Clause 1 - purpose and interpretation of chapter 1
Education Bill
10:30 am
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. I have not had the opportunity to work under your stewardship before, but I understand from my hon. Friends that you are a fair and generous Chairman. You are also a most appropriate Chairman for the Bill, because of your long involvement in education. As you represent a Scottish constituency, you are aware of the benefits of devolved power to not only the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish local authorities and schools, and I have no doubt that you will use your wisdom in that direction too.
I am delighted that you have come to the Committee with an understanding of local government and its uses, as you have served as a member of Paisley town council, Renfrew district council and on Strathclyde regional council—an education authority. When we discuss key issues involving local authorities and the Government's disgraceful attempts to strip them of more powers, I am sure that your ears will prick up and that you will be especially mindful of the arguments.
Clause 1 is an important first clause, and it would be difficult to find any other first clause that had such significance. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)—he is not with us this morning as he is serving on a Select Committee—Conservative
Members and I have tabled a range of amendments. The purpose of amendments Nos. 72 and 73 is to explore the future role of the local education authority under the Bill, which provides that a school can apply directly to the Secretary of State for exemption from any requirement of education legislation, such as, for example, from the curriculum, which otherwise is not provided for in part 1, chapter 2. Clause 4 does not even require the LEA to be consulted. We seek an assurance from the Minister, if not acceptance of the amendment, that LEAs should automatically be consulted about any school that varies its terms and conditions or the 1996 or 1998 legislation. We cannot understand why that will not be the case.
Under section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, LEAs have a duty to raise standards. I think that some hon. Members present, including the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, served on the Committee that considered that Bill. It was the first time that such a duty had been imposed on LEAs in law. The 1998 Act was a significant piece of legislation at the time, yet there is a contradiction. The aim of this Bill is to raise standards and facilitate innovation. As I said, LEAs have a responsibility to do exactly that under section 5 of the 1998 Act, but at the same time they will not have control, or even a say, over those schools that have left their control to become grant-maintained—I should not use that term—or super-grants. I should not use that term either, but that is what the schools will be in effect under this legislation.
There is very much a feeling of deja vu about part 6, because so much of the legislation is from the former Government, whom we got rid of at the beginning of this Parliament. That part re-provides for a duty on LEAs to ensure that the national curriculum is taught in schools. Under part 1, however, a school can opt out of the national curriculum without asking the LEA for any advice. Indeed, the Secretary of State does not have to consult the LEA at all.
However, some of the greatest innovation in the British education system has taken place because of LEAs. I am sure that, from your experience, you can testify to that, Mrs. Adams. In fact, much of the innovation up to the early 1980s was due to the fact that LEAs were in charge of schools and school innovation. It is interesting that in the 35 years after the second world war, only 150 pieces of legislation affecting schools were passed. Since the early 1980s, the number has risen to more than 800. At local level, local authorities are being starved of resources and, indeed, powers to innovate.