Clause 9
Education and Inspections Bill
10:30 am
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Subsection (1) of the clause provides that:
“A local education authority in England may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish...proposals to establish”
a new school otherwise than under clause 7—that is, without a competition or having regard to the other clause 7 provisions that apply to competitions.
Clause 9 is a repetition of section 65 of the Education Act 2005, which is more of a safety valve than a section of real substance or importance. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the objective of section 65 is:
“To promote diversity by extending the requirement for secondary school competitions so that competitions are held whenever a new school is proposed unless the Secretary of State decides that a competition is not required in an individual case.”
The section therefore dealt with individual cases and was intended to cover unforeseen exceptions.
The Bill repeals section 65 of the 2005 Act and replaces it with clause 9, which is simply an updated version of section 65, but which relates to primary schools as well as secondary schools. The regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill confirms that point in paragraph 5.20, stating that:
“The requirement on local authorities to seek the prior consent of the”
Secretary of State
“to propose new community schools is therefore intended to apply only in exceptional circumstances. Similar provisions already exist where the Secretary of State gives consent for the publication of proposals for new schools outside competitions. The purpose of requiring local authorities and others to seek consent is to ensure that there is greater contestability and that local people have the opportunity to consider a range of proposals from different providers when new schools are to be established.”
That paragraph refers to clause 7 as well as clause 9, but it is clear that clause 9 is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances because the aim of the Bill is to ensure greater contestability when new schools are being proposed.
We agree with that aim, and the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to promote that purpose further. If subsection (1) were removed, local authorities would lose the right to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to establish a new school without going through a competition; clause 9 would apply only to non-local authority proposers of new schools. The amendment would thus make the Bill even stronger and move it further in the direction set out by the Government.
In fact, paragraph 5.17 of the regulatory impact assessment states:
“Under the extensions proposed in the WP, there might be around 100 competitions a year”
under clause 7, but
“This would depend on the frequency with which the Secretary of State exercised her powers to allow proposals for new schools outside a competition.”
I am not necessarily against the Secretary of State using such powers, but it would be helpful if the Minister set out the circumstances in which she envisages those powers being exercised.
Amendment No. 28 is a variation on the theme of amendment No. 29, but instead of removing the whole of subsection (1), it would remove only paragraph (a), which refers to local authorities that wish to establish a new community school. The right of a local authority to establish a new foundation school outside of a competition, with the permission of the Secretary of State, would remain. Again, the amendment would help to achieve the Government’s objective of achieving more diversity of provision.
Amendment No. 77 essentially is the same as the amendment that we tabled in relation to clause 7. It sets out the fall-back position that if the Secretary of State decides not to exercise her veto, the criteria for permitting a local authority to establish another community school will be confined strictly to cases in which there is clear evidence that such a school would achieve better academic results than a foundation school.
I turn to amendment No. 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her colleagues, and amendment No. 181, tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Amendment No. 67 is superficially similar to the amendment that the Liberals tabled to clause 7, in that it would remove the need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if a local authority wishes to establish a new community school. I say “superficially” because, although the amendment is worded similarly to the previous amendment, when applied to clause 9 it would provide local authorities with much greater powers than they have now. It would allow a local authority to set up any type of school without going through the competition process set out in clause 7. I am not sure whether that is what the Liberals intended, but it would take us back to the position before the Education Act 2002. We will therefore oppose the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
Amendment No. 181 would require the Secretary of State to consent to proposals to establish a new community school if there was parental support. In their response to the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the White Paper, the Government said:
“Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school that will command the support of parents, the Secretary of State will not normally intervene.”
The purpose of the amendment is presumably to put that commitment into the Bill, but it would do so without the important caveat that the local authority must have a good track record in education. I guess that the hon. Member for Bury, North does not care about that point and is happy for local authorities with a poor track record to continue to establish new schools on the same basis.