Clause 72 - Closure of special schools: statutory consultation
Education Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Mr Stephen Twigg (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; Enfield, Southgate, Labour)
I would like to speak to new clause 18, and reassure hon. Members that we have accepted the intention of their lordships with regard to clause 72. However, as in the previous discussion on rural schools, because of technical weaknesses, the clause as drafted would not have had the effect intended by the other place.
The existing provision on consultation in the case of the closure of special schools is contained in section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as well as in guidance from the Department. The 1998 Act provides that when an LEA or a governing body intends to discontinue a maintained special school or make prescribed alterations to it, it must, before publishing any such proposals, consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate and, in doing so, must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly.
The proposed Government new clause does not affect the substance of the clause. The requirement for consultation in the clause has been inserted into section 31 of the 1998 Act, where the existing provisions regarding special schools lie. The wording of the new provisions has been made consistent with existing legislative provisions. The provision is restricted to community or foundation special schools in line with the existing wording of section 31 and, indeed, the new clause goes wider than what was introduced by their lordships on Third Reading in another place. It imposes a specific statutory requirement for the local authority or governing body to consult parents of registered pupils and the placing local authority not only prior to the publication of any proposal to discontinue the school, but prior to any proposal to make a prescribed alteration to the school. For example, that would cover a proposal to reduce the number of pupils in a school so dramatically that the school was no longer viable.
The drafting makes separate provision in respect of proposals to establish new special schools, maintaining the status quo in this regard, and the wording in proposed new subsection (4A)(a) and (b) is not applicable to new schools. The new clause retains the requirement that in exercising the specific statutory duty to consult, regard must be had to guidance. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that we have made contact with their lordships through the usual channels, and they have said that they are happy with what we propose. I therefore trust that our new clause will have the support of Members on both sides of the Committee.
New clause 11 is unnecessary, as the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals submitted by local authorities and the needs of the local community. The new clause would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process in which the existing safeguards are sufficient.
Members on both sides of the House are aware of the often difficult, complex, and sometimes emotive issues that can surround the closure of special schools. However, we should also acknowledge that other closures, such as one or more special schools closing to move to a more modern facility, have secured local agreement. I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no good reason why decisions such as that should be referred to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales.
In Wales, any disputed proposals are already referred to the National Assembly for its decision. The new clause would require even closure proposals that are accepted by parents and other local interested parties to be approved by the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.
I reassure hon. Members that there is no question of local authorities being allowed to decide to close a special school arbitrarily. There is an established process for formal consultation before proposals are published. After publication, there is a two-month objection period, during which anyone can submit their formal objections to the authority. Any such statutory objections must be sent to the school organisation committee or, in Wales, to the National Assembly.
A proposal put to a schools organisation committee may be implemented without reference to any other body if it is approved unanimously. If the committee cannot decide unanimously, the case will pass to the independent adjudicator for determination. Adjudicators look afresh at all cases that are referred to them. They consider each case on its merits and take account of the reasons for disagreement at local level. The adjudicator may reject the proposals, approve them without modification, or approve them with modification subject to consultation. Decisions taken by adjudicators are binding on all involved. They can be challenged only through judicial review.
In Wales, the function of assessing disputed proposals on the balance of the arguments and of taking a decision that can be challenged only by judicial review rests with the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.
Local authorities are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils and parents in their areas. That is why the Government deliberately strengthened local participation in decisions about patterns of provision. In England, they deliberately removed Ministers from direct involvement in those decisions.
New clause 11 would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process. These are difficult, complex and important decisions. Consultation is vital, and concern in our communities is understandable when consultation does not run properly. The provisions that I have outlined are the best way of ensuring that decisions are taken at local level. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause.