Mrs.
Dorries: Again, the Secretary of State wants to have her
cake and eat it. The whole idea of foundation schools—or trust
schools, as the Prime Minister called them, or grant-maintained
schools, as we called them—is to inject outside management and
competence into the running of schools. Charities are being encouraged
to take on the task of creating foundation schools, or to take under
their wing existing schools and become foundation schools. What is the
chance of them doing that when the Secretary of State gives herself
power under the clause to make regulations to remove a charity trustee
from the foundation school, or to appoint a new charity trustee? By
implication, she would be doing so against the wishes of the founding
charity, because if it were the wish of the charity to remove or
appoint a trustee, then surely it would do that
itself. Once the
Secretary of State has approved a foundation school—which
includes having approved those who are to run it—she has to
stand back and let them run it. She cannot hold over them the threat of
taking away the charity’s control through the governors. What
recourse will the charity have, and
does the power not go completely against the grain of empowering local
charities, communities and faith groups? If the Prime Minister wants
schools to act and behave as independent schools do, they need the
freedom to do so, otherwise the idea is a fallacy. They cannot behave
as independent schools without having the freedom that independent
schools have. I view the power as just one more unnecessary obstacle to
achieving the goal of all schools being as good as independent schools,
and having the same freedoms and equalities as
them. Jacqui
Smith: I apologise to the hon. Member for Brent, East, for
not responding to the point that she made on the previous group of
amendments about the ability of members of the trust to remove
individual trustees. Because of the charitable nature of the
organisations that would be trusts, those who constitute the charitable
company or incorporated organisation—those are the two
categories that could form a trust that would make a link with the
school—would deal with the removal of trustees or members by
trustees or members of the trust. In the case of a charitable company,
its memorandum and articles would provide for that to happen. So in all
those circumstances, there would be a route by which individual
trustees could be
removed. The amendment
would delete new section 23B, which clause 31 of the Bill inserts into
the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It would therefore remove
the power that we have introduced for the Secretary of State to remove
trustees from, and appoint them to, the trust of a trust school by
direction in certain prescribed circumstances, as we have
heard. In
the Bill and the draft illustrative regulations, we have developed and
made clear a proportionate, well balanced and graduated series of
safeguards around trusts. The hon. Lady is concerned in particular that
the power might be an attempt to impose some sort of political element
on to the trust. I absolutely assure her that that is certainly not the
intention behind the provisions; far from it. We have been very clear
that we envisage decisions being made by the schools’ governing
bodies, in the interests of the school and the local community. They
will make links with trusts that they feel will be appropriate for
delivering higher standards for their children.
The process for considering
that decision is set out in the guidance that we have outlined. The
provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to remove and appoint
individual trustees comprise a reserve power—a
fall-back position—to be used in exceptional circumstances. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that she
considers it to be a reserve power, only to be used where there are
clear and serious concerns about an individual trustee. I hope that I
can convince hon. Members that it should remain alongside the other
safeguards. 3.30
pm
Sarah
Teather: Will the Minister give some examples of when the
Secretary of State thinks that there might be an issue, and explain why
provisions could not be written into the regulations disqualifying
certain categories of individuals from serving as trustees, which would
be much fairer?
Jacqui
Smith: There will be a variety of individuals who will
have done certain things, whether criminal or otherwise, whom we have
referred to clearly in the regulations as those who would be
disqualified from taking a role in a trust from the start. We have
discussed those restrictions, but we also have to recognise that we
cannot legislate for every particular circumstance. It is possible
that, despite the safeguards, there may be occasions where a trustee is
not disqualified, but acts in ways that cause concern or risk bringing
the trust into disrepute. It would be invidious, if not impossible, to
attempt to legislate in advance for such activities, if they are not
illegal. We are confident that such circumstances would be extremely
rare because of the other safeguards we have put in place.
It would be foolish and remiss
of us not to include a mechanism in the Bill to deal with such an
eventuality, should it arise, which is why new section 23B of the
School Standards and Framework Act 1998, inserted by this clause, will
give the Secretary of State the power to remove trustees in certain
circumstances. Perhaps it will reassure the hon. Member for Brent, East
to learn that the circumstances in question would have to be very
serious. The power would not be used lightly.
As I have already said, as has
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is a reserve power.
Perhaps an extract from the draft Education (Requirements as to
Foundations) (England) Regulations will reassure hon. Members,
especially on the point the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made about
whether the power might be used willy-nilly for political reasons.
Before the Secretary of State can exercise her power to remove
trustees, she must be satisfied that the person has acted in a way that
is incompatible with the object or purposes of the foundation, or that
the person is likely to bring into disrepute any school to which the
foundation appoints
governors.
Mrs.
Dorries: Would the foundation not be the best body to
decide whether that was an appropriate action? Why should it be the
Secretary of State? Why is the foundation not empowered to make that
decision?
Jacqui
Smith: I have already identified that the foundation might
be empowered to make that decision and might want to make it. The
argument is that in very extreme circumstances it might also be
appropriate for the Secretary of State to have that power. As the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings argued in relation to the
previous group of amendments, when we are dealing with schools,
education and children, we should make it clear that if circumstances
arose in which we needed to use those provisions, they should be in the
legislation. Perhaps
I can reassure the hon. Lady that there is no question of the Secretary
of State removing a trustee without giving them a chance to defend
themselves. The draft regulations require the Secretary of State to
respect certain procedural requirements before exercising her power.
She must notify each of the charity trustees of the school that she
intends to exercise her power, setting out the reasons for her decision
to remove any charity trustee, and she must provide the person whom she
proposes to remove with the opportunity to make representations against
their removal.
The removal of a trustee would
be a serious matter, and it is intended that this reserve power would
be exercised as a last resort. As I outlined, many safeguards are in
place. They include the disqualification of certain categories of
person from acting as trustee; the trust acquisition process; the need
for public consultation on trust proposals; and, similarly, the
requirement that the school’s governing body and the trust
partners should make the decision about who should be a trustee.
However, there may be a rare circumstance in which it would be helpful
for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint a particular
individual to the trust of a particular school. It is another element
of the Secretary of State’s powers, but we do not envisage using
it widely. I shall
respond to the point that the hon. Member for Brent, East made. I think
that she was questioning whether the Secretary of State would use the
power in circumstances of school failure, and whether that would be
appropriate. We do not expect to address such circumstances using that
route, because governing bodies and not trusts will be accountable for
school performance. If there were concerns about a school’s
performance, the school would be in the same position as all other
maintained schools, and the local authority would have the same powers
of intervention. The
hon. Lady asked what would be the local authority’s role. In
those circumstances, it would have the power to issue the governing
body with a formal warning, and, ultimately, appoint additional
governors, suspend the school’s delegated budget or replace the
governing body with an interim executive board. That would effectively
reduce or remove for a time the trust’s influence over the
school. If those measures did not work, the local authority would have
the power to propose the school’s closure, in which case the
trust’s role would end. The relationship with a trust would also
be broken in circumstances of trust insolvency.
It is wise and prudent to
provide in legislation the possibility of Secretary of State
intervention in closely prescribed circumstances. I hope that hon.
Members feel reassured, and that the hon. Lady will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: I did not speak before the Minister, so I just want
to say a word in support of what she said. The Charity Commission
suggests that only 33 per cent. of charities surveyed had formal checks
on prospective trustees in place. It is critical that in respect of
schools, the Minister provides that long stop. We will be dealing with
vulnerable people and the concerns of parents and others.
If the Charity Commission
suggests that that is the rate at which charities go through the formal
process of checking prospective trustees, it gives some cause for
concern. The gist is that when charities are formed, the commission
asks trustees to sign a declaration making it clear that they are not
disqualified under a variety of criteria. There are people who might
seek dishonestly to find their way on to those bodies. None of us would
want them there, and for that reason, I wanted to say a word in support
of what the Minister said about the long-stop, reserve
provision.
Sarah
Teather: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In a
debate on a previous clause, I made a point about the lack of Criminal
Records Bureau checks. However, it would be better to deal with the
issue through charities law, than by introducing more discretion for
the Secretary of State.
I moved the amendment to probe
the reasoning behind the Secretary of State’s desire for the
power. I am concerned about process. The Minister well knows that I
understand and sympathise with the need for safeguards. I have raised
the issue at various points during our sittings. However, I am more
comfortable with the idea of people knowing up front what disqualifies
them from serving, so they know where they stand, than leaving it up to
the Secretary of State’s discretion at a later stage.
I am concerned that the
Minister is not clear whether the regulations are adequate to deal with
all her concerns. Might it not be better for us to draw up stricter
regulations than to maintain a reserve power for the Secretary of
State? As a Liberal, I am instinctively uncomfortable with extensive
power being put into the hands of one individual. The Minister has
addressed most of my concerns so, although I continue to worry about
the reserve power of the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
32Parent
councils for certain foundation or foundation special
schools
Mr.
Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 32,
page 23, leave out lines 13 to 15 and
insert— ‘(3) The function of
a parent council is to assist the governing body in its consideration
of matters arising for determination by the governing body in the
exercise of its
powers.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 225, in clause 32, page 23, line 21, at end
insert ‘and ‘(e)
the availability to a parent council of administrative, secretarial and
related services and of information relevant to matters to be
considered by such a council, whether by way of written reports or
otherwise, excluding from involvement in the provision of any such
services any member of the staff of the school otherwise than under an
agreement voluntarily entered into by such member of staff for
reasonable
remuneration.'.
Mr.
Chaytor: The purpose of these two amendments is to allow
us a brief opportunity to examine some of the issues in relation to
parent councils, particularly the role and function of such councils,
the kind of administrative support that they might require, and the
demands that they might make on the school. Given that the Education
Act 2005 abolished the previous obligation of schools to hold an annual
parents’ meeting, how is it that we now feel that there will be
sufficient interest among parents for them to attend a parent council
which would, presumably, meet more
frequently than once a year? The argument for the parent council is
clearly that, in circumstances in which a trust school has been
established and the foundation has been given a majority on the
governing body, it would serve as a compensatory mechanism whereby the
parents’ voice could still be heard, albeit not to the same
degree as it used to be on the governing body.
The clause does not specify the
role or responsibilities of the parent council other than to say that
it should advise the governing body. If the governing body were to
refuse to take its advice, what kind of dispute resolution procedure
would there be, and how would the governing body ensure that a tiny
minority of parents did not subvert the council’s role to their
own advantage, or to the perceived advantage of their
children? Finally, if
the parent council is to be a serious body—if it attracts the
support and confidence of parents, meets fairly regularly, and deals
with serious and substantial issues—what sort of administrative
support will be necessary? Who will provide it and what burden might
fall on the school? Will members of staff—teachers or support
staff—be expected to service the parent council in the way in
which, previously, they have been expected to service the governing
body? Those are some of the questions that arise from my amendments. I
shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend’s
response.
| 
