Annette
Brooke: Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of
the total education funding held back by central Government is higher
than that which might be retained for the local authorities’
functions that we have just
described?
Jacqui
Smith: No, I will not confirm those figures. The hon. Lady
is right; I have made that argument, particularly in relation to local
government. This Government, however, have put in the hands of schools
and governing bodies more resources and powers to enable them to make
the decisions that matter for their pupils and communities.
Our proposals will provide
freedom and fairness for all schools, and sharp accountability for
results. We do not want to fetter their autonomy and interfere with
their procedural rules. That is why the amendments tabled by the hon.
Member for Gainsborough, which seek to impose directly a particular
model, and the more mainstream proposals from the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings, which would require bodies other than the
governing body to attempt to second guess, and—I must
say—in some cases, frustrate the wishes of an individual school,
go against the spirit of the Bill and the White Paper. That is why I
shall resist
them.
Mr.
Hayes: I invited the right hon. Lady to affirm her support
for the principle of trust schools and to repeat the assurances given
by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State when they introduced
the White Paper anticipating this legislation. I did that with
amendments that say simply that encouragement to that end should be
part of the Bill. I do not regard encouragement as prescriptive or
dogmatic, but as entirely in the spirit that underpinned the
Bill’s intentions. I am surprised therefore that she has not
embraced the amendments with the enthusiasm that I
anticipated. The
Minister is right: there is a difference of nuance between the opinions
of Committee members, for which we make no apology. The Conservative
party is
an open-minded, plural party. We are an Opposition in the process of
developing our ideas on this subject, and it is absolutely right that
my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough should have the opportunity
to express another view—a different model. We are pleased that
he is serving alongside us on this Committee and proud of his
contribution here and to the House. It would be healthy to explore the
key points that he made about the virtues of giving schools freedom and
the benefit that that brings to teachers and governors. Teachers and head teachers are
among the most creative people in our society and the more we constrain
them, the less we get from them. My hon. Friend is right about that.
Successive Governments have probably taken too little account of that
creativity, and the constant changes to and imposition of targets,
regulations and schemes have done teachers no favours. I want their
creativity to flower for the benefit of our children, and I want a
Conservative Government who recognise that and who re-elevate the role
of educators and enable them to exercise the kind of freedoms described
by my hon. Friend. The
amendments, however, are moderate. Indeed, one might say that they are
framed in a way in which the Government would find irresistible. Well,
resist them they have; they are so fearful of their critics on the left
of the Labour party and of those even further to the left in the
Liberal Democrats, that they are timid about their own ambitions. We
are not timid about those ambitions, but proud and certain about what
we want to achieve for the benefit of our country’s
children. Let me be
clear: the only reason why we support these kinds of measures and the
freedoms that lie at the heart of the Bill, about which we have spoken
today, is because they will be beneficial. They will deliver a better
education for our children. For that reason and because the issue is so
important, I intend to press amendment No. 206 to a Division to test
the Committee and the Government’s resolve and toshow
where the Conservative party—a principled Opposition, defending
the interests of the children of this
country—stands. Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
15.
Division
No.
17] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 19 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
20Right
of governing body to determine own foundation
proposals
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 20,
page 15, line 18, after ‘by',
insert ‘a two-thirds majority vote
of'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 155, in
clause 20, page 15, line 18, at end
insert ‘and, in the case of
secondary schools, following consultation with any relevant feeder
primary
schools.'.
Sarah
Teather: The amendments relate to the process of becoming
a trust school. During earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Bury,
North questioned whetherthe outgoing governing body would
always be best placed to make a decision if its school had failed in
its duty. Although I have sympathy with his views, Ishall not
attempt to deal with them in discussingthe amendments; I
shall take it as read that the Government intend that such bodies
should make the decision, and merely try to strengthen the majority
required. A
two-thirds majority is known as a super-majority. For many businesses,
a super-majority is common practice when the board of directors is
asked to
consider any major constitutional change. In fact, when a board of
directors is asked to deal with any special resolutions, such as
changing the company’s name, a 75 per cent. majority is normally
required; a two-thirds majority is probably rather lenient for the case
that I am discussing. The change proposed is serious;
it is not as if people would be voting for a new coffee machine in the
staff lounge. A simple majority would not do for business and it should
not do for schools. All the community will need to have confidence in
any decisions and merely arguing for a majority of those present on the
governing body, rather than a two-thirds majority of the whole
governing body, does not seem adequate. Such a majority would not be
used in the charity or business sectors.
Amendment No. 155 is intended
to ensure that schools consult their feeder schools prior to taking any
vote, not afterwards. I am sure that Committee members will agree that
feeder schools have a vested interest in any decision taken by the
schools that they feed. They have a right to be consulted and for their
views to be taken into account by the governing body when it makes a
decision.
It being twenty-five minutes
past Ten o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the
Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o'clock.
|
