Education and Inspections Bill
1:00 pm
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Before lunch I was saying that I hoped to see the Liberal party join the emerging consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties on how to tackle underperforming schools. I will leave the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) to explain amendment No. 66, but suffice it to say that if she decides to press it to a vote we will certainly oppose it, as what it proposes is outwith the spirit of the White Paper and the Bill, both of which we support.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 182 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is not joined on this occasion by his partner in crime the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). Durham is a beautiful city; although it is one of the few places where I did not go to school, I did go to university there. The amendments appear to contradict the hon. Gentleman’s views about giving certain groups of electors rights over and above the rights of the electorate as a whole, which he expressed in relation to amendment No. 179 and the proposal that 50 parents should be able to trigger a notice under clause 7.
The amendments state that the Secretary of State may not refuse consent for a local authority to establish a community school in circumstances where the local authority can demonstrate that such a proposal is supported by a certain number of parents. Well, how about 50 parents? Did the hon. Gentleman have such a number in mind when tabling his amendment?
Amendment No. 182 would impose the requirement for a ballot among certain categories of parents wherever there are proposals under clause 7 for a new school. Would not that create special rights for those electors over and above others? That should be the hon. Gentleman’s objection to his own amendments. My objection is that the amendments will thwart the objective of trying to create a more diverse range of schools by turning every new proposal into a major political campaign, the threat of which would put many groups of parents or others off venturing down that route in the first place.
The Conservative party agrees with paragraph 5.14 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states:
“Through the clarification of the local authority role in relation to school organisation, and the provision of a decision-making framework which supports diversity and innovation, more schools will have a character that supports the development of an individual ethos and enables them to take responsibility for their own future progress. This will increase the range of choice for parents and the potential for innovation and improved standards.”
The amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled will jeopardise or slow down the implementation of that approach, which we believe is the correct one. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments.