Clause
14Proposals
for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education
authority Mr.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 333, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, leave out
‘rural'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 334, in clause 14, page
10, line 43, leave out subsection
(b). No. 335, in
clause 15, page 11, line 8, leave out
‘rural'. No.
336, in clause 15, page 11, line 11, leave out
‘rural'. No.
337, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, leave out
‘rural'.
Mr.
Leigh: This is an important clause. My amendments relate
to subsection (4), and Members will see that they deal with four
criteria, which must be considered and taken into account by those
proposing to close a rural school. I am in favour of subsection (4),
and these are sensible criteria. I am delighted that the Minister is
obviously concerned about what is going on with the closure of rural
schools. I represent
a rural constituency. One of the greatest heartaches over the years has
been our campaigns, successful and unsuccessful, to keep open small
rural schools. They often involve very small schools, such as the
recent campaign in Holton le Moor. At the start of the campaign the
school had 17 pupils in total; the closure has now been confirmed with
the school roll having fallen to seven pupils. Those who represent
urban constituencies may question how a school can be effective with
only 17 pupils, but these schools in remote rural areas are often
extremely popular and provide a very good education. Some educationists
deny this, because year groups have to combine, but I assure hon.
Members that the tremendous spirit, care, love and all the rest of it
in these primary schools is a joy to
behold.
12.15
pm The school
that I am talking about now has been in existence for over 100 years.
It is at the heart of the community in a small village. It is often
heartbreaking when these rural schools close. Often, as happened at
Holton le Moor, a school closes because the head teacher is approaching
retirement. We now live inquite a competitive environment.
There is nothing wrong with that, and of course I support that in terms
of education—schools are competing for pupils. Sometimes when a
head teacher is approaching retirement or perhaps has a more
traditional view of education based on catchment areas, the school may
not be as vigorous in recruiting pupils as neighbouring schools. That
is obviously what happened in this case. There is nothing wrong with
the head teacher; he gave years of loyal service. Equally, in
Lincolnshire as elsewhere, we have falling school rolls and this puts
pressure on the county council which itself is under pressure from the
Department. They have to find schools to close and some of these small
schools can be an obvious
target. I have no
objections to the subsection. It seems perfectly sensible that when one
is closing a rural school one should look at the likely effect of its
discontinuance on the local community. It is undoubtedly true that when
these villages have lost their village shop, when the church only
operates one Sunday a month, and when the school is ripped out, they
become almost suburban dormitories, albeit in the middle of the
countryside, with no life going on during the day.
Certainly, a county like
Lincolnshire is hit extremely badly. As my hon. Friend the Member for
South Holland and The Deepings will confirm, as he is also a
Lincolnshire Member, we have a great problem with the cost of school
transport. We argue constantly that the Department does not give
adequate recompense to the county council to deal with the heavy costs
that we have to meet in bussing children around. If a school closes in
a village by definition the children have to be transported further
afield. Paragraph (b) is very sensible. Paragraph (c) mentions the use
of motor vehicles. Obviously if a school closes the use of motor
vehicles
increases.
Mr.
Hayes: As my hon. Friend mentioned my constituency
interest, will he say a word in this context about the particular
difficulties of providing services in sparsely populated rural areas?
Much is said about rurality, but less is said about sparsity. They are
different but overlapping factors and have a real impact on local
public service provision, including education, and a consequent impact
on the need for proper transport. It is worth emphasising that on
behalf of sparsely populated rural areas such as those we
represent.
Mr.
Leigh: “Sparsity” is a technical term of
art, but it is important to recognise the difficulties that it causes
to local authorities such as Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire’s
population is evenly distributed throughout the county, whereas
counties such as Devon have some areas of high population concentration
and others, such as Dartmoor, where there is virtually no one at all.
They do not, therefore, suffer as much as Lincolnshire does
from the sparsity problem. Because our population is so evenly
distributed its transport costs can be very high. That is the point
that my hon. Friend was making. All the paragraphs in subsection (4)
are perfectly sensible, and I am delighted that the Minister seems to
have understood the position. Presumably it is why the provision has
been framed as it has.
The reason for my amendments
is that, although I have no argument with the idea of considering the
criteria in the clause in relation to rural schools, I wonder why the
Minister does not consider that many of the factors listed in the
relevant paragraphs apply to all primary schools, wherever they
are—this may be where I attract the interest of Members
representing urban and suburban seats. My amendments would merely
ensure that the sensible factors in the provision, which should be
considered, would be taken into account when any primary school was
closed. Why, for
instance, should the closure of a school affect the local community
only if it is in a rural area? I should have thought that if we were to
close a school in the heart of an inner city, a suburb or anywhere else
the community might well be affected; it might be a big issue. My
amendment is intended to tease out from the Minister why she thinks
that those factors apply only to rural schools.
Another instance that we might
consider concerns “the
availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of
transport to other schools”.
I must now wear my green hat, because of
course I am now totally committed to green politics. I have done the
school run in London for many years, and it is not only in rural areas,
as we know, that people take their kids to school in cars. I do not,
therefore, know why the Government think that the likely effect of a
closure on transport to other schools is relevant only to rural
schools. One need only look around London to see large numbers of 4x4s
transporting kids to school. What do the Government mean by that
paragraph? The same
argument also applies to paragraph (c) and to
considering “any
alternatives to the discontinuance of the
school”. Why does the
Minister think local education authorities should not take into account
those factors? To
add insult to injury there is subsection (7)(b). I would like to know
what it means. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to define a rural
school. That might, surely, be a quite arbitrary decision. The
paragraph enables the Secretary of State to choose which primary
schools are expendable and which are not. I am sure that that is not
the intention, so my amendment would delete that paragraph. It is
surely difficult for anyone, let alone the Secretary of State in
London, to determine whether a school is rural.
I suppose that I represent
four or five traditional market towns and more than 100 villages, but
some of the villages are not really villages any more. They are huge
suburban communities to the north of Lincoln, which could by no stretch
of any definition be termed rural. Presumably there is no difficulty in
determining that other villages, with tiny populations of perhaps a
dozen or two dozen people, are rural. However, there are many villages
in between. How can the Secretary of
State choose which primary schools are rural and therefore entitled to
the extra defence under subsection (4), by which the local authority
must have regard to the various
factors? I
am delighted that subsection (4) is in the Bill and that the Government
are taking note of rural schools, because, contrary to what many
educationists believe, small rural schools provide an excellent
service. I want to find out from the Government, however, why they
think that the effects on transport and on the community do not apply
equally in urban and suburban
areas.
Annette
Brooke: Perhaps in surprise, I find myselfin
total agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I
did not quite follow the exact reasoning behind the amendments before I
heard his speech, but I am now absolutely convinced of the argument.
People struggle with my constituency’s name, but, as may be
imagined, Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a mix of urban and rural
communities. It has village schools that struggle for numbers, while in
the more urban areas there are very large primary schools that possibly
suffer in funding because of the existence of other
schools. Nevertheless,
the contribution of those other schools to the local community is so
great that a value must be put on it, and I agree that the closure of a
school situated in an locality classified as urban might be just as
devastating as the closure of a rural primary school. I support the
sentiments that underlie the amendments.
Mrs.
Dorries: I, too, support the amendments. Although I
represent a rural constituency, I have spent most of my life in the
city of Liverpool, so I am in a strange position because, although the
provisions have advantages for my constituency, I am slightly aggrieved
for the schools of my home city, where the same considerations would
not apply. In
mid-Bedfordshire there are three, small, urban conurbations, but there
are many rural schools in the constituency. We have been in the strange
situation of discussing whether to go from the three-tier system to the
two-tier system, which may result in some school closures, and we are
currently in the consultation period and we know that that would have a
devastating effect. The constituency is rural, so there are not that
many roads, but if local, rural schools began to close we would find
ourselves in the bizarre position of having gridlock during rush hours,
because the roads already get into that kind of
state. Nevertheless,
the fact that consideration is being given to rural schools but not to
schools in cities and urban areas is of some concern, and I ask the
Minister why schools in cities such as Liverpool would not merit the
same consideration. I support the comments of my hon. Friend.
Subsection (4) is excellent for mid-Bedfordshire but does not have any
bearing on urban areas, which seems unfair to schools in cities such as
Liverpool.
Mr.
Gibb: I want to raise one quick point with the Minister.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the definition of a rural primary school
is in subsection (7)(b), which says
that “‘rural
primary school’ means a primary school designated as such for
the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of
State.”
In the Minister’s letter of 27
March to Committee members, the only illustrative regulations
circulated in relation to clause 14 are the School Organisation
(Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England)
Regulations 2006. In my reading of those I could not see a definition
of a rural primary school. Will the Minister shed some light on
that? 12.30
pm
Jacqui
Smith: As has been discussed during our deliberations on
this group of amendments, the Government take the role of rural schools
seriously. In fact, the protections in clauses 14 and 15 for rural
schools reflect amendments made during the passage of the Education Act
2005, but there was already recognition in legislation and in the
processes for the consideration of school closures of the importance to
their communities of rural schools, and we support and encourage their
preservation. Notwithstanding
the important points that have been made by hon. Members about the
difficult decisions in respect of any school closure—in a
moment, I shall talk in detail about the processes involved in
that—there are specific issues relating to rural schools,
particularly primary schools. For example, often they provide services
beyond educational ones. That is becoming increasingly important with
the development of extended schools. Such schools might well be centres
for local child care provision as well as other services—for
example, some rural schools run the local post office, too—so
they have a significance beyond educational services. If a rural school
closes, it is more likely that there is not another school within
walking distance, which is an important consideration. That is why in
statutory guidance to those who decide on school organisation proposals
we have a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and have
had for some time. Since 1998, that has brought about a big reduction
in the number of rural school closures per
year. The provisions
of clause 14 require any local authority or governing body preparing
proposals for a rural school closure to consider the potential impact
on the community, transport implications and possible alternatives to
closure. Clause 15 requires that body to consult parents, the local
authority and district and parish councils before publishing those
proposals. The vast majority of authorities and governing bodies would
take those steps without such requirements in the Bill, but their
inclusion puts those important steps beyond doubt. As I outlined, we
attach special importance to the preservation of rural schools if they
contribute to standards, are wanted by parents and have the support of
the local education
community. The hon.
Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Gainsborough asked
about the designation of rural primary schools. On the 30 March, we
wrote to directors of children’s services in England and
diocesan directors of education, and asked them about that issue,
particularly with respect to the commencement of section 70 of the
Education Act 2005 which puts in place proposals for a specific
designation of “rural primary school”. We identified for
each local authority, those schools that we think come within that
category. In preparing the draft order in which we will designate
certain schools as “rural
primary schools”, we used the rural indicator on the EduBase
register to identify those schools. In case hon. Members are not
aware, that register is an indicator based on the Office for National
Statistics’ rural indicator developed by the Countryside Agency,
the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the
Welsh Assembly. It is the same indicator to which decision makers refer
when considering proposals to close rural schools in relation to the
presumption against closure that I have outlined already.
As I said, we asked directors
of children’s services for their comments on the proposed
inclusion of a list, which we attached for each of those 150
authorities, of primary schools in the area that we intend to include
in the designation order as “rural schools”. We also said
specifically: “You
should consult the schools as appropriate when considering the list. We
will review the designation order annually and will consult individual
local authorities and dioceses on proposed changes as
appropriate.”
Not only are we using a
recognised measure of the nature of a school that could be designated
as rural, but we are also inviting consultation responsesfrom
directors of children’s services and diocesan authorities, and
asking them to discuss that with the schools before including them on a
list, which we shall then be willing to review in order to keep it up
to date.
| 
