John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 43, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

‘(6) Regulations may prescribe requirements as to persons who are to be disqualified from acting as charity trustee.'.

No. 80, in clause 31, page 22, line 11, leave out from first ‘requirements' to ‘persons' in line 13 and insert—

(a) may include requirements as to the objects or purposes of the foundation, and

(a) must include requirements as to'.

No. 79, in clause 31, page 22, line 14, at end insert—

‘(6A) Requirements under subsection (6)(b) must provide that a person shall be disqualified for holding, or continuing to hold, office as a charity trustee if—

(a) he is liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983;

(b) he has been adjudged bankrupt or sequestration of his estate has been awarded and (in either case) he has not been discharged and the bankruptcy order has not been annulled or rescinded;

(c) he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors and has not been discharged in respect of it;

(d) he is subject to a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or to an order made under section 429(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (failure to pay under county court administration order); or

(e) he is included in a list of teachers and workers with young persons under any other enactment whose employment is restricted or prohibited.'.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

In essence, our amendments deal with who might serve and who might be disqualified from service on a trust. The Minister presented a draft schedule listing the individuals who may not act or continue to act as a charity trustee. The amendments would specify those individuals in the Bill, making it crystal clear who should be disqualified. There are important differences between the draft schedule and the amendments. The amendments would disqualify someone liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, whereas the draft schedule would disqualify only someone who was detained under that Act. We have in mind someone who is in the process of being detained or someone who is unfit for other reasons.

We have to be very careful about who serves on the charitable trusts. That point was made by Liberal  Members. I understand their concern about inappropriate people being part of that process. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee share that concern. In this respect, we might find common cause with Liberal Members—but I imagine that I am about to be disabused of my happy thought.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I have great sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. I am concerned, though, about the definition of

“liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act”.

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he means? I have concerns that so widely drawn a measure could lead to all sorts of people being affected. I am thinking of people who may have had a nervous breakdown and recovered from it and who are perfectly well able to function normally.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

That is a good point, which I thought about when considering the amendment. The definition in the amendment is perhaps slightly broader than the very clear arrangement that will pertain if the Bill remains unamended. However, I am concerned that we might be talking about people—we have all come across them in our constituencies—with a history of serious mental disturbance. Sometimes that will have involved their being detained previously and they might be about to be detained again because of a pattern of behaviour that could be perceived as dangerous to children or others, although they have yet to be detained and so would not necessarily be included in the category that the Bill currently defines. The hon. Lady is right. This issue is not easy, but I am anxious to ensure that no one who is unsuitable finds their way on to one of the boards.

Perhaps it will reassure the hon. Lady and bind us even more closely together, given her warm words about the principles of our amendments, if I say that this is a probing amendment, intended to enable us to look at how the Government have considered the matter and ways in which they might consider it further by drawing in others whom we would all regard as unsuitable to play a part in the process.

Given the seriousness of the question of who should be allowed to serve as charity trustees on a foundation, it is only right that the safeguard should be in place and that the Secretary of State should have that power. It would be less than responsible to be vague or imprecise about powers that the Secretary of State might exercise, particularly in light of the revelations in recent months about the sort of people working in schools who have access to children, and the public worry about the involvement of unsuitable people in education.

I do not suggest that the Bill will be a vehicle for all kinds of people with malevolent intent who want to get involved in schools. We must be careful about that, of course, although I do not think it will be a significant problem, but it is possible that someone inappropriate could find their way into an influential position in a school’s governance in which they could be involved in decisions about our children. It is my judgment that we  need to probe and to press the Government; we need to ensure that a belt-and-braces approach is taken to the membership of trusts. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

As I said earlier, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. Although they repeat much of what is included in the draft regulations circulated at a previous sitting, there is some merit in putting it in the Bill. If nothing else, it will shore up confidence in the system. The Minister has spoken with some irritation at persistent questions about whether McDonald’s or other unsuitable people could run a trust school. Including such provisions in the Bill would at least shore up people’s trust in the system.

As I said earlier, however, I have some anxiety about the definition of

“liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983”.

I suspect that it will be open to considerable legal challenge. Many people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses may be perfectly well for long periods; and many have nervous breakdowns at some point in their lives. People can be detained under the Mental Health Act not only because they are a danger to others but because they can sometimes be a danger to themselves. They may recover and go on to lead a perfectly normal life. One period of serious illness does not necessarily mean that a person will have others; and they could be healthy for long periods and could serve the community very well. I have some concerns about that provision. I understand the point being made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I suspect that it is not the right way to go about it.

Other issues have been raised, which I shall deal with later, but they are relevant now. We need flexibility in the system to ensure that the charitable trust is able to vote off members that it considers to be unsuitable. Those are the kinds of things that probably should be written into the guidance, rather than in the Bill or regulations. There needs to be the ability to vote off members who are considered unsuitable. That would probably deal with some of the worries that the hon. Gentleman has raised about somebody with a recurrent mental health problem whose behaviour during a particular period means that they are unsuitable to serve on a committee, but who may be well for the most part.

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

I shall speak to the whole group of amendments, although some of them appear to contradictory, particularly amendments Nos. 43 and 80. Both would delete almost exactly the same provisions, but each suggests replacing them with different text. I am not completely clear which of the alternative options hon. Members wish to be considered, so I shall address the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Members who have spoken so far.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to set out in regulations requirements as to the charitable objects that the trusts of trust schools must have. Amendments Nos. 80 and 79 retain that power, but with the intention of requiring certain categories of individuals to be  included in the regulations specifying categories of persons who are to be disqualified from being trustees, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings outlined. I shall address the issue concerning trustees and, I hope, the points that the hon. Member for Brent, East raised about the conditions of membership of a trust and the removal of a trust member.

The power to set out in regulations requirements as to the charitable objects that the trusts of trust schools must have is contained in proposed new section 23A(5) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which is inserted by the clause. Amendment No. 42 would remove that provision and therefore that regulation-making power.

Amendment No. 43 would replace proposed new section 23A(6) of the 1998 Act, which would also be introduced by the clause, with a more limited regulation-making power. Proposed new section 23A(6) currently specifies that the requirements to be prescribed in regulations under new subsection (5) may include the object or purposes of the trust and persons who are to be disqualified from acting as charity trustees. Amendment No. 43 would limit that to a regulation-making power to prescribe requirements as to those persons.

The net effect of those two amendments would be to remove the Secretary of State’s power to set certain specified objects or purposes for the trust. I should like to explain why it is beneficial to be able to require trusts to adopt certain charitable objects. The draft illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations 2006, which we have made available to the Committee, set out the charitable object that all trusts must have, which is

“the advancement of the education of the pupils at any school in respect of which it acts as the foundation.”

Furthermore, we have made it clear that the trust must also “promote community cohesion” as part of its work to further the advancement of education. Those requirements are contained in regulations 4 and 5 of the draft illustrative regulations that we have circulated.

Those are the right objects. It is right that we should have certainty that trusts that will enter into relationships with schools will have the advancement of education as a key object and that, alongside that, they will be promoting community cohesion. Because they are charities, trusts will of course have to have exclusively charitable objects and to conduct all their affairs in accordance with those objects. That is an important safeguard. However, without the requirements in the draft indicative regulations, which the amendment would effectively remove, a trust could be established legally with charitable objects that do not include the advancement of pupils’ education at the school. That would probably be unacceptable.

In reality it is likely that such a trust proposal would not make it through the consultation and decision making processes, but I want to avoid doubt and reinforce clearly our policy intention and the purposes of the reforms, which are to raise standards for all and to allow every child to receive an excellent education in order that he, or she, can fulfil their potential. It is  right therefore that we require that for all trusts the advancement of the education of the pupils be one of their charitable objects.

When the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings proposed his amendments, he did not in fact argue that that should not be the case. I want to be clear that he understands that if his amendment were made, that would be the case. As I have suggested, it is important also that we require all trusts to promote community cohesion in order to further their charitable object—the advancement of education.

That follows up our White Paper commitment that trusts will be under a duty to promote community cohesion. That is a clear commitment that we do not want trust schools to operate in splendid isolation or to cherry-pick the best students—issues that hon. Members have raised. For example, promoting community cohesion could include mentoring arrangements between schools in which the best schools help the lowest achievers, and shared facilities so that less-advantaged pupils have access to good IT, science or language provision.

That is fundamental to our objective of ensuring that the reforms drive up standards for every child, and allow them to achieve their full potential. That sends a clear message that trust schools must work in partnership with their communities. We have been clear that schools need to work in partnership with others, which is reinforced by the requirement to promote community cohesion as outlined in the regulations.

As I have suggested also, the requirement that trusts adopt such objects does not prevent them from adopting additional charitable objects as they consider fit. An existing charitable trust could adopt such an additional object if it wished to meet the requirements in the clause, but that must be alongside the important objects that I just outlined and which are spelt out in the regulations. That would not be the case if the amendment was made.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

As the Minister rightly said, I did not refer to that particular aspect of our amendment. As she will recognise, our concern is that this element of the Bill might be too broad and vague in its expectations of the trusts. However, if that expectation is as simple and straightforward as their educational purpose, could it not be put in the Bill, rather than being left to regulations and that rather vague reference in the Bill?

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

That is a very interesting suggestion made reasonably persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. It is so important to us to be clear that the charitable object of all trusts associated with schools should be the advancement of education, and that in promoting that, they should advance community cohesion as well. However, in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to agree with him: it would be a good idea to put that in the Bill. Perhaps he would be willing for us to come back on Report with proposals that will ensure that those objects are in the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not accepting his amendment, but his point that it would be a good idea for those objectives to be in the Bill.

I shall now turn to amendments Nos. 80 and 79. I leave aside the Secretary of State’s power to specify in regulations the objects or purposes that all trusts would be required to have and shall concentrate on the other effect of the amendments, to require regulations disqualifying certain categories of person from acting as charity trustees to include those categories listed in proposed new subsection (6A). I will not dwell on the importance of the safeguard of the Secretary of State being able to disqualify certain categories of people to prevent unsuitable people from acting as trustees, as the need for it is self-evident and it is not questioned by any member of the Committee.

Much as I broadly share hon. Members’ aims in seeking to ensure that the categories of individual that they identified are indeed disqualified from being trustees, in these circumstances their amendment is unnecessary. I am not about to become a soft touch with respect to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but in these circumstances there are good reasons why the disqualified persons should be stated in the regulations rather than in the Bill, not least because some of the legislative provisions to which they refer may change over time. It would then be more appropriate to be able to update regulations rather than primary legislation.

I shall try to reassure the hon. Gentleman in respect of most of his comments about the sorts of individuals it would be appropriate to disqualify. The draft illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations 2006, which we have made available, give an indication of the categories that we have in mind for disqualification. They already include the main categories that hon. Members suggested in their amendment. In particular, but not exclusively, they make it clear that a person who is prevented by education legislation from working with children or young persons would be disqualified; a person who at any time has been convicted of any offence, and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment for not less than five years would also be disqualified. We also include a person who is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. That is where I disagree with hon. Members that we should include the wording in the amendment about somebody being “liable to be detained” under the Mental Health Act. The hon. Member for Brent, East made the arguments why that would not be appropriate.

In a previous ministerial incarnation, I was fortunate to serve as the Minister with responsibility for mental health. One of the Government’s priorities, which was argued for strongly by people who have had mental health problems, was to tackle some of the discrimination that often exists in that respect. That is important, not least because one in four of us is likely to suffer mental health problems at some time in our lives. It is important to tackle that prejudice. Of course, it is often the case that even those who have had serious mental health problems and have been detained under mental health legislation will recover and be able to lead full lives, in employment and in civic life.

As the hon. Lady rightly said, on the whole people with mental health problems are more likely to be dangerous to themselves than to others. It is therefore  important to use the definition in other education legislation, which reflects mental health legislation, and in the regulations, that we disqualify people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, not those who are liable to be detained.

As I said, the detail proposed in the amendments belongs in regulations rather than in the Bill, for the simple reason that legislation moves on and we need to be able to update it. Although we share most of their aspirations, I hope that hon. Members will be able to withdraw the amendments about the listing of disqualified persons, warm in the knowledge that they have been successful in persuading me, as have the others who have already made that point to me, that it would be appropriate to put the objects of trusts in legislation. We will come back and ensure that that happens.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I offer a word of thanks to the Minister for acknowledging the point about the importance of putting the objects and purposes of trusts in the Bill in specific form. We await her further comments on that on Report.

My aim on the other matters was, as the hon. Member for Brent, East said, to reassure all those who are looking at our deliberations on the Bill that there would be no doubt about who might become involved in education by such means. There is sensitivity about the issue among parents and the wider community, and the Minister has acknowledged that by making it clear that the regulation will go further than the regulations that pertain to charities as a whole. A number of people are disqualified from acting as trustees of all charities, but the Minister suggested that further steps will need to be taken in respect of these charities because they deal with education and vulnerable people. It is long-established practice that charities can add further qualifications and disqualifications when dealing with vulnerable people.

I understand the Minister’s point about my argument about people who are liable to be detained. I want to make it absolutely clear that we mean no prejudice towards people who have had mental health problems. I would guess that we all, as constituency MPs, have worked with community groups, charitable groups and individuals who have found themselves in such circumstances. I certainly have in my constituency. There is an enormous amount of prejudice that we need to cut through.

Although I have not had the opportunity, still less the pleasure, of serving as a Minister responsible for mental health, I have been delighted to be involved over some time in all-party groups concerned with brain injury and with disability as a whole, as secretary and co-chairman respectively. I take a great interest in such matters and am absolutely determined that someone should not be subject to prejudice because they have had such challenges.

Our aim was to tighten things up in respect of those who might be in the process of being detained, as well as where the reason for their detention might relate to risk to others, particularly children. That was at the heart of why we made those probing amendments. However, the Minister has reassured us that she shares our desire to protect children, and as a result I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 24 to 41.

The amendment is intended as a probing amendment to explore the reasons why the Government want the power to remove and replace certain individuals on a trust body. Although it seems appropriate and desirable, as we have just discussed, for the Secretary of State to be able to disqualify certain categories of people from serving on trust bodies, it does not seem immediately clear why the Secretary of State would want the power to remove and replace individuals.

That leads clearly on to the question of whether that provision is intended to leave open the power to interfere in a more political way with the running of the school. That does not seem to be in the general spirit of autonomy that the Government have spoken about. In extreme circumstances, the Charity Commission can investigate if concerns are raised about the conduct of a trustee. The commission then has the power to remove individuals if they fall foul of the guidelines. In other situations, the removal of trustees would, I assume, be governed by the rules in the charter of the charitable trust, which is likely to make provision for trustees to be voted out. I would like clarification on that from the Minister. It would be helpful to put something about that into guidance, as we said when we discussed the previous string of amendments.

If the school is failing, surely it is not the Secretary of State but the local education authority that should step in. There is the question of why the Secretary of State still wants the power to remove an individual trustee. It is not clear to me why the Government want that power. The amendment is merely meant to probe into the circumstances in which the Secretary of State intends to use the power. I want reassurance that the power is not for the purpose of political interference in the direction and running of the school.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Again, the Secretary of State wants to have her cake and eat it. The whole idea of foundation schools—or trust schools, as the Prime Minister called them, or grant-maintained schools, as we called them—is to inject outside management and competence into the running of schools. Charities are being encouraged to take on the task of creating foundation schools, or to take under their wing existing schools and become foundation schools. What is the chance of them doing that when the Secretary of State gives herself power under the clause to make regulations to remove a charity trustee from the foundation school, or to appoint a new charity trustee? By implication, she would be doing so against the wishes of the founding charity, because if it were the wish of the charity to remove or appoint a trustee, then surely it would do that itself.

Once the Secretary of State has approved a foundation school—which includes having approved those who are to run it—she has to stand back and let them run it. She cannot hold over them the threat of taking away the charity’s control through the governors. What recourse will the charity have, and  does the power not go completely against the grain of empowering local charities, communities and faith groups? If the Prime Minister wants schools to act and behave as independent schools do, they need the freedom to do so, otherwise the idea is a fallacy. They cannot behave as independent schools without having the freedom that independent schools have. I view the power as just one more unnecessary obstacle to achieving the goal of all schools being as good as independent schools, and having the same freedoms and equalities as them.

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

I apologise to the hon. Member for Brent, East, for not responding to the point that she made on the previous group of amendments about the ability of members of the trust to remove individual trustees. Because of the charitable nature of the organisations that would be trusts, those who constitute the charitable company or incorporated organisation—those are the two categories that could form a trust that would make a link with the school—would deal with the removal of trustees or members by trustees or members of the trust. In the case of a charitable company, its memorandum and articles would provide for that to happen. So in all those circumstances, there would be a route by which individual trustees could be removed.

The amendment would delete new section 23B, which clause 31 of the Bill inserts into the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It would therefore remove the power that we have introduced for the Secretary of State to remove trustees from, and appoint them to, the trust of a trust school by direction in certain prescribed circumstances, as we have heard.

In the Bill and the draft illustrative regulations, we have developed and made clear a proportionate, well balanced and graduated series of safeguards around trusts. The hon. Lady is concerned in particular that the power might be an attempt to impose some sort of political element on to the trust. I absolutely assure her that that is certainly not the intention behind the provisions; far from it. We have been very clear that we envisage decisions being made by the schools’ governing bodies, in the interests of the school and the local community. They will make links with trusts that they feel will be appropriate for delivering higher standards for their children.

The process for considering that decision is set out in the guidance that we have outlined. The provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to remove and appoint individual trustees comprise a reserve power—a fall-back position—to be used in exceptional circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that she considers it to be a reserve power, only to be used where there are clear and serious concerns about an individual trustee. I hope that I can convince hon. Members that it should remain alongside the other safeguards.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister give some examples of when the Secretary of State thinks that there might be an issue, and explain why provisions could not be written into the regulations disqualifying certain categories of individuals from serving as trustees, which would be much fairer?

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

There will be a variety of individuals who will have done certain things, whether criminal or otherwise, whom we have referred to clearly in the regulations as those who would be disqualified from taking a role in a trust from the start. We have discussed those restrictions, but we also have to recognise that we cannot legislate for every particular circumstance. It is possible that, despite the safeguards, there may be occasions where a trustee is not disqualified, but acts in ways that cause concern or risk bringing the trust into disrepute. It would be invidious, if not impossible, to attempt to legislate in advance for such activities, if they are not illegal. We are confident that such circumstances would be extremely rare because of the other safeguards we have put in place.

It would be foolish and remiss of us not to include a mechanism in the Bill to deal with such an eventuality, should it arise, which is why new section 23B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, inserted by this clause, will give the Secretary of State the power to remove trustees in certain circumstances. Perhaps it will reassure the hon. Member for Brent, East to learn that the circumstances in question would have to be very serious. The power would not be used lightly.

As I have already said, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is a reserve power. Perhaps an extract from the draft Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations will reassure hon. Members, especially on the point the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made about whether the power might be used willy-nilly for political reasons. Before the Secretary of State can exercise her power to remove trustees, she must be satisfied that the person has acted in a way that is incompatible with the object or purposes of the foundation, or that the person is likely to bring into disrepute any school to which the foundation appoints governors.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Would the foundation not be the best body to decide whether that was an appropriate action? Why should it be the Secretary of State? Why is the foundation not empowered to make that decision?

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

I have already identified that the foundation might be empowered to make that decision and might want to make it. The argument is that in very extreme circumstances it might also be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have that power. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings argued in relation to the previous group of amendments, when we are dealing with schools, education and children, we should make it clear that if circumstances arose in which we needed to use those provisions, they should be in the legislation.

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady that there is no question of the Secretary of State removing a trustee without giving them a chance to defend themselves. The draft regulations require the Secretary of State to respect certain procedural requirements before exercising her power. She must notify each of the charity trustees of the school that she intends to exercise her power, setting out the reasons for her decision to remove any charity trustee, and she must provide the person whom she proposes to remove with the opportunity to make representations against their removal.

The removal of a trustee would be a serious matter, and it is intended that this reserve power would be exercised as a last resort. As I outlined, many safeguards are in place. They include the disqualification of certain categories of person from acting as trustee; the trust acquisition process; the need for public consultation on trust proposals; and, similarly, the requirement that the school’s governing body and the trust partners should make the decision about who should be a trustee. However, there may be a rare circumstance in which it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint a particular individual to the trust of a particular school. It is another element of the Secretary of State’s powers, but we do not envisage using it widely.

I shall respond to the point that the hon. Member for Brent, East made. I think that she was questioning whether the Secretary of State would use the power in circumstances of school failure, and whether that would be appropriate. We do not expect to address such circumstances using that route, because governing bodies and not trusts will be accountable for school performance. If there were concerns about a school’s performance, the school would be in the same position as all other maintained schools, and the local authority would have the same powers of intervention.

The hon. Lady asked what would be the local authority’s role. In those circumstances, it would have the power to issue the governing body with a formal warning, and, ultimately, appoint additional governors, suspend the school’s delegated budget or replace the governing body with an interim executive board. That would effectively reduce or remove for a time the trust’s influence over the school. If those measures did not work, the local authority would have the power to propose the school’s closure, in which case the trust’s role would end. The relationship with a trust would also be broken in circumstances of trust insolvency.

It is wise and prudent to provide in legislation the possibility of Secretary of State intervention in closely prescribed circumstances. I hope that hon. Members feel reassured, and that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I did not speak before the Minister, so I just want to say a word in support of what she said. The Charity Commission suggests that only 33 per cent. of charities surveyed had formal checks on prospective trustees in place. It is critical that in respect of schools, the Minister provides that long stop. We will be dealing with vulnerable people and the concerns of parents and others.

If the Charity Commission suggests that that is the rate at which charities go through the formal process of checking prospective trustees, it gives some cause for concern. The gist is that when charities are formed, the commission asks trustees to sign a declaration making it clear that they are not disqualified under a variety of criteria. There are people who might seek dishonestly to find their way on to those bodies. None of us would want them there, and for that reason, I wanted to say a word in support of what the Minister said about the long-stop, reserve provision.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In a debate on a previous clause, I made a point about the lack of Criminal Records Bureau checks. However, it would be better to deal with the issue through charities law, than by introducing more discretion for the Secretary of State.

I moved the amendment to probe the reasoning behind the Secretary of State’s desire for the power. I am concerned about process. The Minister well knows that I understand and sympathise with the need for safeguards. I have raised the issue at various points during our sittings. However, I am more comfortable with the idea of people knowing up front what disqualifies them from serving, so they know where they stand, than leaving it up to the Secretary of State’s discretion at a later stage.

I am concerned that the Minister is not clear whether the regulations are adequate to deal with all her concerns. Might it not be better for us to draw up stricter regulations than to maintain a reserve power for the Secretary of State? As a Liberal, I am instinctively uncomfortable with extensive power being put into the hands of one individual. The Minister has addressed most of my concerns so, although I continue to worry about the reserve power of the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.