Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave out

‘to the local education authority'.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I hope that you have noted the splendid progress we made this morning. We worked jolly hard and had just got to amendmentNo. 100, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He rightly made the argument that the impact of a school’s closure will be felt beyond that school.

The amendment concerns the effect of the closure of a rural primary school, and the ability of other local schools and authorities to continue to perform their duties in relation to education. That goes to the heart of the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services. I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities will need to consider the impact on other schools, parents, pupils and the community as part of their important strategic role in planning education provision. That will inform their decisions in planning how many schools their area needs, where and how big they should be, what kind of schools would serve their area best, and who the schools should serve.

Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plans. To do that, they willmap what is needed in their area according to demographics, diversity and demand for high standards. They will ensure that there is a sufficient supply of places by letting popular schools expand or federate, closing schools that are poor or failing to  improve, and inviting proposals to open new schools in some of the ways that we have discussed. We expect local authorities to work with schools in a spirit of partnership as they manage their schools. The best local authorities already do that, and the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services will extend that throughout the country.

I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend regarding the strategic context for local authorities within which individual closure proposals will be made, and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.

I turn to amendment No. 31, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb) spoke. I understand the difficulties of closure decisions for some parents. Any decision to close a school is often worrying for parents, and the subject of considerable concern and argument. However, as I said when I talked about the factors that need to be considered, transport considerations must already be considered when the final decisions on proposals are made.

If a rural primary school closes, the transport costs for displaced pupils will, in many cases, have to be met by the local authority, which has a duty to provide transport for children who attend their nearest suitable school if it is beyond the statutory walking distance of 2 miles for primary-aged pupils under eight, and3 miles for children aged eight and over. Local authorities also have to make arrangements to transport children who live within walking distance but for whom there is no route to walk in reasonablesafety. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will extend rights to transport to children from low-income groups, including, for this age group, an entitlement to transport where the school is more than 2 miles from the child’s home. Therefore, when a rural primary school closes, parents who live nearby and drive their children to school might gain an entitlement to free travel for their children under the arrangements outlined above.

Given the potential economies of scale of a local authority organising transport instead of parents driving their children to school, the amendment could, by requiring a consideration of overall transport costs, have the perverse effect of shifting the balance of the argument towards closure.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account the provisions of the Bill that could give local authorities the right to charge some categories of parents for school transport? That, in essence, is a cost to the community, albeit not to the local authority. It is a cost to somebody, and it will have to be met, but the clause does not allow that fact to be taken into account.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

The provisions that the hon. Gentleman refers to relate to the suggested pathfinder proposals, under which local authorities will be able to develop better school transport for everyone within their area. Although that is an important development, it is not a fundamental change in the charging regime. In fact, the balance is likely to be as I suggested. Although I am sympathetic to the implications for  individual parents—and they should of course be borne in mind when making decisions about school closures, particularly of rural primary schools—I am not convinced that the amendment would achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman set out. Indeed, it could potentially have a perverse effect on the decision. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for that clarification. However, the clause remains unsatisfactory inasmuch as it gives specific attention to rural primary schools. It lists a number of the criteria that should apply to rural primary schools but does not list them all because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the question of standards, parental preference and diversity are also factors in closure decisions. However, the criteria that apply to rural primary schools could apply equally to urban primary schools or secondary schools.

A powerful argument can be made for including in the Bill the criteria that apply to all school closures, primary and secondary, rural and urban. It would help the process. It would assist with the plans of local authorities and governing bodies, with the publication of closure notices, and in a public understanding of the reasons for schools closing. Generally, the process would be more efficient as a result. However, in light of my right hon. Friend’s clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.