David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

The purpose of these two amendments is to allow us a brief opportunity to examine some of the issues in relation to parent councils, particularly the role and function of such councils, the kind of administrative support that they might require, and the demands that they might make on the school. Given that the Education Act 2005 abolished the previous obligation of schools to hold an annual parents’ meeting, how is it that we now feel that there will be sufficient interest among parents for them to attend a parent council which would, presumably, meet more  frequently than once a year? The argument for the parent council is clearly that, in circumstances in which a trust school has been established and the foundation has been given a majority on the governing body, it would serve as a compensatory mechanism whereby the parents’ voice could still be heard, albeit not to the same degree as it used to be on the governing body.

The clause does not specify the role or responsibilities of the parent council other than to say that it should advise the governing body. If the governing body were to refuse to take its advice, what kind of dispute resolution procedure would there be, and how would the governing body ensure that a tiny minority of parents did not subvert the council’s role to their own advantage, or to the perceived advantage of their children?

Finally, if the parent council is to be a serious body—if it attracts the support and confidence of parents, meets fairly regularly, and deals with serious and substantial issues—what sort of administrative support will be necessary? Who will provide it and what burden might fall on the school? Will members of staff—teachers or support staff—be expected to service the parent council in the way in which, previously, they have been expected to service the governing body? Those are some of the questions that arise from my amendments. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend’s response.

See this speech in context