Education and Inspections Bill
1:00 pm
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak to amendment No. 66, but I shall also comment on the whole group. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that the amendments and the clause go to the heart of the Bill. I would say that the amendments do something much more profound and go to the heart of our understanding of the nature of the relationship between central and local government. The presence in the clause of the phrase
“with the consent of the Secretary of State”
says something profound about the Government’s understanding of their relationship with local government. The fact that the Conservatives want to remove local authorities’ ability to have a role in providing education says something similarly profound about their relationship with local government.
What should local government be? Is it an arm of the Government’s public service delivery, or a discrete, autonomous, directly elected tier of government, able to make its own decisions, accountable to the local community, free to pursue local policies relevant to local people, and—this is the key point—free to disagree with central Government? That thought should be at the heart of our consideration of the relationship between central and local government. Are we prepared to give those in local government the right to disagree with central Government policy because that is what is wanted by local people, who elected them, on the basis of their manifesto, to do something that was important for them in their own area?
The Government like to pay lip service to the idea of localism, but whenever they are presented with an opportunity to legislate, they cannot resist centralising powers. As we have heard, the clause contains one of 60 mentions in the first 70 pages of the Bill of action by the Secretary of State. Subsection (5)(b)(ii) demonstrates that even when the Government are prepared to devolve with one hand, they centralise with the other. That is not good enough.
It is worth looking at some of the conflicting statements that the Government have made. For example, the 10-year plan of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister contains a local vision. When I looked at that pretty flimsy document, I did not think that it was much of a vision. Nevertheless, one of the objectives it lists is
“devolution and delegation to the front line, giving local leaders responsibility and accountability and the opportunity to design services around the needs of local people”.
In a previous sitting of the Committee, when we were discussing clause 1, the Minister for Schools said,
“I am not arguing that locally elected politicians do not have difficult decisions to make about local priorities. That is what they are elected to do and that is an appropriate role for local government.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c. 107.]
Later, she said,
“Local authorities have an important role to play in school organisation in the broadest sense. The legislation will increase that role.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 March 2006; c. 120.]
I am not sure that clause 7 supports that view. Later still, the right hon. Lady said,
“local authorities should be able to determine their own arrangements to make sure that they work for their parents and their community.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c. 153.]
That is the heart of the issue. Are we prepared to give local authorities the freedom to make decisions based on what local people want or are we not?
The Conservatives also have conflicting views on localism, as I know from having discussed such matters privately with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. He is not entirely sympathetic to his party’s current fashion of going local—perhaps he will intervene on me if he disagrees—but the leader of his party has stated:
“We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away. We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation.”
If that is the Conservatives’ view, why would the hon. Gentleman vote against our amendment, which would ensure far more local accountability and less centralisation? That is what his party leader is advocating as one of his latest new policy wangles.
The group of amendments goes to the heart of our understanding of the proper relationship between central Government and local government. The hon. Member for Bury, North, who will speak to his own amendments, has attempted to fetter and define the Secretary of State’s discretion. I am sure that that will at least narrow the scope for the Secretary of State to intervene, but that is not good enough for us. This is a matter of principle, and we will pursue it.