Sarah
Teather: I am extremely disappointed that the Government
are not willing to accept the new clause. It was offered with
constructive intentions, and I believe
that it would considerably improve the Bill. I do not accept that there
is no evidence of abuse of the system. We have heard that one in four
head teachers admit to bending the system in order to cherry-pick. That
is not acceptable, and, as the hon. Member for Bury, North said when he
referred to that survey in a previous sitting, if one in four admit to
it, goodness only knows how many people are doing it without being
willing to admit to
it. I do not accept
the Minister’s arguments. Most of the criteria could be
perfectly well dealt with in the forms that are sent out, by ticking a
box. If certain aspects cannot be anonymised in respect of the local
authority, they should surely still be anonymised in respect of the
school, which is our point. The local authority is a more disinterested
and impartial adviser on such matters, and it would be far better to
leave administration of the admissions process with it rather than with
the schools in question, which have admitted to bending the
system. I am extremely
disappointed that the Government have not accepted the new clause. We
will press it to a vote, because we believe that it would improve the
Bill considerably, put many safeguards in place and increase trust in
the
system. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
17.
Division
No.
24] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
5Admission
authorities ‘(1) Section 88
of SSFA 1998 (admission authorities and admission agreements) is
amended as follows. (2) at end
of subsection (1)
insert— “(c) in
relation to schools acquiring foundation status with a foundation,
means the local education
authority; (d) in relation to a
new Academy, means the local education
authority.”'.—[Sarah
Teather.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
There is considerable evidence
from a wide range of studies—I will not go into all of
them—that schools that control their own admissions tend to use
it to increase social segregation. Despite the Government having made
it obligatory to adhere to a code, we are worried that it will be easy
to bend and not easy to enforce. My greatest concern is whether a
system that requires so many safeguards is really safe in the first
place. As the Government have been unwilling to accept our constructive
suggestions on improving the admissions process, the new clause would
remove the ability of new foundation schools to control their own
admissions and be their own admission
authority.
Mr.
Gibb: It seems that the Liberals take every opportunity to
undermine the Bill’s objectives. Section 88 of the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that the admission authority of
a foundation or voluntary aided school shall be the governing body of
that school. Despite that, the new clause provides that the local
authority, not the governing body, would be the admission authority for
new foundation schools acquiring a foundation and for academies. It
would drive a coach and horses through the entire thrust of the Bill,
and we shall vote against it if the hon. Lady divides the Committee on
the new clause.
Jim
Knight: There is little for me to add to the debate. Trust
schools will be required to operate their admissions in the same way as
any other foundation or voluntary aided school and to comply with all
admissions law. We have set out and strengthened the code. There is the
ability to appeal to the schools adjudicator from the admission forum,
which in turn has increased
powers. As the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the new clause would
drive a coach and horses through the Bill and what we are trying to
achieve. There is no reason why trust schools and academies should have
less freedom than other schools that are their own admission authority.
Sufficient safeguards are in place and I will table further amendments
on safeguards on Report. We want to ensure that admission arrangements
are fair and in accordance with the code. I hope that the hon. Lady
will ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Sarah
Teather: Without the further safeguards that we suggested
in the previous proposal, we are not happy to give schools greater
freedom to be their own admission authority. For that reason, we will
divide the Committee on the new
clause. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
18.
Division
No.
25] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 44 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5Funding
of maintained
schools
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in schedule 5, page
170, line 14, leave out ‘from a
date determined in accordance with
regulations' and
insert ‘15 months prior to the
school admitting pupils or, in the case of the temporary governing body
not being established for 15 months prior to the admission of pupils,
at the point it is
established.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 177, in schedule 5, page 171, line 23, at end
insert ‘and such circumstances
shall include those cases where a schools forum cannot reach a
unanimous
decision.'. No.
170, in schedule 5, page 171, line 29, leave out paragraph
6.
Mr.
Gibb: The amendment would incorporate a key measure that,
as drafted, is left to regulation. Paragraph (4) of the schedule is
about a school’s delegated budget, and it amends section 49 of
the School Standards Framework Act so that it says:
“A new school shall have
a delegated budget from a date determined by
regulation.” The date is
clear and the policy is unlikely to change. Paragraph 26.10 of the
regulatory impact assessment says that the policy is
“to give temporary Governing
Bodies of new schools a delegated budget 15 months prior to the school
admitting pupils (or, in the case of the temporary Governing Body not
being established15 months prior to admission of pupils, at
the point it is
established).” The
amendment would include that wording in the Bill.
The wording is included in the
draft regulations that the Minister circulated. It is in regulation 2
of the School Finance (England) Regulations 2006. Since the policy is
not likely to change to 14 or 16 months, or to any period other than 15
months, which is a reasonable period by which a new school will need to
spend the budget prior to opening, it should be in the Bill and not
left to regulations.
Amendment No. 177 is a probing
amendment. It would make schools forum decisions unanimous to prevent
the outvoting of minority representation on the forum. I caution
against the trend of passing
decision making to unelected bodies, however representative of local
interest those unelected bodies purport to
be. Sarah
Teather: Is not that the point that I made just five
minutes ago, when the hon. Gentleman said that I should give power not
to local authorities but to unelected governing bodies with a majority
of appointed governors?
Mr.
Gibb: No, it is not the same thing, because a school is
accountable to local people, and if it is not popular among parents, it
simply will not attract pupils. Schools forums are different. They are
deliberately set up to be quasi-authorities with decision-making
powers. In a democracy, it is important that in such bodies, different
from schools, elected officials should take those decisions, whether
local or national. Elected politicians should not pass the buck to such
bodies as a way of avoiding difficult decisions.
Amendment No. 170 is another
probing amendment. It would delete paragraph (6), which removes the
right of appeal by schools against LEA decisions to take away its
delegated budget. I assume that the measure is to deal with schools
that cause concern, but it would be helpful if the Minister explained
and put on the record the reason for it.
Phil
Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right. Amendment No. 176 would
specify the date by which a local authority must provide the governing
body of a new school with a delegated budget share prior to its
admitting pupils. At present, legislation requires that such a budget
is available only from the date at which a new school admits pupils. We
believe that a governing body should have access to a budget from a
point at which it starts incurring the expenditure needed to set up a
new school. As the
hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would include in the Bill the
requirement for the budget share to be made available to the school 15
months prior to the first admission of pupils. That is absolutely in
line with our intention, but we believe that there is no need to
include it because the illustrative regulations show that we intend to
make such provision by way of secondary
legislation. 12.15
pm Amendment No.
177 would enable regulation to be made allowing schools forums to
approve revisions, as the hon. Gentleman described. Currently, all such
revisions have to be approved by either the Secretary of State in the
case of England or the National Assembly in the case of Wales. His
probing amendment would require unanimous agreement within a schools
forum before any such revision could be
made. The
Government’s view is that that would place too great a burden on
the degree of local consensus necessary to enable local flexibility to
operate effectively and that it would be out of step with the ability
of forums to decide on a range of other local matters. Extension of the
power of schools forums to agree revisions locally must be on the same
basis as for powers already devolved to them. When there is local
consensus on an issue, but not unanimity, approval for the local
authority’s proposals should be granted. Most of us find it
difficult to agree unanimously—not least in the Chamber.
Ultimately, however, when presented with a proposal from its local
authority, a schools forum must abide by the majority view, and when
that view supports the proposal, we believe that it should prevail and
that neither the Secretary of State nor the National Assembly need be
involved. As the hon.
Gentleman said, amendment No. 170 concerns the important situation of a
local authority having cause to withdraw the financial delegation right
of a governing body. I think that I can give him the assurances he
requested. Withdrawal can occur when the governing body has been guilty
of a substantial or persistent failure to comply with a delegation
requirement or restriction, or has not satisfactorily managed
expenditure or appropriation of its delegated budget, or of any sums
received in the exercise of its power to provide community facilities.
The amendment would retain a right of appeal, as it would leave the
current schedule to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998
unchanged. I recognise
the need for checks and balances, and there are benefits in giving
schools a high degree of financial freedom, but the withdrawal of
delegated powers is an ultimate sanction and one that would be
exercised very rarely, as I have described. Such cases are complex and
are best addressed at a local level. With that reassurance as to the
purpose of the schedule and of the proposed changes to it, I hope that
he will withdraw his
amendment.
| 
