Clause 11 - Limits on powers conferred by section 10
Education Bill
11:30 am
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
The justification for amendment No. 97 rests very much with the Government's failure to provide information on their thinking beyond that in the explanatory notes on the conditions under which a local authority may be permitted to intervene to prevent a governing body from establishing a company of the relevant kind. I am sure that Government Members realise from our decision not to oppose clause 10 stand part that we broadly agree with the proposal.
Why should the local education authority have the opportunity to prevent a governing body from entering into the creation of such a company? Many local authorities are effective; some are utterly ineffective. I realise that the Government are struggling-I congratulate them on their struggle and, in one or two cases, on their achievements-to turn round those LEAs. I think that one LEA is now the subject of a third intervention, of a different shape from the previous two. I am not sure why that LEA, for example, should be entitled to intervene to prevent what may be an effective school from deciding to go down the road for which the Government have provided. That is a question of competence.
There is also the question of political will. Some LEAs may conclude that it is inappropriate politically for schools to take advantage of the legislation. I am sure that they would not be Labour-controlled local authorities and I am pretty sure that they would not be controlled by the party of which I am pleased to be a member. However, there may be local authorities, if not in England, perhaps in Wales, with a rooted political objection to the involvement of governing bodies in private companies.
The Government have not said why they believe that local authorities should have a role in preventing schools from taking such decisions where those schools believe them to be appropriate. The only clue is again in the explanatory notes, which state that
''Regulations will set out the basis on which an LEA may refuse consent.''
Subsection (7) also gives some indication, in that it empowers the Secretary of State to restrict consent by regulation.
One would be much happier if the regulations were an indication of the Government's thinking. Why are the Government establishing another hoop? If they have the power to foresee circumstances in which it will be appropriate for an LEA to be permitted to intervene, why give that power to the LEA? Why not simply restrict the powers of the governing body in certain circumstances? For example, the regulations may state that an LEA can refuse to allow a governing body to participate in a company only where the school is operating under special measures, or has serious weaknesses. If the Government believe that, why do they need the LEA to be in the loop? Why must the governing body jump through another hoop?
The Government seem to have a reasonable understanding of the danger of local authorities taking perverse, unnatural decisions for political reasons, or simply because of incompetence or stretching out the time to take those decisions. The Government are handing the decision to a subordinate authority, instead of making the decision themselves. I want to understand why that is the case.