Mr.
Leigh: No, I want to finish this important point. Most
people who run schools are fairly conservative. They do not want rapid
change. One of their reasons for not liking what has gone on in the
past 30 or40 years is that they believe that changes have
been imposed on them. If we had the courage of our convictions, and
allowed schools to do what they wanted, change would be slow and
incremental and head teachers would gradually respond to what parents
wanted locally. Most schools would stay very much as they are; most
comprehensive schools, for instance, would remain comprehensive. It is
true that they would want to respond to parents, and many parents want
a traditional type of education. Others do not necessarily want that.
Some people want faith schools; others do not. Some want uniforms;
others do not. Some want traditional education; others want progressive
education. Change would be slow.
If only this Committee had the
courage to stop interfering and to let the professionals get on with
it, there would not be chaos or an enormous revolution in our schools,
there would be gradual, incremental change for the better and schools
would be able to respond to what parents
wanted.
Sarah
Teather: I am curious to know what the hon. Gentleman
meant when he said that all schools would find their own
level.
Mr.
Leigh: I meant that schools respond to the situation in
which they find themselves—to what parents want, and to what
they can and should do. That is what life is about, and surely it is
what we all do. We provide a service, whether in the public or the
private sector, and, depending on our skill or professionalism, people
choose whether to use it. Parents are in that
situation. 10
am Once schools
were free to manage, it would become apparent to parents which school
they should send their children to. I agree that most would usually
want
to send their child to the nearest school. There would not be a
revolutionary change. The education system of the early 1950s would not
suddenly be replicated, and hundreds of new grammar schools would not
freeze out the existing comprehensive schools. Some comprehensive
schools might, it is true, want to select more pupils on the basis of
ability, but not all would do so, and I do not think that comprehensive
schools would suddenly become grammar schools. Others may disagree with
my view, but we should at least have the courage of our convictions and
allow people the freedom that they surely deserve. If my amendments were accepted,
it would follow that the education departments of county councils,
metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities, which we refer to as
local education authorities, would no longer be needed. Even the
Department for Education and Skills would have a lot less to do. The
independent state schools would be funded according to a precise,
easily understood formula, and their funding would be paid to them,
probably termly, by a funding agency set up precisely for that purpose.
That agency would in turn be paid directly by the Treasury.
With a simple and sensible
funding formula, little bureaucracy would be needed. As to the
Department, I am sorry that there are officials present, as I am sure
that they do a worthwhile job, but I guess that they could be equally
well employed elsewhere in Whitehall, because the role of the
Department would be very small indeed. Perhaps only about 100 people
would be needed altogether to be involved in policy.
My new clauses and various
amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me all point in the same
direction. It is time for the education system to come of age. It is
time to let schools off the hook of excessive bureaucracy and
regulations. It is time we really had—not eventually, but
now—independent state schools.
Sarah
Teather: Well, I am sure that the local councillors in the
hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be delighted to hear his
views about the role of the local authority. I can hear the printing
press whirring now, as leaflets containing his quoted remarks are
prepared for the local elections. His vision for education would remove
any tier of local accountability and any local priority-setting role.
It would prevent any kind of flexible funding involving different
Departments, which makes possible the joint funding of work that can
contribute to projects such as “Every Child Matters”.
Needless to say, the Liberal Democrats oppose the amendments and new
clauses. The
amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
(Mr. Hayes) make it clear yet again that the Conservatives believe
community schools to be inferior to other schools. However, they have
not proved that, and we have rehearsed the arguments many times in
previous sittings, so I shall not cover them again. We shall oppose the
amendments.
Jacqui
Smith: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
commented on the make-up of the Committee—which, on the Labour
Benches, is made up of splendid and committed individuals. At least 10
of the Labour Members who voted against the Bill
were given the opportunity to serve on the Committee, and refused. I
could characterise the Opposition amendments as being of the “We
are from the Conservative party and we are here to help you”
type. That is not a phrase that would ring convincingly in
anyone’s ears. One clear thread of intention runs through all
the amendments—the desire to impose a particular form of
governance on all schools. That desire manifests itself in slightly
different ways, but it is fundamentally the imposition of one model in
a context in which we have consistently argued that the way forward is
for schools, governing bodies and communities to have autonomy in
decision
making.
Mr.
Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain what is meant in
paragraph 2.5 on page 25 of the White Paper, which says:
“We will encourage all
primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a
Trust”?
Jacqui
Smith: We will, for example, appoint a schools
commissioner who will provide support and advice to schools that want
to go down that particular route, who will work with those who might
want to provide that sort of external support for schools, and who will
help with the documentation. That is precisely the sort of practical
encouragement and support that I want there to be, but that is
fundamentally different from imposing a particular
model.
Mr.
Hayes: The right hon. Lady must be clear: the White Paper
says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
reminded her:
“We will encourage all
primary and secondary schools to be
self-governing”— not
some, not a half or a quarter, but all. That is my hon. Friend’s
point, and the Minister failed to answer
it.
Jacqui
Smith: Well, no, actually; the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton was asking me what “encourage”
meant, and I explained. We are clear that self-government is an option
for all primary and secondary schools; support and advice will be
available for any that choose to take that route.
The most extreme of the
amendments are those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. As he
spelled out in his apocalyptic vision, his amendments would effectively
require all schools to become grant-maintained and to be outside the
local authority framework. I have to say that I think there is no place
for those amendments, or for that approach, either in the Bill or in
the Government’s attitude to
education. Secondly,
there is a group of amendments that do not go to the same lengths as
those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but that nevertheless
seek to fetter the actions of a whole range of actors in the field of
school organisation by requiring them to exercise their functions with
regard to a particular view. I have some sympathy with the sentiment
expressed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I
cannot agree with him on the inflexibility that the amendments would
introduce in all
circumstances. To take
the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough first, they
would, as I suggested, effectively herald a return to an even more
extreme
version of grant-maintained status for schools, as they would require
the Secretary of State to make, by affirmative procedure, regulations
requiring all maintained schools to become independent charitable
trusts. The amendments would not leave that decision in the hands of
the individual governing body, and that was not the case even for the
failed GM policy. That goes against everything that our schools White
Paper stands for: putting parents and the needs of their children at
the heart of the school system; ensuring greater diversity of
provision, not central direction; and tailoring education to the needs
of individual
children. Crucially,
the whole system must be set in a framework of local accountability and
determination. We want to ensure that all children are treated fairly
under that framework, which must be designed to combat social
disadvantage, not perpetuate it. None of my hon. Friends believes in a
school system—or a society—where people “find
their level”. We believe in a system that promotes opportunities
for everybody and ensures that every child is able to fulfil their
potential, as was set out in clause 1. We do not accept the status
quo—the hon. Gentleman seems to imply that he does—in
which where one gets to in life depends on where one starts. That is a
fundamental difference in the values that inform our decision
making.
Mr.
Leigh: What proportion of the education budget is siphoned
off by the DFES and local authorities before it reaches
pupils?
Jacqui
Smith: With respect to local authorities, a considerably
larger proportion is delegated to schools than was in 1997, because of
how we have reformed the funding
regime.
Sarah
Teather: But does the Minister agree that part of the
reserved portion of the budget that local authorities hold is often for
very important projects, such as preventing exclusions, and providing
cross-borough music facilities, special schools and transport
arrangements? It is spent on all sorts of things that other schools may
benefit
from.
Jacqui
Smith: I agree with the hon. Lady that those are carefully
defined functions that it is appropriate for local authorities to carry
out.
Mr.
Leigh: If I were to say that the DFES and LEAs siphoned
off up to 40 per cent. of the total education budget before it reached
pupils, would the Minister recognise that figure? If not, will she tell
us her figure?
Jacqui
Smith: That is not a figure that I recognise. Delegation
from local authorities to schools has increased from about 77 per cent.
in 1997 to well over 85 per cent., if not over 90 per cent.,
now. What are the
other significant differences between the hon. Gentleman’s
proposition and that in the Bill? First, he proposes a once-and-for-all
shift to what is, in effect, grant-maintained school status. We have
made it clear that there may need to be flexibility in the form of a
mechanism allowing schools to change their status and consider whether
trust status continues to provide what they want. We have therefore
built into the Bill
provisions to allow a governing body to remove a trust if there are
concerns about its performance. Once again, we have flexibility and
decision making for a governing body versus an irreversible and
inflexible model. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman
made it completely clear that, under his model, all schools should be
able to return to a system of selection. As I have identified on
numerous occasions, that is the absolute antithesis of his argument
that parents should be able to choose the schools that are appropriate
for them. Under that system, schools would choose pupils, not the other
way round. Finally,
the hon. Gentleman acknowledged perfectly openly that, under his
proposals, GM status is part of a deliberate attempt to break up the
local family of schools by encouraging them to opt out of local
authorities; indeed, it would completely destroy the education function
of local authorities. As we know, GM schools were directly funded and
given additional capital and recurrent funding, in contrast to other
schools. Indeed, they were given about the only capital funding that
was around at the time—talk about a bribe.
The hon. Gentleman talked
almost in passing about the national funding agency that would need to
be formed. There was a funding agency to direct funding to
grant-maintained schools under the previous regime. It is fundamentally
wrong to suggest that setting up a large national bureaucracy to fund
every school in the country would not provide more jobs for DFES
officials. That proposition goes against everything for which the
Opposition have argued, particularly at the last election. It would
lead to a large new national bureaucracy—that is what the hon.
Gentleman is arguing for.
The Government are clear that
trust schools will remain within the local authority-maintained sector
and be funded by the local authority on the same basis as other
schools. As we have repeatedly made clear, no school will be forced to
acquire a trust, although the option to do so will be available to all
schools. It will be for each individual school to make that decision
according to its specific needs and local circumstances. Our Bill and
our approach are permissive and enabling, unlike the prescriptive
approach taken by Opposition Members.
Mr.
Hayes: I am not sure how the Minister can describe
encouragement as prescriptive. Our amendments are wedded to the
principles in the White Paper. What sort of future does she envisage?
Does she, like the White Paper, envisage all schools following the
proposed path? Will half of schools do that, or a
quarter?
Jacqui
Smith: In fact, I was just coming to what I might call the
mainstream Opposition amendments. I have to say that I feel marginally
warmer towards them than I do towards those of the hon. Member for
Gainsborough. An interesting tussle is going on over Conservative
policy, and it will be interesting to see what emerges at the end of
the process. Will Conservative Members flip in one direction or flop in
another during that policy formation process? I
suspect
that their leader will wait to hear what other people have to say to him
before he makes up his
mind.
10.15
am Amendments Nos.
206 and 207 and new clause 15 are not damaging in the same way as are
those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but they are unnecessary.
They attempt to force a particular model on to local education
authorities, the schools adjudicator and the Secretary of State, and
effectively to second guess a school’s decision.
I can appreciate the sentiment
behind the amendments, which, to a certain extent, is consistent with
the objectives that we have spelt out and that the hon. Gentleman
highlighted today. In our view, however, the way in which they seek to
impose those models in all circumstances would work contrary to the
policy of giving schools the freedom to decide for themselves how they
wish to develop in order to meet the needs of pupils, parents and the
wider
community.
| 
