Sarah
Teather: I am slightly bemused by the amendments. On
Tuesday, the Conservatives tabled a series of amendments that tried to
add in another tier of appeal, yet in the present amendments they are
trying to remove the first tier of appeal. That seems slightly
inconsistent, unless one believes that there should never be any tier
of appeal—no means to ensure that due process occurs. That is
what we are discussing—making sure that there is a body to which
organisations can appeal if due process has not been followed. Surely
the Conservatives recognise that, if due process has not been followed,
there should be some means to prevent acquisition of the foundation and
a move to trust status. One cannot have a system in which that can be
railroaded through at all costs, regardless of any
safeguards.
Mr.
Hayes: I take the hon. Lady’s point. I suppose that
we would be more comfortable if we felt that the guidance had made
clearer the grounds on which an appeal might succeed or flounder.
However, because the guidance is of the type that I described, with its
references to global standards and the effect on the wider community,
and because there may be uncertainty over where the process might lead,
we are worried that an appeal might be a vexatious process rather than
a reflection of genuine
concerns.
Sarah
Teather: Those are matters on which the Minister can
reply. At the heart of our concerns about the amendments is our belief
that the adjudicator has a role to play—that of an independent
source for people to approach when they wish to appeal or are concerned
about the process. We do not want that part of the system to be
removed, so we shall oppose the
amendments.
Jacqui
Smith: As we have heard, the amendments would remove what
we believe is an important safeguard in the process of a school
acquiring a trust, which is the ability to refer such proposals to the
schools adjudicator in certain quite closely prescribed circumstances.
We are confident that many governing bodies, local communities,
parents, neighbouring schools and local authorities will see the
considerable benefits that trust status can bring to schools across the
country. The fact that we have already seen considerable interest in
considering that route is evidence of that.
However, it is right that we
should put in place a proper and reasonable process to allow local
accountability and scrutiny and in some cases—I hope that they
will be exceptional—for the local authority, as the local
democratically elected body, to refer such proposals to the
adjudicator. That is an important safeguard, which will enable an
impartial and experienced third party to determine the proposals on
the basis of what I think are clear criteria. If the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings looks at paragraph 14, “Criteria
for approval” by the decision maker, which in those
circumstances will be the adjudicator, he will see that we are
clear—indeed, fulsome—about what is involved in making
that decision. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. The
criteria detail the sort of evidence, the legal criteria and the impact
on standards that we would expect the adjudicator to bear in mind when
determining those
proposals. Mr.
Hayes: The question is how one might project a view of the
impact on standards. Given that, at that point, the school does not
have the status that it would have if it acquired a trust, only a
prediction of the effect that that might have on standards in other
schools in the area is possible. In making a judgment on that sort of
prediction about that projected status and its projected effect, it
would be hard for the adjudicator to sort out what is real from what is
imaginary, would it
not?
Jacqui
Smith: No, frankly I do not agree. We make clear on page
11 of the guidance notes the sort of factors that would constitute
evidence of the contribution that a trust would make to standards. If I
read out the six bullet points—I shall not—hon. Members
would see that the criteria for the evidence that the adjudicator will
be able to use to confirm whether that trust will contribute to raising
standards are reasonably, clear and broad.
Subsection (5)(a), which
amendment No. 36 would delete, makes the necessary provisions for the
governing body to determine trust acquisition proposals, subject to
regulations made under clause 21(1), which amendment No. 37 would
delete, to enable the local authority to refer those proposals to the
adjudicator. Clause 21(1) requires that any regulations on the
determination of trust acquisition proposals by the governing body
should include powers for the local authority to refer the proposals to
the adjudicator. In turn, clause 21(2), which would be deleted by
amendment No. 38, defines the types of school organisation change to
which the regulations made under clause 21(1) must refer. It is clear
that the effect of the amendments would be to remove that
possibility. In
defending the process through which a local authority would have to go
in order to refer the proposals, I refer the Committee to the draft
illustrative School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained
Schools) (England) Regulations as well as to the guidance. They make
clear the grounds on which a local authority would be able to refer the
proposals to the adjudicator. The first two grounds are inadequate
consultation—a governing body failing to meet the requirements
set out in regulations or to have regard to guidance on
consultation—and a failure to have regard to responses to a
consultation. The hon. Member for Brent, East was right to argue that,
if a consultation has been inadequate, there should be an opportunity
to refer the proposal. That is why those criteria are in the
regulations.
The third criterion is the
concern that a trust would have a negative impact on standards. I have
outlined the guidance in which we spell out the evidence that will be
used by the decision maker to determine whether that would be the case.
We are confident that the impact of taking on a trust will be to help
to drive improvement in standards, but if that fundamental rationale
for the policy was questioned, it could be the basis of a referral to
the adjudicator. The
three criteria in the regulations build on the commitments that we gave
in the White Paper. They are not intended to be restrictive or to allow
local authorities to block proposals to acquire a trust for no good
reason. They are an important back-stop and safeguard for parent power,
local autonomy and ensuring that the raising of standards is at the
heart of every proposal for a trust. On that basis, I hope that the
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will not press his
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes: I am not sure that the right hon. Lady has entirely
satisfied me and my hon. Friends. There could be a series of vexatious
complaints and objections to proposals by those who seek to block or
delay them. However, I hear what she says about the guidance. As a
result of this debate, I hope that she might see fit to review the
guidance if my prediction of vexatious attempts to block progress is
realised. She has the right to do so, and in the interests of making
the Bill work I am sure that she will want to. I hope that, on that
basis, we can move forward in the spirit of consensus that has imbued
our discussions and thinking thus
far. Because the
Opposition are ever anxious to be helpful and keen to make progress, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
20 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
21Rights
of interested bodies in relation to proposals under section
19 Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment No. 78, in clause 21, page 15, line 42, leave out
subsection
(4).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 343, in clause 21, page 16, line 4, at end
insert— ‘(d) any other
religious body or foundation relevant to the school in
question.'.
Mr.
Gibb: The amendment would delete subsection (4) of the
clause, which allows for a diocesan board of education, a local Roman
Catholic bishop or—for education for children aged 14 or over,
the Learning and Skills Council—to appeal to the adjudicator
against decisions taken by the governing body of a school or the local
authority. It is
unclear why such a power of appeal to the adjudicator is needed,
because a diocesan board is unlikely to want to appeal against
decisions taken by
the governing body of one of its own schools. It will have its own
internal mechanisms for exercising control over Church of England
schools, and the same will apply to a Catholic bishop’s control
over Catholic schools. The subsection is about giving a voice to the
bodies specified, who sat, among others, on the school organisation
committees that clause 27 will
abolish. 1.30
pm Paragraph 5.18
of the regulatory impact assessment makes that point when it
states: “Other
members of School Organisation Committees may feel that their voice has
been reduced, but regulations associated with the Bill will provide for
them to be able to refer proposals to the Schools Adjudicator to decide
in specified
circumstances.” It
is unclear why the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the
Learning and Skills Council are being given the right of appeal to the
adjudicator merely because they are losing their voice on the school
organisation committees. Many other bodies on those committees are
losing their voice but do not get that right of appeal. Furthermore,
the governing bodies of Church of England schools, Catholic schools
and, indeed, all foundation and voluntary schools will get a right of
appeal under clause 21(5) if the local authorities are making a
decision in respect of them. I would be grateful if the Minister
responded to those points and clarified the
position.
Jacqui
Smith: As the hon. Gentleman has spelt out, amendment No.
78 would prevent local dioceses and the Learning and Skills Council
from appealing to the adjudicator about decisions on proposals for
changes to schools. The hon. Gentleman is right. In the light of the
new strategic role of the local authority as the commissioner of
education services in the area, the Bill proposes abolishing the school
organisation committee and making the local authority the decision
maker in the first
instance. We
recognise, however, the continuing role and importance of local
stakeholders in education in the area. We have made it clear in
discussion with the Churches that our intention is that they will
continue to have the power that they had as members of the school
organisation committees to ensure that proposals go to the adjudicator
for decision if they have concerns. In a moment, I shall give examples
of where that might be the case. Similarly, the Learning and Skills
Council has a legitimate interest in 16-to-19 provision in the area and
should be able to ensure that a second look is taken at proposals that
affect that age
group. As the hon.
Gentleman says, all schools will be able to propose to expand or change
their category, and foundation and voluntary schools, including trust
schools, will be able to propose any changes to the school that require
statutory proposals. It is right, and it may well be welcomed by, for
example, the diocese that represents the schools if they are voluntary
aided, that that happens. However, we should not forget that one thing
that a local authority might be able to do in its decision-making role
is to reject proposals from schools, and that the powers of the diocese
to refer
proposals to the adjudicator could be helpful in ensuring that the
matter is considered afresh where concerns are
shared. I thought that
the hon. Gentleman might be concerned that it would be possible for the
diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to refer decisions such as
that of acquiring trust status. In fact, as the clause spells out and
we have just discussed, that would be a possibility for the local
authority, but not for the other organisations that we are talking
about. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that
there may be circumstances in which, notwithstanding the importance of
the local authority’s decision-making role and the ability of
foundation and voluntary aided schools to make the proposals, it is
appropriate for the diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to want
the adjudicator to take a second look at those
decisions.
Mr.
Gibb: I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s
explanation because of course they would not want decisions taken by
their own schools to be referred to the adjudicator. The Minister
referred to decisions being turned down by the local authority. That is
covered, as far as I can see, by subsection (5), which says that after
the initial determination by the authority, the governing body or the
trustees of the school can refer the decision to the adjudicator. Does
that not cover that point or have I misunderstood the
subsection?
Jacqui
Smith: I think that the provision indeed gives that
capacity to such bodies. However, given the role that they have had on
school organisation committees to date, it is reasonable that we also
enable that role to continue for dioceses and for learning and skills
councils. It is certainly something that the churches have requested we
ensure as we proceed with the new regime, in which the local authority
is the decision
maker.
Mr.
Gibb: Is it not the purpose of clause 27, to which we
shall come shortly, to abolish the school organisation committees, and
is it not the case that clause 21 puts back some of the elements of
those committees, with all of their associated
problems?
Jacqui
Smith: No, I do not believe that that is the case. We
shall discuss why we are potentially abolishing school organisation
committees when we get to clause 27. In any case, school organisation
committees also have a range of other functions in addition to their
function as a route for referral to the adjudicator. One of those
functions is to give a voice to the Learning and Skills Council with
respect to 16 to 19-year-olds, and to the dioceses with respect to
school organisation changes that had an impact on their schools or on
local education
provision. To clarify
the point about subsection (5) on which the hon. Gentleman questioned
me earlier, that subsection relates only to local authority proposals,
and would not enable a referral when proposals had not originated from
a local authority. I hope thatthe hon. Gentleman is persuaded
and reassured on the basis of those explanations and will withdraw the
amendment.
| 
