Mr.
Hayes: The Minister has comprehensively assessed the
clause and the amendments. I shall deal with each in turn.
I take the right hon.
Lady’s point about amendment No. 34, which was that in the case
of the closure of a special school in the emergency circumstances that
she described, the reasons for such a direction would be given in
writing as a matter of course. Furthermore, I accept her advice that
those consulted would include all appropriate people, which would by
necessity include parents of children attending the school. On that
basis, it seems to me to be entirely unreasonable to press either
amendment No. 34 or amendment No. 33. I also take her advice that the
clause provides a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances
andwill, in effect, give life once again to the power in
the
1998 Act, which has not been used because such emergencies have not
occurred. On that basis, it would be inappropriate to press amendment
No. 32. However, the
right hon. Lady made one or two points about alternative provision that
were less convincing. I accept that the circumstances in which the
clause would be used would necessarily be exceptional. However, it
would be odd if acceptable alternative provision for children affected
was not a critical part of the process. She said that the statement
would be amended if necessary and that proper consideration would have
to be given by force of law, because there is a statutory duty to
provide an education in line with the statement that would remain
regardless of the closure of the school concerned. None the less, it
would be useful to accept amendment No. 255 as it is highly desirable
in such emergency, albeit rare, circumstances that alternative
provision is a central element of what the law expects. The right hon.
Lady was less convincing on that topic.
I was pleased that the Minister
took up my challenge to celebrate the work of special schools. I am
concerned that The Times Educational Supplement survey suggests
that 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not
receive enough support to ensure the success of inclusion and that two
thirds of teachers have received less than one day’s training on
how to teach children with special needs. Those are matters of profound
concern. If we are
going to include children in the mainstream—there are many
children for whom that is the right course—we must ensure that
those who are responsible for educating them are equipped to do so, as
the Minister said. I do not in any way deride the good work of schools
or the good intentions of the Minister, but I am not sure that the
evidence suggests that that is always the case. I want to re-amplify
those worries here today. Notwithstanding the Minister’s
assurances, I am inclined to press amendment No. 255 to a Division. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
proposed: No. 255, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end
insert— ‘(1A) Before any
special school is closed by direction of the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of State must be satisfied that acceptable alternative
provision for the children in that special school has been
made.'.—[Mr.
Hayes.] Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
16.
Division
No.
14] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 16 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2Proposals
for establishment or discontinuance of schools in
England
Jacqui
Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in schedule 2,
page 114, line 16, after ‘paragraph'
insert ‘, other than proposals to
which paragraph 10
applies,'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 108 to
127.
Jacqui
Smith: These amendments are intended in the main to
correct technical drafting flaws in the Bill and in some cases to
preserve and clarify its original intention. I will provide the
Committee with a brief overview of their effect, dealing first with the
purely technical amendments.
Amendments Nos. 108, 112, 119,
121, 122, and 127 are designed to correct and clarify cross-references
in the Bill to other legislation, including references to other
sections of the Bill and to the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
The other main
“sub-group” is amendmentsNos. 110, 111, 113,
120, 123, 124, 125 and 126.They are all designed to clarify
at various points in the schedule that the requirement to link
proposals for consideration, determination or referral to the
adjudicator applies only when those proposals are yet to be
determined. Amendments
Nos. 117 and 118 will widen the circumstances in which prescribed
bodies such diocesan authorities, promoters of new schools and, in some
circumstances, the governors of a school or the Learning and Skills
Council may refer an objection to a local authority's decision on
proposals to the adjudicator. As the Bill stands, such objections may
be referred only when proposals have been rejected, which could mean
that there would be no mechanism for appeal if a local authority
approved proposals for an independent school to join the maintained
sector despite concerns about the impact on community cohesion. The
amendments change the wording so that objections may also be referred
when proposals have been determined.
We are also allowing the local
authority to comment on proposals when they are referred. That was
always the original intention of the legislation, as was indicated in
the White Paper, which made it clear that providers who were
dissatisfied with a local authority decision would be able to appeal to
the schools adjudicator. Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 fulfil that
commitment fully.
Amendment No. 107 is designed to
clarify the intention when a local authority is required
torefer proposals to the schools adjudicator. As the
Committee will be aware, when proposals are referred, the local
authority has no role in determining them. Amendment No. 107 makes it
clear that the local authority will not be expected to undertake any
consideration of such proposals. Amendment No. 109 corrects an
original intention of the legislation. As the Bill stands, regulations
would prescribe the changes that local authorities may make to
proposals before they are determined. We do not think it necessary to
prescribe such changes, because local authorities must be given the
freedom to consider and respond to differing local circumstances and
concerns. The amendment therefore removes the reference to prescribed
alterations. Amendment
No. 114 removes the requirement on a local authority automatically to
refer its own proposals to discontinue a school to the schools
adjudicator if objections are received from any party. If this
amendment is not made, the net result could be a massive and
unacceptable burden on the schools adjudicator, as most proposals would
be likely to end up at the adjudicator's door. Our intention was always
that proposals should be referred only at the request of the types of
organisation that I mentioned earlier—for example, those
represented on the school organisation committee. The amendment
corrects the Bill to achieve that intention.
Amendment No. 115 provides for
regulations to allow that where a local authority refers to the
adjudicator its own proposals or those concerning a trust in which it
has a minor interest, objections to those proposals may also be
referred. I hope that
members of the Committee agree that the amendments are helpful not only
in tidying up some of the current drafting in the Bill, but in making
our policy intentions clearer in some areas and providing useful
additional provision in others.
Mr.
Gibb: I am delighted that some of the amendments take us
back to the vision of the White Paper, which is the driving force
behind most of our amendments. However, I have a few points to raise
regarding amendments Nos. 109, 114, 117, and 122.
The Minister explained that
amendment No. 109 does not correct a drafting error. I assume,
therefore, that the phrase “of a prescribed kind” in
paragraph 8(4)(c) of the schedule was originally intended to be
included, as I would have expected, so that where schools are
established under the procedures inclauses 9 or
10—that is, outside a competition—local
authorities’ powers to alter proposals would be more limited
than with proposals under clause 7, which involves proposals that local
authorities have invited. If that is the case, why has the Minister
changed her position? Why does she now want to give local authorities
more say over proposals for new schools that they might not have had
any involvement in initiating, unless the procedure was according
toclause 9(1), in which case they would have to seek special
permission to initiate from the Secretary of State? A response to that
point would be extremely
helpful. Will the
Minister confirm that the effect of amendment No. 114 together with
amendment No. 117
would be to prevent the objections to school closures of people other
than those listed resulting in a referral to the schools
adjudicator? On
amendment No. 122, will the Minister explain why paragraph 14 of the
schedule will not be included in the amended list in paragraph
18(3)(a)? 5
pm Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): If I may do so with your
agreement, Mr. Chope, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the
amendments before making general comments on part 4 of the schedule,
rather than speak in the debate on clause stand
part.
The
Chairman: That seems very
fair.
Sarah
Teather: Thank you, Mr.
Chope. I welcome the
fact that the Government are giving more freedom to local authorities,
as amendmentNo. 109 does. I have some queries about part 4 of
the schedule. Have the Government considered the possibility of
transferring assets to a trust with a leasehold rather than with a
freehold? That would partly deal with the concern of many hon. Members
that a trust might damage the value of an asset and prevent a local
authority from having any overall strategic management of it. It would
ensure that, if any serious alterations to the building were needed,
the trust would have to notify the freeholder before making them. It
would allow some element of
protection. Will the
Minister confirm that playing fields are excluded from being
transferred to prevent their sale and their loss to an area?
It is not clear to us why, as
set out in paragraph 28(4), the local authority should pay the costs of
a transfer to a trust. Will the Minister clarify the intention behind
that? When any other asset is sold, the person buying or gaining it
would pay the costs. The local authority may incur considerable
costs.
Jacqui
Smith: I shall first answer the points madeby
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I will look
carefully at what he said on amendment No. 109, but I do not
necessarily accept his interpretation of it. It relates to the extent
to which a local authority can modify proposals when making a decision
on them. The amendment will mean that such modification does not need
to be constrained to a prescribed alteration. A local authority will
not be able to make radical changes; the intention is that the shape of
the original proposal must remain but that there should not be
artificial restrictions on the nature of the modifications that a local
authority can make. On
amendment No. 114, if the hon. Gentleman was asking me whether it would
limit those who could require a local authority to refer to an
adjudicator, the answer is yes, as I spelt out in my earlier comments.
As originally drafted, the implication of the Bill was that if there
were any objection to a proposal it would have to be referred to the
adjudicator. That was neither the policy intention nor the current
position, and no member of the Committee would think that a
proportionate approach. Our proposal is that those
who are currently represented on the school organisation committee, for
example, would maintain their ability to refer proposals for
adjudication. I am
afraid that I slightly lost track of the last point that the hon.
Gentleman raised, but I will write to him with a
response. The hon.
Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) referred to part 4 of the
schedule. I can perhaps provide her with some reassurance. The guidance
that I have issued alongside clause 34—I think that it has been
sent out to members of the Committee—spells out in detail the
different circumstances of the transfer of assets when a school takes
on foundation status, the various protections afforded to both the
school and the local authority and the adjudicator’s role in
mediating in certain circumstances; for instance, if there is
disagreement about the nature of the land to be
transferred. On the
point that the hon. Lady made about leasehold, the disadvantage of
negotiating potentially 24,000 different leasehold agreements is that
it would be time-consuming, burdensome and bureaucratic. We believe
that the transfer of freehold, the protections outlined in schedule 4
and the guidance to which I have referred are the most effective ways
in which we can ensure what I think she is getting at—the
suitable protection of publicly funded land. I think that if she looks
at the guidance and the schedule, she will see the sort of protections
that we
envisage. Finally, I
can reassure the hon. Lady, not on her specific point, but with respect
to playing fields, that there is nothing in the legislation or the
transfer of assets that would undermine the protection of playing field
land put in place by—if my memory serves me right—section
77 of the School Standards and Framework Act. Under the Bill before us,
that protection will remain in place. With those reassurances, I hope
that hon. Members will feel able to support schedule
2. Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 108, in schedule 2, page 114, line 19, after ‘13'
insert ‘and
15'. No. 109, in
schedule 2, page 114, line 31, leave out ‘of a prescribed
kind'. No. 110, in
schedule 2, page 115, line 3, at end
insert ‘but have not yet been
determined by
him'. No.
111, in schedule 2, page 115, line 6, after ‘sections' insert
‘and not yet
determined'. No. 112,
in schedule 2, page 115, line 7, leave out ‘section 113 of' and
insert ‘Schedule 7
to'. No. 113, in
schedule 2, page 115, line 8, at end insert ‘and not yet
determined'. No. 114,
in schedule 2, page 115, leave out lines 26 and
27. No. 115, in
schedule 2, page 115, line 36, at end
insert— ‘(3) Regulations may
make provision for the making by the relevant authority to the
adjudicator of objections to any proposals which are required to be
referred to the adjudicator under this
paragraph.'.
No. 116, in schedule 2, page 116,
line 31, leave out ‘at the request of' and
insert ‘if so requested within a
prescribed time
by'. No.
117, in schedule 2, page 116, line 33, leave out from ‘have' to
end of line and insert ‘determined
under paragraph 8(4), together with any reasons given by the authority
for their
determination'. No.
118, in schedule 2, page 116, line 41, after ‘authority'
insert ‘and rejected by the
authority under paragraph
8(4)(a)'. No.
119, in schedule 2, page 117, line 2, leave
out ‘suitable only to the
requirements of' and
insert
‘for'. No. 120,
in schedule 2, page 117, line 5, leave out paragraph 15 and
insert— ‘15 Where the
relevant authority are required under any of paragraphs 10 to 14 or
under Schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to refer any
proposals (“the relevant proposals”) to the adjudicator,
the authority must also within a prescribed time refer to the
adjudicator—
(a) any other proposals under section 7, 9,
10 or 14 which relate to the area of the relevant authority and which
by virtue of paragraph 9(2) fall to be considered with the relevant
proposals, and (b) where the
relevant proposals are referred to the adjudicator by virtue of
paragraph 14, any other proposals under section 9, 10 or 14 which by
virtue of paragraph 9(2) were determined by the relevant authority with
the relevant
proposals.'. No.
121, in schedule 2, page 117, line 28, leave
out ‘of paragraphs 10 to
14' and
insert ‘provision of this Part of
this Schedule'.—[Jacqui
Smith.]
| 
