Mr.
Chaytor: I am grateful for the Minister’s
explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 32, page
23, line 22, leave out ‘or
impose'. This is a
brief probing amendment, to flush outthe meaning of
subsection (5) of proposed newsection 23A. It
states: “Regulations
may confer or impose functions relating to parent
councils”. I have read
the regulations, but I am still unclear whether they impose or confer.
I ask the Minister to clarify that.
On the substantive issue, the
Opposition are in favour of parent councils and of parental involvement
in schools. Indeed, we believe that schools should be far more
responsive to the needs and wishes of parents. The thrust of the Bill
will enable the type and quality of schools demanded by parents to be
more available. We support parent councils, because we believe that
they will put the right kind of pressure on schools to deliver the
quality of education that parents
demand.
Jacqui
Smith: I am being even handed in my largesse this
afternoon. Having been very amenable to the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings, I now propose accepting amendment No. 44. It
improves the drafting of the clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for bringing the matter to our
attention. We will accept the amendment, because
“functions” encompasses powers and duties, making the
words “or impose” superfluous and unnecessary. I am happy
to accept the amendment, as I am to accept the hon. Gentleman’s
support for parent councils and the contribution that they will be able
to make. While we are
on the topic of the word “impose”, it is worth my
emphasising that we are not suggesting that
we should impose parent councils on schools that do not have a trust
with a majority on the governing body. They may have an important
contribution to make. We want them to develop, but that would be a
choice for the school in such
circumstances. Amendment
agreed
to. Clause 32,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
33Funding
of voluntary aided schools: meaning of “capital
expenditure” Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: The clause relates to the alteration in the
definition of capital funding for the purposes of voluntary aided
schools. Its objective is to widen the definition of capital
expenditure so that it is more in line with the definitions used in
general accounting practice. It will enable voluntary aided schools in
private finance initiative agreements to be funded in the same way as
other schools. As a chartered accountant, I could not possibly let the
clause go by without contributing to the
debate. Voluntary
aided schools are required to contribute 10 per cent. of all capital
expenditure. When it comes to PFI contracts, the question arises about
whether10 per cent. of the revenue expenditure that relates
to the capital of the project should be provided by the school and the
foundation. It is usually the Church of England that supports them.
According to the regulatory impact assessment,
“The aim of amending the
legislation is to put VA schools on an equal footing with other
maintained schools, and remove any doubt that PFI contracts can be met
from revenue income without any statutory 10 per cent.
contribution.” We,
of course, support the measure. However, I want to raise the issue of
buildings insurance with the Minister. Insurance is an item of revenue
expenditure. It is met by the LEA in the usual course of events.
However, if there were a fire in a school, can she confirm either now
or by letter whether insurance will cover the full cost of the new
capital expenditure required to rebuild the school or will the
voluntary aided school still be required to find 10 per cent. of the
capital cost in those circumstances? If the school will need to
contribute that 10 per cent. after a fire, presumably it will wish to
insure itself for that potential liability. The question then arises
that, if it does that, will the insurance premium be paid by the LEA
under the
provision? Under the
draft Education (Capital Expenditure in respect of Voluntary Aided
Schools) (England) Regulations, a spending of £2,000 shall not
constitute capital but, as an experienced chartered accountant, in the
context of an average school’s expenditure that seems to be a
reasonable figure to be regarded as revenue. I presume that there are
practices that stop abuse of that by separating out items into smaller
units to fall within that definition.
Jacqui
Smith: How pleased I am that the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton is an accountant. However, I must say that he
let me off reasonably lightly. As he identified, the clause updates the
definition of capital expenditure in respect of voluntary aided schools
under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 so that it is
consistent with more recent legislation. The current definition of
capital expenditure set out under article 13 of the Regulatory Reform
(Voluntary Aided Schools Liabilities and Funding) (England) Order 2000
contains a list of types of expenditure that are to be treated as
capital, while the amendment defines capital expenditure as that which
would be treated as capital in accordance with proper accounting
practices. The updated
definition is in line with modern accounting practice, thus avoiding
the need for an exhaustive list under the Bill. The definition also
mirrors the approach taken under section 16 of the Local Government Act
2003, which defines capital expenditure when that term is used in
relation to a local
authority. The hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is right that the change in
definitionwill provide flexibility to help ensure that
voluntary aided schools can be procured through optimal arrangements,
such as the private finance initiative, when that offers best value for
money. It will be especially relevant for new build, voluntary aided
schools that are procured through the “building schools for the
future” programme. That programme is one that will transform the
secondary school estate throughout the country, and we would not want
voluntary aided schools to be excluded from it or have any difficulties
with it. The hon.
Gentleman raises an important issue about the treatment of insurance,
and where insurance payments should come from. In accordance with his
invitation, I shall write to him about it, because it is an important
issue for the schools involved.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 33 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill. Clause
34Disposals
and changes of use of
land
Mrs.
Dorries: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in clause 34,
page 25, line 7, at end
add— ‘(2) The provisions of
Schedule 4 only apply to land which was purchased and paid for by the
local authority or by the Secretary of
State. (3) Schedule 4 does not
apply to land which was provided by the foundation or charity for the
purposes of the school, or which was purchased by the foundation or
charity for the use of the
school.'. It
may be reasonable for the Secretary of State to make detailed
provisions in schedule 4 for disposal or change of use of land that the
state and the local authority or the Department for Education and
Skills originally made available to foundation or voluntary aided
schools. It is not reasonable, however, for the Secretary of State to
have such rights over land that was supplied by the charity itself.
Most voluntary
aided schools stand on land that was purchased at some time in the past
by the relevant charity—often the Church of England or the Roman
Catholic Church. Many such schools were also entirely paid for by the
churches before they became voluntary aided, and my own daughter went
to a Roman Catholic primary school that was built by the local church
and handed over before it became a voluntary aided
school. In effect, the
clause requisitions land from such charities, or at least subjects them
to the whim of the Secretary of State as to how they may or may not use
their land. Given the number of playing fields sold off by local
authorities in recent years, it is as well to keep voluntary aided and
foundation school playing fields out of the clutches of the
Treasury. The hon.
Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is not present at the moment,
has done a substantial amount of work on child obesity—a huge
problem in this country. We do not want to see land that could be used
for children’s physical activity and for general school
activities being taken away, nor do we want the Secretary of State to
have the ability to take it away. All Governments have been guilty of
selling off school playing fields and school land. The lives of
Governments come to a natural end—ours came to a natural end,
the present Government’s life may be coming to its end and so
shall the life of any future Conservative Administration—and
school land needs protection from future Secretaries of State, future
occupants of the Treasury and future Governments, whoever they are.
Will the Minister therefore review the
clause?
Jacqui
Smith: Clause 34 introduces schedule 4, which makes a
number of amendments to the provisions in schedule 22 of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998 that protect land at foundation,
voluntary and foundation special schools that was provided, or
enhanced, at public expense. Thehon. Lady based many of her
opening remarks onthe contention that the clause was somehow
about the Secretary of State getting her hands, or the
Government’s hands, on land that was provided by a trust or
charitable organisation. There is nothing in the Bill, however, about
transferring land that was originally provided to the state by a trust
or by a Church. Clause 34 and schedule 4 set forth not only a process
but considerable protection for land on the basis of its origin, as
does the guidance that I have circulated on those provisions. However,
we also have to ensure that land that has been publicly provided is
equally protected for public use: public assets have protection at a
time when the relationship between a school and a trust is
discontinued, for example. That is what the provisions are about. The
hon. Lady’s amendment would weaken the provisions to protect
publicly funded land, and I therefore oppose
it. 4.15
pm Schedule 4
provides that where the governing body, foundation body or trustees of
a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school propose to dispose
of certain land that has been acquired or enhanced using public funds,
they will be required to notify the local education authority of their
intention to do so and how they propose to use the sale proceeds, which
must
be reinvested on capital expenditure. Local authorities in those
circumstances can object to the disposal and to the reinvestment
proposals and they can claim a share of the value proportionate to the
public investment. When there is not agreement, the matter can be
referred to the schools adjudicator for
determination. At
present, the governing bodies and foundation bodies of foundation,
voluntary and foundation special schools can dispose of land held on
behalf of the school that was acquired or enhanced at public expense
only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The trustees of
foundation and foundation special schools also require the Secretary of
State’s consent to dispose of land acquired at public expense.
The Secretary of State is already involved in decisions about disposal
at foundation and voluntary-aided
schools. When trustees
propose to dispose of all other land that they hold on behalf of
maintained schools that was acquired or enhanced by public expenditure,
they do not require the consent of the Secretary of State. They are
required to inform the local education authority only after they have
sold the land. Once
the trustees have disposed of the land, depending on how they received
the public expenditure, they are required either to pay the local
education authority a just amount of the sale proceeds or to undertake
to the local education authority to use the sale proceeds for the
purposes of the school or another existing or proposed
school. Our aim in
schedule 4 is to introduce a uniform procedure to be followed when a
body or trustees propose to dispose of publicly funded land and will
enable the local authority to have some input inthe future
use of the land or the proceeds of any disposal. It is the
Government’s duty to protect public investment in schools and
that is exactly what schedule 4 does.
The hon. Lady did not dispute
those aims in introducing her amendment, not least because she focused
not on publicly funded land but on land that had not been provided or
enhanced by public funds. The schedule and the clause provide
safeguards for publicly funded land held by governing bodies,
foundation bodies and trustees of maintained schools. I recognise that
the amendment aims to ensure that the assets provided by trustees or
schools cannot be put at risk. As I said, they should not be, and I
assure the hon. Lady that our proposals will not affect the ownership
by foundation or voluntary schools of assets that they or their
trustees have provided and which have not been improved using public
expenditure. We have
discussed the matter with the leading voluntary bodies and overall they
are content with our proposals. The amendment would restrict the public
safeguards to land purchased and paid for by a local authority or by
the Secretary of State. For example, it would mean that land which is
acquired or enhanced by the trustees of a school, who actually pay, but
where the money comes from the Secretary of State, would not be counted
as publicly funded. It would mean that land acquired by the governing
body, foundation body or trustees of a school with the proceeds from
the sale of publicly funded land would not be protected either.
I do not think that that is what the hon. Lady intended, and I hope
therefore that she will feel able to withdraw the
amendment. As the hon.
Lady got us on to the issue of playing fields again, it would be
worthwhile for me to put on the record that, under section 77 of the
School Standards and Framework Act 1998, there are separate provisions
for the protection of school playing fields. She is right that the
previous Government presided over the sale of a lot of playing fields.
However, we do not know how many were sold because there was no way of
measuring it. There was no process for the approval of a sale and no
requirement for a body to approve such a sale such as the one that
exists now comprising of the major organisations interested in those
elements. None of that was in position pre-section 77 of the School
Standards and Framework Act. We can now measure that and have
protections in place, none of which will be put at risk by the
proposals in the
legislation.
| 
