Clause 8
Education and Inspections Bill
3:45 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 159, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, leave out
‘such persons as appear to the authority to be appropriate;'
and insert ‘parents within the locality'.
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 331, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, after ‘appropriate', insert
‘and which must include the headteacher and the chairman of governors of all maintained schools in areas adjacent to the proposed school'.
No. 348, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, after ‘appropriate', insert
‘and in the case of religious-based schools, the relevant church or religious authority'.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The explanatory notes on clause 8 state:
“This clause provides that before publishing a notice under clause 7, local education authorities in England must consult such persons as they consider to be appropriate, and in discharging this duty they must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that regulations may require local education authorities to take further steps to promote public awareness of the proposals brought forward.”
Our amendment would prevent vastly different practices from developing because it limits the consultation to parents. It is a probing amendment. It brings us to an element of our discussions that has loomed large today in the considerations of Committee members of all parties: the role of parents in this process.
A different view of the role of parents has begun to emerge. I do not take the view that parents are the only people who have an interest in the education of children. In an earlier sitting, I spoke about the pivotal role of the educator and how we ought to elevate teachers in our estimation because they are important people in whose hands we place the future. However, in respect of the intentions behind the Bill, the most likely drivers of the type of change that the Minister mentioned in the last debate are parents. Parents are the people who are likely to make the most difference and to want to do so. I believe, as does the Minister, I think, that that difference can mean renewal, and renewal is vital if we are to address some of the problems of our most disadvantaged communities and most struggling schools. This probing amendment is designed to tease out from the Government just how pivotal they consider parents to be in this process.
Parents are surely the most appropriate people to consult. Although I acknowledge that there are differences in the Committee about the precise role of parents, we all understand that parents are very important. The hon. Member for Bury, North, in one of his typically well informed interventions, listed the things he believes add up to a good education. He talked about the home-school relationship and the important role that parents play in motivating children, preparing them for school, interacting with the school, and setting a context in which good education is likely to flourish. As I have said, however, although all Committee members understand that parents are important, the relative nature of their importance is something we may differ about.
The so-called alternative White Paper, to which the hon. Gentleman and others put their names, highlights some of those differences, because it specifically addresses the role of parents in the process that lies at the heart of the Bill, which is essentially the establishment of new schools and the renewal that that can bring. The alternative White Paper states:
“The commitment of parents to their children’s education and the opportunities that can be created for their participation in their children’s school is important.”
It goes on to say:
“Not all pupils have parents who are engaged equally or wish to be.”
It also says that the assumption that
“Parent power is...always...present and just waiting to be unleashed in a way which will be wholly beneficial”
should be challenged.
Of course it is true that parents vary and that some people are more engaged and committed to the interests of their children than others. We could leave it at that and be comfortable with that status quo. However, if we take the Conservative view that by giving parents the incentive to become more involved and enabling them to make a difference, one is likely to unleash new potential, it is important that we ensure that the Bill contains provisions that maximise parental influence. We do not disagree that the current picture is patchy. The difference between us centres on our belief in the potential of parents to make a difference. That has been highlighted by the comments that have been made in previous debates and emphasised by the amendment.
There might also be a difference in our views on how local authorities could choose to use the consultation process to inhibit the energy of parents that I have described. I am not naturally a cynical person. As you probably know, Mr. Cook, I am a romantic—[Laughter.] I make no bones about my romantic idealism, for it is at the heart of my politics. I am, not cynical, but a little doubtful—perhaps even sceptical—about the intent of some of those who, faced with the legislation, may erect obstacles to the achievement of the Government’s purpose. It might be that there will be people who see the consultation process as a way of slowing down and inhibiting—
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is even less sceptical and even more of a romantic than I am. Some people might see the process as a way of frustrating the intent of the Government and the purpose of the Bill. Conservative Members believe that by simplifying the consultation process, as the amendment would do, we will prevent any malcontents who might use this part of the Bill to slow down the process, or perhaps even stop it, from having their way.
In that effort, we are at one with the Prime Minister. I do not say that he always gets it right—hon. Members would hardly expect me to say that here or anywhere else—but in introducing the White Paper, he was right about the potential of parent power. Judging by the contributions that they have already made and what I assess to be their good intentions, I am certain that all Committee members want schools to improve in those areas where they are currently struggling and want every child to achieve their educational potential. However, as Abraham Lincoln said, we will not be able to help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. By giving people the opportunity to become more involved in their children’s education, in the running of schools and in the birth of new schools, we can make a real difference to those disadvantaged communities and those children who might otherwise struggle.
The White Paper is clear. It states at paragraph 2.1:
“We are determined to transform our school system into one that responds better to the needs and aspirations of parents. Every parent should be confident that the system is delivering for their child. Every community should be confident that all parents can choose an excellent school. And the nation needs to ensure that areas of underperformance which undermine our efforts to improve social mobility are tackled vigorously.”
And at paragraph 2.2, it says:
“To create real choice and diversity for parents, we need...an easy route through which parents can generate change; and...new providers rooted in their community”
and stimulated by parental activity. As I say, that spirit that underpinned the White Paper could be frustrated unless the Committee accepts our amendment, which would further the aims of the White Paper by ensuring that there is an easy route by which parents can generate change.
We should not be doubtful in any way about the mountain that parents will have to climb to generate a new school. It will not be easy. To gather sufficient numbers of parents with the will and wherewithal to establish a new school in their area is not an easy task. Earlier in Committee, the hon. Member for Brent, East talked about getting 50 parents together, and said that that was not a great number, but I disagree. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that getting 50 parents together, getting families to commit and getting people to believe that they can make a difference will be a tough job. It is our task to make that job as easy as possible, and not to allow further barriers to be put in their way.
In proposing the amendment, I believe that we are acting in the spirit of the White Paper and improving the Bill. We are making a strong statement for parent power. I believe in parent power not for its own sake, but because it can make a real, positive difference to the interests of our children.
I shall now say a word about the amendments in this group tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I understand his intent in tabling them. He will speak for them with his usual wit and elegance, and we will have a chance to respond to what he says.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
I am not leader of the party yet, so my hon. Friend does not have to suck up to me.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I believe that my hon. Friend’s proper emphasis of, for example, the role of Churches and neighbouring schools is born of his determination to ensure that new schools work as closely as possible with the community in which they sit and take account of the important advice and influence that Churches and other bodies can bring to bear. I simply wonder—I shall be interested to hear his comments—whether that, in itself, might not be a further drag on the process.
My worry is that some of the figures in authority in various movements—I will not be too specific—do not share my hon. Friend’s dynamism, energy, and clear-sighted purpose. They may themselves have become part of an educational orthodoxy that, rather than embracing renewal and improvement, might be unhelpful to our pursuit of those things. I simply say to my hon. Friend that we do not want to put any barriers in the way of parents who desperately want to make a difference. In that spirit, I am delighted to propose the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and wait with interest to hear what my hon. Friend will say in defence of his amendment.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
My amendments were probing amendments, and after the eloquence displayed by my hon. Friend, they are now even more probing than they were before. For all that, when coupled with my hon. Friend’s amendment, they do a useful job. We are going to elicit a wide range of possible consultees from the Minister and discover what she means by saying that the local education authority must
“consult such persons as appear to the authority to be appropriate”.
That is the key.
In all honesty, it must be clear by now, even if members of the Committee have not read the amendments, that my vision is that all schools should be independent charitable trusts, free of local authority control. That is my vision, but we are where we are. It is extremely unlikely that I shall be able to convince the Minister of the virtue of that viewpoint, although I am confident that, over the course of this Parliament, I will convince those who lead for my party on education.
I do not speak for the Conservative party. The virtue of being a Back Bencher is that one can be a sort of outrider for the party—[Laughter.] There is no harm in that. All political parties need people to think creatively, which is what I try to do. That is my role, as it is in part the role of my amendments.
The Minister will have to address the problem. I shall not labour the point—I made it this morning with regard to our experience with grant-maintained schools—but I suspect that, as my hon. Friend says, she will find that unfortunately not everyone shares her enthusiasm for the establishment of trust schools. With a clause such as clause 8, I fear that local education authorities will use consultation as a means of obfuscation or of putting barriers in the path of those wishing to set up trust schools.
Who should be consulted? Obviously someone should be consulted, otherwise what is the point of such a clause? My hon. Friend is right that there is no harm in consulting parents. One of the problems with that, as we all know, is that parents are rightly focused on their children at the time of their education, and it is difficult for them to take a strategic view. That is the argument continuously advanced by the hon. Member for Bury, North, by Members of the Liberal party and others.
Are parents best qualified to have a view—or, as I suggest in my amendments, does the Minister envisage that local authorities will consult
“the chairman of governors of all maintained schools in areas adjacent to the proposed school”?
That would seem to be a fairly sensible point of view, would it not? Presumably, therefore, the Minister might agree.
If someone wants to set up a new faith school, based on a trust, will the local authority follow the spirit of amendment No. 348, which states:
“in the case of religious-based schools, the relevant church or religious authority”.
One would think that that was sensible, but what do we mean by faith school? In the recent census, a large number of people apparently said as a joke that they were part of the Jedi knights religion, because a newspaper has suggested that it would be a good way of irritating the authorities. Would I be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school? If I said that I wanted to set up a Catholic school, what sort of Catholic school would it be? Would I have to consult the bishop and the local hierarchy?
It would be useful to know the Minister’s view of who should be consulted. The amendments, by their all-embracing nature, should encourage the Minister to do precisely that.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I shall be brief. I shall refer mainly to amendment No. 159, moved the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) rather than the outriding amendments.
The amendment would remove the requirement for local authorities to consult more widely than school parents. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether parents were less qualified than others to have a view. They are not less qualified, but we should accept that schools have a more important role than teaching those young people attending the school at the time. We should consider the wider policies of extended schools, early-years centres and children centres, and community use of facilities out of school hours. It is important that the community is consulted on the criteria used when a new school is set up. Consultation is not necessarily about slowing things down; it may be simply a matter of ensuring that a school is appropriate for local need and that consideration goes wider than the young people at the school.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The clause to which the amendments relate is all about the requirements to consult prior to issuing proposals for a competition and how those proposals should be brought to the attention of various groups. The amendments largely relate to the situation on the consultation prior to the issuing of the notice for competition.
Amendment No. 159 would mean that the local authority had to consult parents in the area, not anyone else, before it published a notice inviting proposals in a competition. That is the technical effect of the amendment. However, I think that this is a probing amendment, because the clause currently requires the authority to consult those it considers it appropriate, having regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State. I have some sympathy with the importance that the amendment gives to parents. We had a good discussion about that in relation to amendments Nos. 180 and 182 to clause 7 which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. There is significance in ensuring that parents are involved. Of course, they should be consulted about proposals affecting provision in their area and their views should be treated seriously, but that does not mean that nobody else should be consulted—and that would be the effect of the amendment.
Given that this is a probing amendment, perhaps I should just clarify who we think should be consulted about statutory proposals. Among those who we think should be consulted are the local Member of Parliament for the area that the school is intended to serve; any MP whose constituents are likely to be affected by the proposals; the local district or parish council for the area where the school is to be situated; and other schools in the area, including those in an adjoining local education authority that may be affected by the proposals, whether community, foundation, voluntary, or special schools.
Any local education authority likely to be affected by the proposals should be consulted, including neighbouring LEAs where there may be significant cross-border movement of pupils, as should parents and staff in the area who might be affected by the proposals, including parents of pupils at feeder primary schools and those living in, or who have children attending a school in, the area of an adjoining LEA.
The local Church of England and Roman Catholic diocese should be consulted, as should anyone else who has previously expressed an interest in setting up a maintained school and others who might be willing to come forward as promoters. If the proposed school is likely to affect a school with a particular religious foundation, the appropriate diocesan authorities, or, where there is no diocesan structure, the national faith group that provides that school, should be consulted.
There should also be consultation with any trust or foundation providing a foundation or voluntary school that does not have a religious character, if the proposed school is likely to affect such a school. If the proposals affect the provision of full-time 16-to-19 education, the Learning and Skills Council should be included. Any other interested party should be consulted. For example, the early years development and child care partnership should be consulted, where proposals would affect early years provision, as should all those who benefit from a contractual arrangement giving them the use of the premises. That might cover the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
Accepting the amendment, virtuous though its emphasis on parents is, would disfranchise a large number of interested people whom we think have a legitimate interest in the opening of a new school that will affect them, whether they support the proposals or are opposed to them. There should be a recognised route for interested parties to make their views known.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the list. She will have noted that I was worried about there being differences between one locality and another—that some consultees might be included in one place, but not in a neighbouring area. She has made it clear that the guidance will not allow that. However, does she feel that parents should merely be included in that list or that there should be a special role for parents, a parallel process? Just listing local parents with all those other groups would be rather to undersell their significance.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has a fair point in that the nature of the consultation will differ according to different groups; if it did not, that would be completely unreasonable. Sending a letter may be perfectly adequate consultation for a neighbouring local authority, but doing that or publishing a notice would not be adequate for parents, unless we could ensure that it got to them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point; there should probably be a differentiated approach to how the consultation is carried out. However, it is important that there should be clear emphasis on who should be consulted in each circumstance. That is why the guidance is statutory.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 348 would insert requirements to consult the head teachers and chairs of governors of all maintained schools in the area, and, in the case of any religiously based schools, the relevant Church or religious authority. Given what I have said, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Gainsborough that not only are we not opposed to such provisions, but we think that heads, chairs of school governing bodies and appropriate religious authorities should be consulted.
We do not think it necessary to put that in the Bill, but the duty to consult such people as appear to the authority to be appropriate should be represented in the statutory guidance that we shall issue in respect of the clause. I have said that the guidance will specify that other schools in the area must be consulted and that if the proposed school is likely to affect a school that has a particular religious character, the appropriate diocesan authorities—or, if there is no diocesan structure, the national faith group that provides the school—should be consulted too.
It is not open to the authority to disregard the statutory guidance. If it did not consult one of the listed persons, that would be prime facie evidence that the consultation had not been properly carried out, and that would need to be rectified before the competition proceeded.
The guidance will require full consultation on the proposed competition, including local schools, religious authorities, local parents and other stakeholders.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
There is a clear structure in respect of existing faith schools, particularly in relation to the role of the diocese. Will the Minister remind me how that structure would be replicated in the case of a new trust school? It would be unfortunate if people wanted to produce schools based on sects within a religion divorced from mainstream religion. What checks and balances does the Minister envisage?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
That takes us back to this morning’s discussion, in which I said that I would bring to the Committee guidance for decision makers about the process that a school governing body would go through in acquiring a relationship with a particular trust and that would enable us to set down the criteria for that trust.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that a sect would not be beneficial to the advancement of education at a school, he should know that it would be prohibited by the fact that advancement of education would be one of the statutory objects of the trust. I have made it clear that the statutory guidance will state that the appropriate diocesan authorities—or the nationally recognised faith bodies of religions without such authorities—should be consulted. In light of those reassurances about the full consultation on the proposed competition, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I have scarcely felt more reassured. The right hon. Lady generously described the groups that will be consulted. I note her point that different groups may require a different approach to take account of their sensitivities and their role in the process. She is right that that satisfies those of us who want to see parents at the very heart of the process.
I am conscious of the time, Mr. Cook, and that my beautiful wife and son are waiting for me to go to tea—[Hon. Members: “Where?”] I am not telling hon. Members today, but I will report back when we next meet. On that happy note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.