Jacqui
Smith: I shall speak to the whole group of amendments,
although some of them appear to contradictory, particularly amendments
Nos. 43 and 80. Both would delete almost exactly the same provisions,
but each suggests replacing them with different text. I am not
completely clear which of the alternative options hon. Members wish to
be considered, so I shall address the concerns that have been raised by
the hon. Members who have spoken so
far. Amendments Nos.
42 and 43 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to set out
in regulations requirements as to the charitable objects that the
trusts of trust schools must have. Amendments Nos. 80 and 79 retain
that power, but with the intention of requiring certain categories of
individuals to be
included in the regulations specifying categories of persons who are to
be disqualified from being trustees, as the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings outlined. I shall address the issue concerning
trustees and, I hope, the points that the hon. Member for Brent, East
raised about the conditions of membership of a trust and the removal of
a trust member. The
power to set out in regulations requirements as to the charitable
objects that the trusts of trust schools must have is contained in
proposed new section 23A(5) of the School Standards and Framework Act
1998, which is inserted by the clause. Amendment No. 42 would remove
that provision and therefore that regulation-making power.
Amendment No. 43 would replace
proposed new section 23A(6) of the 1998 Act, which would also be
introduced by the clause, with a more limited regulation-making power.
Proposed new section 23A(6) currently specifies that the requirements
to be prescribed in regulations under new subsection (5) may include
the object or purposes of the trust and persons who are to be
disqualified from acting as charity trustees. Amendment No. 43 would
limit that to a regulation-making power to prescribe requirements as to
those persons. The
net effect of those two amendments would be to remove the Secretary of
State’s power to set certain specified objects or purposes for
the trust. I should like to explain why it is beneficial to be able to
require trusts to adopt certain charitable objects. The draft
illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England)
Regulations 2006, which we have made available to the Committee, set
out the charitable object that all trusts must have, which is
“the advancement of the education
of the pupils at any school in respect of which it acts as the
foundation.” Furthermore,
we have made it clear that the trust must also “promote
community cohesion” as part of its work to further the
advancement of education. Those requirements are contained in
regulations 4 and 5 of the draft illustrative regulations that we have
circulated. Those are
the right objects. It is right that we should have certainty that
trusts that will enter into relationships with schools will have the
advancement of education as a key object and that, alongside that, they
will be promoting community cohesion. Because they are charities,
trusts will of course have to have exclusively charitable objects and
to conduct all their affairs in accordance with those objects. That is
an important safeguard. However, without the requirements in the draft
indicative regulations, which the amendment would effectively remove, a
trust could be established legally with charitable objects that do not
include the advancement of pupils’ education at the school. That
would probably be unacceptable.
In reality it is likely that
such a trust proposal would not make it through the consultation and
decision making processes, but I want to avoid doubt and reinforce
clearly our policy intention and the purposes of the reforms, which are
to raise standards for all and to allow every child to receive an
excellent education in order that he, or she, can fulfil their
potential. It is
right therefore that we require that for all trusts the advancement of
the education of the pupils be one of their charitable
objects. When the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings proposed his amendments, he
did not in fact argue that that should not be the case. I want to be
clear that he understands that if his amendment were made, that would
be the case. As I have suggested, it is important also that we require
all trusts to promote community cohesion in order to further their
charitable object—the advancement of education.
That follows up our White Paper
commitment that trusts will be under a duty to promote community
cohesion. That is a clear commitment that we do not want trust schools
to operate in splendid isolation or to cherry-pick the best
students—issues that hon. Members have raised. For example,
promoting community cohesion could include mentoring arrangements
between schools in which the best schools help the lowest achievers,
and shared facilities so that less-advantaged pupils have access to
good IT, science or language
provision. That is
fundamental to our objective of ensuring that the reforms drive up
standards for every child, and allow them to achieve their full
potential. That sends a clear message that trust schools must work in
partnership with their communities. We have been clear that schools
need to work in partnership with others, which is reinforced by the
requirement to promote community cohesion as outlined in the
regulations. As I have
suggested also, the requirement that trusts adopt such objects does not
prevent them from adopting additional charitable objects as they
consider fit. An existing charitable trust could adopt such an
additional object if it wished to meet the requirements in the clause,
but that must be alongside the important objects that I just outlined
and which are spelt out in the regulations. That would not be the case
if the amendment was
made.
Mr.
Hayes: As the Minister rightly said, I did not refer to
that particular aspect of our amendment. As she will recognise, our
concern is that this element of the Bill might be too broad and vague
in its expectations of the trusts. However, if that expectation is as
simple and straightforward as their educational purpose, could it not
be put in the Bill, rather than being left to regulations and that
rather vague reference in the
Bill?
Jacqui
Smith: That is a very interesting suggestion made
reasonably persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. It is so important to us
to be clear that the charitable object of all trusts associated with
schools should be the advancement of education, and that in promoting
that, they should advance community cohesion as well. However, in the
spirit of consensus, I am willing to agree with him: it would be a good
idea to put that in the Bill. Perhaps he would be willing for us to
come back on Report with proposals that will ensure that those objects
are in the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not accepting his
amendment, but his point that it would be a good idea for those
objectives to be in the
Bill.
3.15
pm I shall now
turn to amendments Nos. 80 and 79. I leave aside the Secretary of
State’s power to specify in regulations the objects or purposes
that all trusts would be required to have and shall concentrate on the
other effect of the amendments, to require regulations disqualifying
certain categories of person from acting as charity trustees to include
those categories listed in proposed new subsection (6A). I will not
dwell on the importance of the safeguard of the Secretary of State
being able to disqualify certain categories of people to prevent
unsuitable people from acting as trustees, as the need for it is
self-evident and it is not questioned by any member of the
Committee. Much as I
broadly share hon. Members’ aims in seeking to ensure that the
categories of individual that they identified are indeed disqualified
from being trustees, in these circumstances their amendment is
unnecessary. I am not about to become a soft touch with respect to the
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but in these
circumstances there are good reasons why the disqualified persons
should be stated in the regulations rather than in the Bill, not least
because some of the legislative provisions to which they refer may
change over time. It would then be more appropriate to be able to
update regulations rather than primary legislation.
I shall try to reassure the
hon. Gentleman in respect of most of his comments about the sorts of
individuals it would be appropriate to disqualify. The draft
illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England)
Regulations 2006, which we have made available, give an indication of
the categories that we have in mind for disqualification. They already
include the main categories that hon. Members suggested in their
amendment. In particular, but not exclusively, they make it clear that
a person who is prevented by education legislation from working with
children or young persons would be disqualified; a person who at any
time has been convicted of any offence, and has had passed on him a
sentence of imprisonment for not less than five years would also be
disqualified. We also include a person who is detained under the Mental
Health Act 1983. That is where I disagree with hon. Members that we
should include the wording in the amendment about somebody being
“liable to be detained” under the Mental Health Act. The
hon. Member for Brent, East made the arguments why that would not be
appropriate. In a
previous ministerial incarnation, I was fortunate to serve as the
Minister with responsibility for mental health. One of the
Government’s priorities, which was argued for strongly by people
who have had mental health problems, was to tackle some of the
discrimination that often exists in that respect. That is important,
not least because one in four of us is likely to suffer mental health
problems at some time in our lives. It is important to tackle that
prejudice. Of course, it is often the case that even those who have had
serious mental health problems and have been detained under mental
health legislation will recover and be able to lead full lives, in
employment and in civic life.
As the hon. Lady rightly said,
on the whole people with mental health problems are more likely to be
dangerous to themselves than to others. It is therefore
important to use the definition in other education legislation, which
reflects mental health legislation, and in the regulations, that we
disqualify people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, not
those who are liable to be detained. As I said, the detail proposed
in the amendments belongs in regulations rather than in the Bill, for
the simple reason that legislation moves on and we need to be able to
update it. Although we share most of their aspirations, I hope that
hon. Members will be able to withdraw the amendments about the listing
of disqualified persons, warm in the knowledge that they have been
successful in persuading me, as have the others who have already made
that point to me, that it would be appropriate to put the objects of
trusts in legislation. We will come back and ensure that that
happens.
Mr.
Hayes: I offer a word of thanks to the Minister for
acknowledging the point about the importance of putting the objects and
purposes of trusts in the Bill in specific form. We await her further
comments on that on Report.
My aim on the other matters
was, as the hon. Member for Brent, East said, to reassure all those who
are looking at our deliberations on the Bill that there would be no
doubt about who might become involved in education by such means. There
is sensitivity about the issue among parents and the wider community,
and the Minister has acknowledged that by making it clear that the
regulation will go further than the regulations that pertain to
charities as a whole. A number of people are disqualified from acting
as trustees of all charities, but the Minister suggested that further
steps will need to be taken in respect of these charities because they
deal with education and vulnerable people. It is long-established
practice that charities can add further qualifications and
disqualifications when dealing with vulnerable
people. I understand
the Minister’s point about my argument about people who are
liable to be detained. I want to make it absolutely clear that we mean
no prejudice towards people who have had mental health problems. I
would guess that we all, as constituency MPs, have worked with
community groups, charitable groups and individuals who have found
themselves in such circumstances. I certainly have in my constituency.
There is an enormous amount of prejudice that we need to cut
through. Although I
have not had the opportunity, still less the pleasure, of serving as a
Minister responsible for mental health, I have been delighted to be
involved over some time in all-party groups concerned with brain injury
and with disability as a whole, as secretary and co-chairman
respectively. I take a great interest in such matters and am absolutely
determined that someone should not be subject to prejudice because they
have had such challenges.
Our aim was to tighten things
up in respect of those who might be in the process of being detained,
as well as where the reason for their detention might relate to risk to
others, particularly children. That was at the heart of why we made
those probing amendments. However, the Minister has reassured us that
she shares our desire to protect children, and as a result I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in clause 31,
page 22, leave out lines 24 to
41. The amendment is
intended as a probing amendment to explore the reasons why the
Government want the power to remove and replace certain individuals on
a trust body. Although it seems appropriate and desirable, as we have
just discussed, for the Secretary of State to be able to disqualify
certain categories of people from serving on trust bodies, it does not
seem immediately clear why the Secretary of State would want the power
to remove and replace individuals.
That leads clearly on to the
question of whether that provision is intended to leave open the power
to interfere in a more political way with the running of the school.
That does not seem to be in the general spirit of autonomy that the
Government have spoken about. In extreme circumstances, the Charity
Commission can investigate if concerns are raised about the conduct of
a trustee. The commission then has the power to remove individuals if
they fall foul of the guidelines. In other situations, the removal of
trustees would, I assume, be governed by the rules in the charter of
the charitable trust, which is likely to make provision for trustees to
be voted out. I would like clarification on that from the Minister. It
would be helpful to put something about that into guidance, as we said
when we discussed the previous string of
amendments. If the
school is failing, surely it is not the Secretary of State but the
local education authority that should step in. There is the question of
why the Secretary of State still wants the power to remove an
individual trustee. It is not clear to me why the Government want that
power. The amendment is merely meant to probe into the circumstances in
which the Secretary of State intends to use the power. I want
reassurance that the power is not for the purpose of political
interference in the direction and running of the
school.
| 
