The
Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): As we have heard,
amendments Nos. 340 and 341 are designed to prevent a local authority
from making proposals for alterations to foundation and voluntary
schools. However, our proposals for some expanded abilities for local
authorities are made in the context that we have discussed under
earlier clauses—a new framework for school organisation,
involving, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette
Brooke) rightly recognises, a significant new strategic role for the
local
authority as the commissioner of provision and the champion of parents.
That is the rationale for the proposals in this clause.
Under current legislation,
although a local authority can propose the closure of any maintained
school, it cannot make other sorts of proposal in respect of voluntary
schools and can propose only the expansion of foundation schools. We
think that in order to discharge its responsibilities properly, a local
authority should be able to propose alterations relating to expansion
and to special educational needs and sixth-from provision in respect of
all maintained schools in its area.
9.15
am I cannot
provide all the reassurances that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr.
Leigh) seeks, but I can reassure him about the removal of a sixth
form—an issue that he raised. The changes that a local authority
can make are limited to the addition to a school of a sixth form. It
could not publish proposals to remove a sixth form from a foundation or
voluntary school. The
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked whether the
section in italics in the illustrative regulations implied that we
wanted to go further in schedule 4. I can reassure him that have no
intention of going further than what is spelled out in those
illustrative regulations.
Clause 18(2)(b) will ensure
that a local authority can propose changes that extend choice for
parents and that the necessary provision is available in the area. It
is precisely because we envisage that more schools will be
self-governing foundation or voluntary aided schools that we need to
reconsider local authorities’ powersso that they can
operate their strategic role appropriately—not running schools
or making day-to-day decisions, but being responsible, as champions of
pupils and parents in their area, for ensuring and extending parent
choice.
Mr.
Leigh: Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that local
authorities will not have a hands-on role in voluntary aided schools? I
think that that is what sheis trying to say. If local
authorities are to be commissioners rather than providers of services,
what sort of decisions or initiatives does she envisage that they might
make in respect of voluntary aided
schools?
Jacqui
Smith: I was just spelling that out. As the clause makes
clear, the role of commissioner implies that authorities will be able
to publish proposals for particular provision that is necessary to
deliver choice for parents and pupils. That is why we are proposing
that local authorities, particularly those with many foundation
schools, should be able to propose, for example, the addition of a
sixth form—not its removal, as I assured the hon.
Gentleman—or of an SEN unit to work alongside schools in the
area to reassure people that there is sufficient specialist SEN
provision. Those are the sorts of proposal that the clause
covers. The provisions
will not allow a local authority to impose such changes. As clause 19
and the illustrative regulations make clear, the local authority will
have to
consult interested parties, including the school, and publish its
proposals, giving an opportunity for objections or comments. If a
foundation of voluntary school does not agree with the proposal, clause
21(5) provides that the school’s governing body or trustees can
require that those proposals be referred to the
adjudicator. Mr.
Gibb: I listened carefully to the Minister’s
response to my hon. Friend’s intervention. Will she explain why
subsection (2)(b)(ii) gives local authorities the power to discontinue
SEN provision in a school? I understand why they might want the power
to establish it, but why the power to discontinue? That is the only
negative and destructive power in the clause, and I am slightly
concerned about
it.
Jacqui
Smith: As we were discussing the other day when we talked
about the local authorities’ role of ensuring sufficient and
appropriate provision, it might be appropriate to reorganise SEN
provision in an area and to close one unit in order to make provision
elsewhere. As the hon. Gentleman said, only in those circumstances will
a local authority be able to open and close such
provision. Our
proposals strike a reasonable balance between allowing the authority to
propose changes in order to improve the supply of school places, and
providing for the schools themselves to ensure that decisions are taken
by the adjudicator if there is a disagreement. I hope that the hon.
Member for Gainsborough feels sufficiently reassured that the balance
is reasonable and will therefore withdraw the amendment.
In amendment No. 384 the hon.
Gentleman argues that local authorities should be able to propose that
all their schools become foundation schools, which would give the local
authority a significant power. At the same time, however, he argues
that we ought to limit the powers that we give to local authorities. I
think that he intended the proposal to apply only to community schools,
but as drafted it would include voluntary schools—faith schools,
for example. I do not think that the governing bodies of voluntary
schools would welcome local authorities having the power to turn them
all into foundation schools against their will.
More importantly, the
principled argument that we have made throughout is that the decision
on whether to change status from a community school to a foundation
school, or whether to acquire a trust, should be taken in the first
instance by the governing bodies of the schools themselves. Such a
change is not something that could be imposed by a local authority on
all its schools. I hate to tar the hon. Gentleman with this charge, but
he is making a very centralising proposition. I know that he would not
want that, so I hope that he will not press that
amendment.
Mr.
Leigh: I am happy to withdraw the amendment, because I am
reassured by the Minister’s assurance that there is no question
of a local authority being able to step in to remove a sixth form,
which is where I suspect there would probably be most controversy. I
take her point about amendment No. 384. I wanted to probe the
Government’s thinking, but clearly I do not want to give local
authorities the power to interfere with the
status of voluntary aided schools. In fact, that amendment would not be
a centralising measure as such, because the local authority would be
surrendering its power if all the schools in an area became foundation
schools. However, I take her
point. We shall try to
accept the right hon. Lady’s assurance that the clause is not a
centralising measure, because that would be unfortunate. I am prepared
to accept her word that it is benign, particularly in relation to
foundation schools, and that it is designed only to allow local
authorities to make suggestions for SEN provision, for example. On that
basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
19Proposals
under section 18:
procedure Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment No. 206, in clause 19, page 14, line 17, at end
insert— ‘(3A) Where
regulations made by virtue of subsection
(2)— (a) confer
functions on a local education authority,
or (b) enable a local education
authority or the Secretary of State to require proposals to be referred
to the adjudicator, the local
education authority (or the Secretary of State where applicable) must
exercise its functions and rights with a view to encouraging all
primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a
trust or foundation. (3B) Where
proposals are referred to the adjudicator under provisions made by
virtue of subsection (2), the adjudicator shall make his decision with
a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be
self-governing and to acquire a trust or
foundation.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenientto
discuss the following amendments: No. 207, in clause 30, page 21, line
18, at end insert— ‘
“self-governing”, in relation to a maintained school,
means any of the following schools in
England— (a) a
foundation or voluntary
school; (b) a foundation
special school; and (c) an
Academy.'. New
clause 15—Duty to encourage schools to acquire a trust or
foundation— ‘A local
education authority shall ensure that their functions under this Part
are exercised with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary
schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or
foundation.'.
New clause
13—Maintained schools to become independent charitable
trusts— ‘(1) All
maintained schools shall become independent charitable
trusts. (2) The Secretary of
State must make regulations to give effect to subsection
(1). (3) Regulations under
subsection (2) must provide for the trusts established in pursuance of
subsection (1) to be funded on the same basis as grant-maintained
schools established under the provisions of the Education Reform Act
1988.'.
New clause
19—Maintained schools to become grant-maintained
schools— ‘(1) All
maintained schools shall become grant-maintained schools within the
meaning of the Education Reform Act
1988. (2) Local education
authorities shall cease to play any part in the allocation of school
funding. (3) The Secretary of
State must make regulations to give effect to subsections (1) and
(2).'. No.
201, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end
insert— ‘(aa) regulations
under section [Maintained schools to become independent charitable
trusts],
or'. No.
237, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end
insert— ‘(aa) regulations
under section [Maintained schools to become grant-maintained schools],
or'.
Mr.
Hayes: It is good to serve on the Committee under your
chairmanship, Mr. Chope. Seeing you in the Chair reminds me of the
Queen’s eightieth birthday—you share all her dignity, but
not her age. The
clause relates to the procedures by which prescribed alterations to
schools published under clause 18 are made. The amendment would require
that, where the regulations under subsections (1) and (2) confer
functions on local authorities or allow them or the Secretary of State
to refer proposals to the adjudicator, they will exercise those
functions “with a view to
encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and
to acquire a trust or
foundation.” In
our previous sitting, the Minister said, rightly, that some would like
to place an obligation on local authorities for all schools in their
area to become self-governing. She said that every school should
instead be encouraged to do so. I said that the Prime Minister and the
Minister once took the view that all schools should be encouraged to
adopt the new freedoms and independence in question. I quoted the White
Paper, which
says: “At the
heart of this new vision are Trust schools ... We will encourage
all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a
Trust.” I then put it to
the Minister that she might have changed her mind and bowed to pressure
from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is a formidable
figure. He and others made a powerfulcase that the spirit of
the White Paper, with its encouragement of all schools to acquire a
trust, would not necessarily be efficacious. He thought that it would
be better for some schools not to follow the route set out in the White
Paper. I tabled the
amendments with the intention of reinforcing the Minister’s
position and injecting a little more steel into her backbone, so that
she can see off the challenges from the hon. Gentleman and others. He
is the acceptable face of the rebels—the tame rebel—but
there are others who will be altogether harder to see off and more
intransigent in their determination to frustrate the intentions behind
the White Paper and the Bill. We want to help the Minister, as we have
throughout the Bill’s progress. The amendments would make the
proposals in the White Paper a reality by making it easier for schools
to follow the route it envisaged.
The amendments would also ensure
that the adjudicator would make decisions on prescribed alterations to
schools with a view to their becoming self-governing. A
“self-governing” school is defined in amendment No. 207
as a foundation or voluntary school, a foundation special school or an
academy. New clause 15 would take further the duty to work with a view
to schools becoming self-governing by applying it to all functions of
the local education authority under part 2 of the Bill.
The amendments go to the very
heart of the Bill. Do we envisage a future in which all schools will be
self-governing? In our previous sitting, the Minister confirmed that
she still believes it right to encourage that. Replying to my
intervention, she
said: “I have
not changed my mind. I am making a distinction between compulsion and
flexibility and enabling. The legislation is all about allowing schools
to move in the direction that we believe to be the most effective,
which is spelled out in the White Paper.”—[Official
Report, Standing Committee E, 25 April 2006; c.
442.] She clearly wants all
schools to become self-governing. She envisages not the future that the
hon. Member for Bury, North wants, but one in which all schools take on
the new freedoms available to them, to the benefit of the children who
attend
them. 9.30
am We are all in
this business to try to deliver the best education possible for as many
children as possible, to build on good practice and to create effective
schools. We should make it clear through the debate on the amendments
that that is where we all want to be. Is it the destination to which we
are all travelling? It certainly is not where other Members of the
governing party who are not on the Committee want us to go. We will not
ask why, as that would be indiscreet and, perhaps,
impolite—[Interruption.] Well, they are here in the form
of the Liberal Democrats, who speak for them on this Committee, and who
will doubtless make their comments about the amendments in due
course. Those people
have a perfectly reasonable point to make. They take a different view
on education, the nature of school government and, I guess, the White
Paper. That is fair enough; let us have that debate, but let us be
clear where the Government stand on it. I want to be sure that they
have not bowed, that there is absolute certainty about their
intentions, and that they remain true to the spirit of the White Paper
and of Lord Adonis, who has been a powerful figure in education for the
Government. More than that, he has been a powerful exponent of many of
the virtues in the White Paper that are given force in the Bill, and
which we support. I
recommend to the Committee a book by Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard,
called “A Class Act”. It talks about the myth of
Britain’s classless society and goes into education matters in
some detail, including the subject of grammar schools, which we will no
doubt discuss later in our considerations. Lord Adonis is a powerful
advocate of grammar schools as a way to enable greater social mobility.
However, let us not digress. Indeed, I am sure that you will not allow
me to do so, Mr. Chope.
Let us consider the background
to the amendments. In a letter to no less a person than the Chairman of
the Select Committee—the man who saved John Clare’s
cottage for the nation; I do not make light of that—the
Secretary of State
wrote: “Enabling
schools to benefit from a trust is at the heart of our
proposals.” She went on
to say that the amendments would create a duty to encourage all schools
to become self-governing. In his monthly press conference, on 11
October, the Prime Minister
said: “By the
end of this third
term,”— linguistically
he is not at his best
here— “I want
every school that wants to be able to
be” one to
become “an independent,
non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop
in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject
to certain common
standards.” In
the introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister
says: “Our aim
is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state
schools. It will be for schools to decide whether they wish to acquire
a Trust—similar to those that support Academies—or become
a self-governing foundation school. But it will be easy for them to do
so, without unnecessary bureaucratic interference. And they will do so
in a system of fair admissions, fair funding and clear
accountability.” The
principle of trust schools is at the heart of the Government’s
agenda. It was what drove the White Paper, and is at the core of the
Bill. The White Paper
says: “At the
heart of this new vision are Trust schools...We will encourage all
primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a
Trust.” That is precisely
what we say in these amendments. We have become committed to the
principles of the White Paper because we think that they are right.
What works is what matters. That degree of self-government, in which
schools have proper control of their affairs, and the greater diversity
and choice that it will produce will be beneficial. It will produce an
education system that delivers more for more children.
We want to align ourselves with
the Schools Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister
inasmuch as they agree with that vision. We could be churlish and say
that we got there first, but we are all in the same place, so let us be
nothing less than generous about that. On that basis, it would be
almost inconceivable for the Minister to reject the amendments in my
name and those of my hon. Friends. They give life to the principles
that I have outlined and repeat the pledges that the Prime Minister and
others made in the White Paper.
By the time the Select
Committee considered the matter, however, the Government had begun to
backtrack. As I said, they were subject to pressure. I do not need to
tell you, Mr. Chope, that parliamentary arithmetic had a part to play
in that. The Government did not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader
of the Opposition and my hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State and
the shadow Minister for Schools to provide the principled opposition
that they did; they thought that the Opposition might deceive them and
not support the Bill. As we know, however, Mr. Chope, that is not the
kind of Opposition that the
Conservatives represent. We are absolutely principled in our
determination to do our best for the children of this country and we
would never let petty squabbles, short-term gains and a miserable
pyrrhic victory obscure that vision. We were therefore there to back
the Government. But, uncertain, they felt that they had to bend in the
direction of those with a rather less clear view of the virtues of the
White Paper and everything that it can do. The Select Committee report
said: “The
Secretary of State has told us that there will be no incentives
offered, or pressure exerted, to encourage schools to become Trust
schools. The decision to become a Trust will be for individual schools.
We welcome these assurances. That being the case, the Schools
Commissioner is likely to perform a much less executive role in
relation to Trust schools than the White Paper
suggests.” That view was
not, however, shared by the whole Select Committee. A minority report
welcoming trust schools was submitted by some of its members, who are
also on this Committee. I pay tribute to their work on the Select
Committee and to their courage in producing a minority report. The
report
said: “We
support the development of Trust schools, with their greater autonomy
and the external support that a trust would bring. This autonomy should
include full ownership of assets. Independence must mean full
independence if it is to have impact and real value. We believe that as
the Trust is a new category of school it should be a duty to promote
it. We also believe that the Government should leave open the option of
a requirement for schools to become Trusts or independent of the local
authority in some
form.” The
minority report, the White Paper and the Opposition are clear: we want
to encourage all schools to become trust schools, although I say no
more than encourage. Contrary to what the Minister quite naughtily
suggested at our previous sitting, this isnot about the
difference between obligation and encouragement, and we should not
oblige schools to do things that are not in their interests and which
their governors and the local community do not want. This is about how
actively we encourage schools—that is the real difference
between us. The White Paper was clear about that, but the Bill is less
so; the Prime Minister and Lord Adonis were clear about it, but
Ministers are now rather less so. I appreciate that Ministers are in a
difficult position, but I want to be helpful and guide them in the
direction in which I know they want to
travel.
| 
