Clause
35General
duties of governing body of maintained
school
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 35, page
25, line 13, leave out ‘have regard to' and insert ‘act
in accordance
with'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 72, in clause 35, page 25, line 16, leave out
‘have regard to' and insert ‘act in accordance
with'.
Annette
Brooke: I do not wish to speak to amendment No. 72.
Perhaps it will hearten people to learn that I have less to say.
Amendment No. 71 is simply a probing amendment. It arises from the fact
that in the Children Act 2004 there is a duty placed on local
authorities to co-operate with other partners to promote and safeguard
the welfare of particularly vulnerable young people. When the 2004 Act
was passed, we were concerned that a duty was not placed on all schools
to co-operate with other partners, such as health services.
We have become more concerned
about this lack of duty for schools given the proposals to give a
greater number of schools more autonomy. Indeed, given some of the
comments we have heard about the abolition of local education
authorities, our concerns are growing. The amendment would replace the
phrase “have regard to” with the words “act in
accordance with”. Obviously, children and young people’s
plans stem directly from the requirements of the 2004 Act and,
therefore, we need to be reassured that schools
who have this new great independence and autonomy have a duty to
co-operate with those other important services, which will be so vital
for children, teenagers—if we are thinking of certain health
issues—and many others. The amendment arises from our concern
that certain activity needs to take place within a local
framework. Mr.
Chaytor: Would the hon. Lady ask the
question —[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. There is a northern expression called
“chuntering”. There is far too much chuntering going on
at the moment, to the extent that the Hansard reporter cannot
hear clearly what is being said. It would also help if we had a bit of
an increase in volume from the hon. Lady’s direction only.
Control the chuntering from now
on.
Mr.
Chaytor: My question to the hon. Lady is this: if the
views expressed by parents of registered pupils were mutually
contradictory, how would it be possible to act in accordance with
them?
Annette
Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention
because it makes perfectly clear why I did not speak to amendment No.
72, to which I was a little concerned to see my name
attached.
Mr.
Hayes: I rise briefly to speak to the amendment on behalf
of the official Opposition. There is a sense in which the amendments
that stand in the name of the Liberal Democrats and those that stand in
the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough represent the
two extremes that I am happy to sail between. If my hon. Friend and his
accomplice are outriders, I am securely placed in the
limousine.
Phil
Hope: An easy
rider.
Mr.
Hayes: Indeed, an easy rider, not an outrider. The Liberal
Democrats’ amendments would have the likely effect of curtailing
school autonomy—one of the key principles of the Bill—and
include a prescriptive proscription that a school has to act in
accordance with views expressed by parents, children and the young
people’s plans published under the 2004 Act. I know that the
hon. Lady did not speak to one of the amendments, but even so,
strengthening the relationship between the Bill and those other aspects
of local authorities’ responsibilities would make it less likely
that the Bill would achieve its objectives. However, the amendment of
my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who is not in his place,
would have the opposite
effect. We are likely
to be at one with the Government in thinking that the existing words in
the Bill are a reasonable compromise between those two positions. With
that short contribution, I urge my hon. Friends to resist the Liberal
Democrat amendment, and urge my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid-Bedfordshire to detach herself from my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough and find common cause with the Front Benchers and, I
suspect, the Government in sticking
with the Bill as it is. Let us all travel in the limousine. None of us
need be outriders on this
occasion. Jacqui
Smith: It looks as though we will be travelling not only
in the limousine but on the middle way—certainly the official
Opposition and the Government will on these provisions.
I shall confine my comments to
amendment No. 71, as it is the only one in the group that has not been
spoken to. The amendment proposes a duty to act in accordance with the
children and young people’s plan, which would be wholly at odds
with the ethos of the plan, which was born of a jointly developed
partnership, involving all those responsible for local services for
children and young people. It would put schools in a very different
position from the other partners in relation to the plan: one of
compulsion rather than co-operation.
Furthermore, the amendment
misunderstands, or misjudges, the nature of the children and young
people’s plan, which is a high-level strategic document that
sets out key priorities and actions, and is therefore unlikely to
contain the sort of detail needed to make it meaningful for schools to
have to act in accordance with it. The plan does not lay down strict
criteria or requirements that need to be followed in the same way as
the admissions code, which is, I suspect, where the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole got the inspiration for the formulation of
her amendment. I
agree that it is crucial that schools recognise their role in
identifying and delivering better outcomes for children and young
people within their local community. Schools are the universal service
with which most children have contact most days of the
week.
Sarah
Teather: The Minister is making perfectly fair points. One
of our concerns and a reason why we tabled this probing amendment is a
concern that the Local Government Association raised with us that
although it has powers to intervene when schools fail in their duty on
standards, it does not have a power to intervene when schools are not
meeting requirements to do with “Every Child Matters” and
the young people’s plan, which might include matters such as
high rates of teenage pregnancy. We were trying to get at the
relationship between schools and the children and young people’s
plan, but I accept that the wording is not
ideal.
Jacqui
Smith: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady. When we
discussed the role of school improvement partners, we covered the fact
that they might well, in their discussions with schools, get into areas
that would link to other “Every Child Matters” outcomes.
Secondly, Ofsted is now inspecting on a framework that also requires
them to consider the delivery of the “Every Child
Matters” outcomes. Thirdly, a key “Every Child
Matters” outcome is the achievement of children. Other outcomes
are important to ensure that
that standards outcome is delivered. Therefore, it is arguable, at
least, that if the standards of a school are not adequate, that one of
the most important outcomes is being failed on.
As well as teaching and
learning, schools play a key part in delivering services to children
more generally. It is only by having regard to the local
authority’s children and young people’s plan that each
school can see where it fits within that wider strategic picture. It is
equally important that schools use the plan to inform their planning,
based on their circumstances. They need flexibility to personalise
their approach, guided by the range of activities available in their
local area. To a
certain extent, the amendment would restrict the school’s
ability to do that, and that is why we have introduced a duty to have
regard to those matters.It will be accompanied in England by
amendments to the Children and Young People’s Plan (England)
Regulations 2005, which will place reciprocal requirements on local
authorities to consult schools, school forums and admissions forums
during the preparation of the plan, ensuring that schools have their
say on the content and are fully drawn into its preparation, so that
the plan is reflected as effectively as possible in the school’s
development plan.
That is the appropriate way to
deliver the objective that we all share, which is to ensure that the
school plays its role in delivering all “Every Child
Matters” outcomes and, alongside other schools and
children’s services, the best outcomes for all children. I know
that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment share that objective,
but I hope that they recognise that our approach is the most
appropriate way to ensure its delivery, and that the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole will withdraw the
amendment.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for her helpful comments. I
know that there was a lot of noise when I was talking, but I felt that
people would appreciate it if I just kept going rather than prolong the
sitting. I reiterate
our continual concern that schools with the greater autonomy must be
firmly part of a local partnership. It will be important to pursue that
issue and provide leadership. We in this room have different
philosophies about how much partnership engagement there should be. In
its precise wording, the amendment was meant as a probing amendment to
emphasise our view about the great need for co-operation and
partnership. I must point out to Conservative Front Benchers that
during the proceedings on the Children Bill, they supported amendments,
which we tabled, to place a duty on individual schools. I am sure that
they would like to take a consistent view. However, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 35 ordered to stand
part of the Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]
Adjourned accordingly at two
minutes past Five o’clock till Tuesday 2 May at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
