Mr.
Hayes: The Minister will recall, if she checks the copies
of Hansard for earlier Committee sittings, that we had a long
debate about that matter and I was wondering whether she will come back
to us with an updated survey of playing-field sales since the guidance
was tightened by the now Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State
for Education and Skills. We can hope only that his record on school
playing fields was rather better than his recent one. Will she come
back to the Committee with that
information?
The
Chairman: Order. We will confine our consideration to
amendment No.
363.
Jacqui
Smith: I was reassuring the hon. Lady that section 77,
which protects school playing fields, remains in tact. As the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings rightly said, we had a
lengthy debate about playing fields more generally. One of the
difficulties with that debate was that there were times when he
conflated local authorities’ playing fields as a whole with
school playing
fields—
The
Chairman: Order. We are discussing amendment No.
363.
Jacqui
Smith: I apologise, Mr. Cook. I hope that in the context
of amendment No. 363 I can reassure the hon. Lady that the clause does
not do what she fears that it
does.
Mrs.
Dorries: I am reassured by the Minister’s comments,
particularly because she has had discussions with the voluntary bodies.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 420, in clause 34, page
25, line 7, at end add— ‘(2)
Where Schedule 4 makes provision for a case to be referred to the
adjudicator and the adjudicator makes a decision in such a case there
shall be a right of appeal to the Secretary of
State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make
provision in relation to appeals under this section, including
provision— (a) as to the
time by which an appeal is to be
made, (b) as to the manner in
which an appeal is to be
made, (c) as to the procedure
to be followed in connection with an appeal,
and (d) as to the matters to be
taken into account in deciding whether to allow an
appeal.'. The
amendment introduces the right of appeal against the
adjudicator’s decision to the Secretary of State and is based on
some of the same objections to the adjudicator as were discussed during
our deliberations on schedule 2. In particular, the Billwill
give to the adjudicator far more functions and powers than is currently
the case. For instance, new powers are being given with regard to land
transfers. The Government produced guidance for that: “The
Transfer And Disposal Of School Land In England”. On page 9 it
states: “In all
these
matters,”— the
transfer of land and change of
status— “where the
authority and the school cannot reach agreement, the Adjudicator should
determine” the matter.
When a school intends to dispose of land and the local authority
objects to that disposal, the proposed use of the proceeds, or wishes
to claim a share of those proceeds, the authority may refer the matter
to the school
adjudicator. Page 11
of the guidance
states: The
Adjudicator will determine...whether or not the disposal can be
made...whether the school may invest any share of the proceeds
which derive from public funding...what proportion of the proceeds
is due to the trustees and what proportion is due to the local
authority” and “what
share of the disposal proceeds the school should pay to the local
authority”. So the
adjudicator gets power also to order the transfer to the authority of
land acquired with public funds and held on trust by a foundation or
school trustees for the purposes of a foundation, voluntary or
foundation special school.
Page 15 of the guidance
states: “It
will be the task of the Adjudicator where there is disagreement
to...determine what land will be excluded from
transfer”, to
“Determine whether or
not a proposed disposal of surplus non-playing field land should go
ahead where it is opposed by the local
authority” and “Determine
whether a school shall reinvest the proceeds as it
proposes”. The
adjudicator
can: “Determine
how much of the sale proceeds if any of such a disposal is due to the
authority” and
“how much of the public share of
proceeds, if any the school shall pay to the
authority” as well as
ensuring that the
“governing body, foundation body
or trustees give to the authority a suitable undertaking as to the use
of the public share of proceeds where he has awarded
them”.
He can also
determine “whether
surplus land acquired by public funding and requested by an authority
as a site for a new school or as the site to which an existing
maintained school is to be transferred or for use of other educational
or children’s service purposes be transferred to
it”. It is
clear, therefore, that the Bill will give the adjudicator significant
new powers. The guidance goes on to give examples of how the
adjudicator will use his powers. Much of that is good, and we
particularly welcome the statement on page 19 of the guidance
that “The
adjudicator should support school autonomy and decision making and
assume that its proposals are sound.”
As we continue through the
guidance we see that the adjudicator wields immense power. Let us
consider the case of claims for a share of proceeds. The guidance
states that in such a case the adjudicator will have regard to the
proportionate value of land acquired from the public, the proportionate
enhancement in value, the proportionate contribution of each of the
above categories and any payment previously made by the
trustees. The
adjudicator is expected to make decisions on the market value of the
land that is being disposed, and our amendment would simply introduce a
method of appeal on those important decisions, without the expense and
limitations of the judicial review process. That will be an appeal to
the Secretary of State when people feel that the decisions made by the
adjudicator in those complex areas, which involve enormous amounts of
expertise, have been erroneous.
Jacqui
Smith: To a certain extent, we are returning to our
argument about the role of the schools adjudicator with respect to
school organisation. The amendment would return to the Secretary of
State the final decision-making powers, by providing a right of appeal
to the Secretary of State when matters cannot be agreed locally on the
transfer and disposal of publicly funded school land that is in the
ownership of governing bodies, foundation bodies or trustees.
The provisions of schedule 4
specifically give the schools adjudicator the powers to determine those
disagreements. They also ensure that the adjudicator must have regard
to guidance that the Secretary of State will issue.
As the hon. Gentleman has said,
I have already circulated an illustrative draft of the guidance to
members of the Committee. I think that it spells out the balanced and
reasonable way in which we will safeguard land that has been publicly
funded or enhanced at public expense, or of which a local authority
might want to make a particular use. It balances that with the
important freedom and autonomy that day-to-day control of assets
provides for foundation and voluntary-aided schools. The guidance
represents the right balance and, of course, provides guidance to the
adjudicator in making decisions about the allocation of the proceeds of
certain sales, or the local authority’s requirements with
respect to the use of particular land at foundation or voluntary-aided
schools. It is a
reasonable set of guidance for the adjudicator to make decisions on,
were the decisions to reach the adjudicator. Of course, we hope that
there will be a
discussion between the school’s governing body and trust or the
local authority and the school about their relative requirements and a
local agreement will be reached. That is a much better way to operate
than by reintroducing the Secretary of State into those decisions in
the way that I outlined in respect of previous amendments. That is not
the ideal position to be
in. 4.30
pm Amendment No.
56 to schedule 2 proposed to give similar rights of appeal against
decisions of a schools adjudicator on proposals for school
organisation. It is right that local decisions should be taken at a
local level wherever possible. I thought that the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would agree with that. Giving powers of
appeal to the Secretary of State could bring decisions on land
ownership at schools back into the political arena. That would not
necessarily ensure the right decisions, and they would certainly not be
taken at the right level.
The schools
adjudicator is independent of the Secretary of State and will take
decisions on the merits of each case. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman fears
that decisions would be biased in favour of local education
authorities, while others might fear a bias in favour in schools, but I
am confident that the schools adjudicator will decide each case fairly
in the light of the evidence that is presented.
We have backed that up with the
draft guidance that I have provided and to which the adjudicator will
have a statutory duty to have regard. As I have described, the draft
guidance is aimed to steer the adjudicator to a fair balance between
the property rights of the schools and the strategic duties of local
authorities. The guidance will be further developed in the light of
discussions with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and with other
partners. It can and will be revised in the light of experience. The
hon. Gentleman might have comments to make about the guidance, which I
shall of course bear in mind as we finalise
it. As we pointed out
in the previous discussion on the role of the adjudicator, in the case
of serious legal mistakes in the adjudicator’s decisions there
is the right to judicial challenge by way of judicial review in the
High Court. That deals with situations in which the adjudicator makes a
decision that is wrong legally. Since that recourse exists, it is not
necessary to provide a further appeal to the Secretary of State. I
therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I raised the issue to demonstrate how significant
the schools adjudicator’s new functions are. As the Minister
said, we have already had a debate about whether there should be an
appeal from the adjudicator. We also had a Division on that debate, and
in view of that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Schedule
4Disposals
and changes of use of
land
Jacqui
Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 281, in schedule 4,
page 135, line 3, at end
insert— ‘paragraph 28(2) of
Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (including that
provision as applied by any
enactment),'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenientto
discuss Government amendments Nos. 282 to 292 and 297 to
327.
Jacqui
Smith: I have done slightly better this time than with the
last set of Government amendments.
The amendments add to the
provisions inschedule 4, which revises schedule 22 to the
School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which protects public
investment in school land where it is owned by the governing body,
foundation body and trustees of foundation, voluntary and foundation
special schools—in simple terms, schools that own their assets.
It is essential that public investment in schools should be protected.
Local authorities have that responsibility where they own the assets of
the school. There has
been some scaremongering to the effect that our encouragement of
schools to benefit from owning their assets will mean not only the
transfer of those assets from local authority ownership to school
ownership, but the risk of permanent loss to the public sector. That is
emphatically not the case with our proposals. Schedule 4 provides
proper safeguards for publicly funded land held by governing bodies,
foundation bodies and trustees of maintained schools. Those safeguards,
which we touched on in relation to previous amendments, cover the
disposal and transfer of publicly funded non-playing field school land
and the situation where schools are
discontinued. Local
authorities can object to disposal proposals for such land and to
reinvestment proposals for proceeds, and can claim a share of the
proceeds. They can also ask for the transfer of publicly funded land,
if it is surplus to the school’s needs, for use by another
school or in the delivery of children’s services. In all cases
in which there is not local agreement, schedule 4 empowers the schools
adjudicator to make the determination, having regard to guidance that
the Secretary of State
issues. The main
purpose of the amendments is to bring publicly funded land held by the
trustees of voluntary aided schools within the disposal, transfer and
discontinuance provisions of the schedule. Government capital support
for voluntary aided schools is paid as capital grant by the Secretary
of State under paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the School Standards and
Framework Act 1998. By including land funded in that way in the
definition of publicly funded land, we bring voluntary aided schools in
line with other schools or trusts that own their own
assets. I emphasise
that we are not seeking to sequester in any way the assets of voluntary
aided schools or their trustees. The amendments will affect only land
that is acquired or enhanced by capital grant from the Secretary of
State after 1 April 2007. The measures will
not be retrospective: they apply to land in respect of which public
money is provided after that date. Further, they require that the
Secretary of State give notice within six months of making the grant
that these provisions apply. We do not seek to stop schools, trustees
or foundations disposing of their own surplus land, or to give local
authorities any claim on such
land. We are including
voluntary aided schools now because there have been significant changes
in capital funding of such schools since schedule 22 was brought into
force in 1998. There is much greater Government investment in schools:
from less than £700 million in 1996-97 that investment will
increase to more than£8 billion by 2010-11. The
voluntary aided sector continues to get its fair share of that money.
In addition to the huge overall increase in public investment in
schools, the proportion of Government investment in voluntary aided
schools has increased over the years and, from 2002, was raised to 90
per cent.—in other words, voluntary aided schools must now
contribute only 10 per cent. of their building costs. Recently, the
Secretary of State decided that, because of the scale and targeting of
the “building schools for the future” programme, she
would, exceptionally, fund voluntary aided school investment through
that programme at 100 per cent. It is important to ensure that that
unprecedented public investment in the assets of voluntary schools is
recognised and protected. We have had discussions with the Church of
England and Roman Catholic bodies representing the interests of the
great majority of voluntary schools, and have agreed with them that the
changes are
right. Unless hon.
Members press me hard on these issues, I do not think that it would be
useful to go through in detail the many other, mainly technical
amendments. The amendments add further protection for publicly funded
school land, and I am therefore pleased to propose
them.
| 
