Clause 18
Education and Inspections Bill
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 340, in clause 18, page 13, line 2, leave out ‘maintained' and insert ‘community'.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 384, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, after ‘authority', insert
‘or it is a proposal that all the maintained schools administered by that local education authority should become foundation schools,'.
No. 341, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (b).
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
Good morning, Mr. Chope. I hope that you are rested after the exciting events of yesterday and that we can now get back to work on this important Bill.
The clause deals with the publication of proposals to make the alterations to schools provided for under clause 17, which we debated on Tuesday. Clause 18 requires a local education authority to publish its proposals in a prescribed manner, but permits it to do so for any maintained school. It allows the LEA to make alterations not only for community schools, which is fair enough—after all, community schools are run by LEAs—but for voluntary or foundation schools. With the amendment, I seek to find out what might happen.
I believe that a local education authority should be able to publish proposals only for community schools, and not for voluntary or foundation schools. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she does not envisage LEAs muscling in to make alterations to voluntary or foundation schools. I cannot believe that that is her intention, but it would be useful to hear her views on the matter. For instance, if the governing body of a voluntary or foundation school requires or does not require the enlargement of its premises, or if the governing body wants to add 16 to 18-year-olds to the school’s admissions, or if the school already has a sixth form and does want to lose it, the decisions on all such changes and similarly vital matters should rest with the governing body of the school. Because an overwhelming proportion of schools—as much as63 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said—are community schools I see no merit in LEAs, which have quite enough work to do with their own schools, trying to make alterations to others.
The amendments would limit LEAs’ scope to order a change to community schools only. According to my reading of the clause—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—unless the amendments are accepted the LEA could cut off the sixth form of a voluntary school, order a voluntary school to stop providing for children with special needs, or order such a school to start making such provision. I cannot believe that that is the Minister’s intention. There is no point in voluntary or foundation schools having governing bodies if, in practice, such vital decisions are taken out of their hands.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 384, which deals with an important point. We support the concept of foundation schools: we hope they are successful and that we have more of them. I wish the Minister well in that endeavour. Unfortunately, the concept is nothing like the policy that the Prime Minister declared in the White Paper. His policy, which bears repetition because we share it, that all maintained schools should be “independent state schools”. That is my vision also. I believe that there are still far too many apron strings tying foundation schools to local authority diktats. Even more apron strings tie them to diktats from the Department for Education and Skills. None the less, foundation schools are a step in the right direction—one on which we can build when we take power.
It follows that if a local authority, perhaps a rather progressive one, can see the benefit to children’s education of having all the maintained schools in its area given the independence offered by foundation status, it should be free to make a proposal under clause 9 that all its schools should become foundation schools. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who reminded me that Kent, for example, ensured that all its schools were grant maintained—
Jonathan R Shaw (PPS (Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State), Department for Education and Skills; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
That is wrong.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
Well, if it is wrong, I bow to local knowledge, but certainly a very large number of schools in Kent were grant maintained.
Jonathan Shawindicated dissent.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only repeat the information that was given to me only last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. It is probably very likely that that authority had success in persuading schools to become grant maintained. What the hon. Gentleman says does not defeat the point that I was making. I was only trying to adduce an example to show that a local authority may well want all its schools to become foundation schools. The Bill should provide for that to happen, which is why I tabled amendment No. 384.
Jonathan R Shaw (PPS (Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State), Department for Education and Skills; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
And a wrong one.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a speaking part, he must rise to his feet.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Chope. My hon. Friend’s amendments reflect the Government vision originally set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper states:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”
The amendments therefore reflect the Government’s intention.
I shall talk about the clause more generally, if I may, and make a short stand part contribution to the debate. The document entitled “A Short Guide to the Education and Inspections Bill 2006” states on page 4:
“Local authorities will also have extended powers (under clause 18) to propose the enlargement of the premises, the addition or discontinuance of SEN provision or the addition of a sixth form to any foundation, foundation special or voluntary school.”
That is set out in clause 18(2)(b). It would be helpful if the Minister explained why she believes that it is necessary to give those extra powers to local authorities in relation to foundation schools and voluntary schools. The powers are benign, but apart from the power to propose discontinuing SEN provision—we dealt with that issue through an amendment to an earlier clause—the powers relate to expansion and creation. I note that there are no powers to force foundation or voluntary schools to take extra pupils, only powers to expand premises. However, it would be helpful to know why the Minister believes that the powers are needed.
Subsection (2) is about alterations to schools that local authorities can propose. As one would expect, they have more powers in relation to community schools than in relation to foundation schools. The details of the powers are set out in the draft regulations circulated by the Minister. Regulation 5(3) of the draft School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006 states:
“In the case of voluntary, foundation or foundation special schools, a local education authority may only propose one or more of the alterations set out in section 18(2)(b)(i)-(iii).”
However, it then states in square brackets and in italics:
“We intend eventually to set those out in more detail in a new part of schedule 4”.
My concern is not that the regulations circulated for guidance purposes only are not complete. That is perfectly understandable. My concern is whether the Government intend to insert into schedule 4 to the regulations details that give local authorities more power—for example, to expand premises—than they have over community schools, which are already dealt with in part 1 of schedule 4. Can the Minister provide reassurance that there is no such intention?
While we are talking about the regulations relating to clause 18, will the Minister explain why the governing body of a foundation or community school or a community special school does not have the power to expand its premises under part 3 of schedule 2 tothe regulations? Similarly, under schedule 4, a local education authority appears not to be able to publish proposals to enlarge the premises of community special schools, although it can propose an expansion in the number of pupils at such schools. That seems to be rather an odd difference.
Finally, paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the regulations lists a series of changes of category that a foundation or voluntary school can propose, including changing from a community school to a voluntary school. That does not make sense, because the provision does not relate to community schools; it relates to foundation schools. How can a foundation school move from being a community school to a voluntary school? Is that simply a drafting error or is it an issue on which we need to expand further?
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I want to make a few brief comments. Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the general thrust of the amendments. We consider the local authority to be the body with the strategic view and, as such, it should be the one to publish proposals. We might not agree with those proposals, but if the Government’s vision is truly that the local education authority should have a strengthened commissioning role, it is essential that the publication of proposals be in the local authority’s hands.
On clause 18(4), and following logically from the arguments that we made on clause 17, we want the possibility of a return to community school status, as well.
Clause 18(2) merits discussion and explanation. I have difficulty with the idea that the local authority is always bad. It might not always be good, but it is not always bad. A really good local authority, in playing its strategic role, is there to help out even grant-maintained schools—as happened in my local area when things went pear-shaped—because it operates on behalf of the whole community. Problems occur in all types of school, and when the chips are down it is usually the local authority that has the expertise to help.
The Minister is aware that I have a tricky case in my constituency, in which replacement buildings have not been provided following a fire that happened more than six years ago. The school has now become a foundation school. Will she say whether there is or should be a process to deal with the rare circumstances of an out-and-out conflict between a school and a local authority? Unlike the Conservatives, I do not envisage such circumstances arising frequently, but I think that they can occur rarely. Perhaps we should tease out whether we need a regulation to cover exceptional circumstances.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
As we have heard, amendments Nos. 340 and 341 are designed to prevent a local authority from making proposals for alterations to foundation and voluntary schools. However, our proposals for some expanded abilities for local authorities are made in the context that we have discussed under earlier clauses—a new framework for school organisation, involving, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly recognises, a significant new strategic role for the local authority as the commissioner of provision and the champion of parents. That is the rationale for the proposals in this clause.
Under current legislation, although a local authority can propose the closure of any maintained school, it cannot make other sorts of proposal in respect of voluntary schools and can propose only the expansion of foundation schools. We think that in order to discharge its responsibilities properly, a local authority should be able to propose alterations relating to expansion and to special educational needs and sixth-from provision in respect of all maintained schools in its area.
I cannot provide all the reassurances that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seeks, but I can reassure him about the removal of a sixth form—an issue that he raised. The changes that a local authority can make are limited to the addition to a school of a sixth form. It could not publish proposals to remove a sixth form from a foundation or voluntary school.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked whether the section in italics in the illustrative regulations implied that we wanted to go further in schedule 4. I can reassure him that have no intention of going further than what is spelled out in those illustrative regulations.
Clause 18(2)(b) will ensure that a local authority can propose changes that extend choice for parents and that the necessary provision is available in the area. It is precisely because we envisage that more schools will be self-governing foundation or voluntary aided schools that we need to reconsider local authorities’ powersso that they can operate their strategic role appropriately—not running schools or making day-to-day decisions, but being responsible, as champions of pupils and parents in their area, for ensuring and extending parent choice.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that local authorities will not have a hands-on role in voluntary aided schools? I think that that is what sheis trying to say. If local authorities are to be commissioners rather than providers of services, what sort of decisions or initiatives does she envisage that they might make in respect of voluntary aided schools?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I was just spelling that out. As the clause makes clear, the role of commissioner implies that authorities will be able to publish proposals for particular provision that is necessary to deliver choice for parents and pupils. That is why we are proposing that local authorities, particularly those with many foundation schools, should be able to propose, for example, the addition of a sixth form—not its removal, as I assured the hon. Gentleman—or of an SEN unit to work alongside schools in the area to reassure people that there is sufficient specialist SEN provision. Those are the sorts of proposal that the clause covers.
The provisions will not allow a local authority to impose such changes. As clause 19 and the illustrative regulations make clear, the local authority will have to consult interested parties, including the school, and publish its proposals, giving an opportunity for objections or comments. If a foundation of voluntary school does not agree with the proposal, clause 21(5) provides that the school’s governing body or trustees can require that those proposals be referred to the adjudicator.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s intervention. Will she explain why subsection (2)(b)(ii) gives local authorities the power to discontinue SEN provision in a school? I understand why they might want the power to establish it, but why the power to discontinue? That is the only negative and destructive power in the clause, and I am slightly concerned about it.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
As we were discussing the other day when we talked about the local authorities’ role of ensuring sufficient and appropriate provision, it might be appropriate to reorganise SEN provision in an area and to close one unit in order to make provision elsewhere. As the hon. Gentleman said, only in those circumstances will a local authority be able to open and close such provision.
Our proposals strike a reasonable balance between allowing the authority to propose changes in order to improve the supply of school places, and providing for the schools themselves to ensure that decisions are taken by the adjudicator if there is a disagreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough feels sufficiently reassured that the balance is reasonable and will therefore withdraw the amendment.
In amendment No. 384 the hon. Gentleman argues that local authorities should be able to propose that all their schools become foundation schools, which would give the local authority a significant power. At the same time, however, he argues that we ought to limit the powers that we give to local authorities. I think that he intended the proposal to apply only to community schools, but as drafted it would include voluntary schools—faith schools, for example. I do not think that the governing bodies of voluntary schools would welcome local authorities having the power to turn them all into foundation schools against their will.
More importantly, the principled argument that we have made throughout is that the decision on whether to change status from a community school to a foundation school, or whether to acquire a trust, should be taken in the first instance by the governing bodies of the schools themselves. Such a change is not something that could be imposed by a local authority on all its schools. I hate to tar the hon. Gentleman with this charge, but he is making a very centralising proposition. I know that he would not want that, so I hope that he will not press that amendment.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
I am happy to withdraw the amendment, because I am reassured by the Minister’s assurance that there is no question of a local authority being able to step in to remove a sixth form, which is where I suspect there would probably be most controversy. I take her point about amendment No. 384. I wanted to probe the Government’s thinking, but clearly I do not want to give local authorities the power to interfere with the status of voluntary aided schools. In fact, that amendment would not be a centralising measure as such, because the local authority would be surrendering its power if all the schools in an area became foundation schools. However, I take her point.
We shall try to accept the right hon. Lady’s assurance that the clause is not a centralising measure, because that would be unfortunate. I am prepared to accept her word that it is benign, particularly in relation to foundation schools, and that it is designed only to allow local authorities to make suggestions for SEN provision, for example. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.