially” because, although the amendment is worded
similarly to the previous amendment, when applied to clause 9 it would
provide local authorities with much greater powers than they have now.
It would allow a local authority to set up any type of school without
going through the competition process set out in clause 7. I am not
sure whether that is what the Liberals intended, but it would take us
back to the position before the Education Act 2002. We will therefore
oppose the amendment if it is pressed to a
Division. Amendment
No. 181 would require the Secretary of State to consent to proposals to
establish a new community school if there was parental support. In
their response to the Education and Skills Committee’s report on
the White Paper, the Government
said: “Where a
local authority with a good track record in education proposes a
community school that will command the support of parents, the
Secretary of State will not normally
intervene.” The purpose
of the amendment is presumably to put that commitment into the Bill,
but it would do so without the important caveat that the local
authority must have a good track record in education. I guess that the
hon. Member for Bury, North does not care about that point and is happy
for local authorities with a poor track record to continue to establish
new schools on the same
basis. Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): That remark is unworthy
of the hon. Gentleman. He argued last week that the essence of
amendments that I had tabled was little different from the spirit of
his amendment that provided for new schools of a particular kind to be
established on the vote of a specified number of parents. I assert the
importance of the parental voice for one purpose and he asserts it in a
different way for a similar purpose, so I do not think that he can
argue that he is concerned about standards and I am
not.
Mr.
Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but his
amendment, No. 181, relates to local authorities, not to the wider
range of proposers to which our amendments referred, and he has
specifically omitted from the amendment any reference to the track
record of a local authority, which is important in relation to allowing
authorities to establish schools outside a
competition. It is
important to remind the Committee of another comment in the
Government’s response to the Select Committee. The Government
stated: “It is
important that local authorities seriously consider all alternatives to
secure the best education for their community, however, and do not just
promote local authority community schools as the default
option.” In their
application to clause 9, amendments Nos. 181 and 67 would create the
same problem: they would allow local authorities to bypass a
competition under clause 7, which would undermine the principle that
local authorities should consider all alternatives to secure the best
possible education for their community, not just promote local
authority community schools. As such, if the hon. Gentleman presses his
amendment, we will oppose it.
I look forward to hearing the
Minister’s response to the
debate. Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): We accept that the clause is
intended only to apply in special circumstances, and we look forward to
hearing from the Minister what those circumstances will
be. Amendment No. 67
is not intended to allow local authorities to get around the need for a
competition. However, clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to get
around that need. Our argument is that even in those special
circumstances, the local authority is best placed to decide what is
most appropriate for its area. We made that argument on clause 7 and I
do not intend to rehearse at great length points that I have already
made in Committee, except to say that we believe that the proper place
for strategic planning of education is within the local authority. It
is the elected tier of government that is closest to the decisions that
have to be made and closest to the people whose lives are affected by
those decisions.
Localism depends on a
willingness to let go. It is true that the implications of our policy
are that in certain areas a Labour council or a Conservative council
might make decisions with which we disagree. We accept that. That is
the nature of localism. If we disagree, we will campaign on a local
level to remove that local council. That is what democracy is all
about. We believe that even in special circumstances—I hope that
the Minister will elucidate those—it is still for the local
authority to make the decisions on what schools best fit the local
area.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 26 April 2006 |