Clause 31
Education and Inspections Bill
3:30 pm
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.