Clause 20
Education and Inspections Bill
1:15 pm
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
No, frankly I do not agree. We make clear on page 11 of the guidance notes the sort of factors that would constitute evidence of the contribution that a trust would make to standards. If I read out the six bullet points—I shall not—hon. Members would see that the criteria for the evidence that the adjudicator will be able to use to confirm whether that trust will contribute to raising standards are reasonably, clear and broad.
Subsection (5)(a), which amendment No. 36 would delete, makes the necessary provisions for the governing body to determine trust acquisition proposals, subject to regulations made under clause 21(1), which amendment No. 37 would delete, to enable the local authority to refer those proposals to the adjudicator. Clause 21(1) requires that any regulations on the determination of trust acquisition proposals by the governing body should include powers for the local authority to refer the proposals to the adjudicator. In turn, clause 21(2), which would be deleted by amendment No. 38, defines the types of school organisation change to which the regulations made under clause 21(1) must refer. It is clear that the effect of the amendments would be to remove that possibility.
In defending the process through which a local authority would have to go in order to refer the proposals, I refer the Committee to the draft illustrative School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations as well as to the guidance. They make clear the grounds on which a local authority would be able to refer the proposals to the adjudicator. The first two grounds are inadequate consultation—a governing body failing to meet the requirements set out in regulations or to have regard to guidance on consultation—and a failure to have regard to responses to a consultation. The hon. Member for Brent, East was right to argue that, if a consultation has been inadequate, there should be an opportunity to refer the proposal. That is why those criteria are in the regulations.
The third criterion is the concern that a trust would have a negative impact on standards. I have outlined the guidance in which we spell out the evidence that will be used by the decision maker to determine whether that would be the case. We are confident that the impact of taking on a trust will be to help to drive improvement in standards, but if that fundamental rationale for the policy was questioned, it could be the basis of a referral to the adjudicator.
The three criteria in the regulations build on the commitments that we gave in the White Paper. They are not intended to be restrictive or to allow local authorities to block proposals to acquire a trust for no good reason. They are an important back-stop and safeguard for parent power, local autonomy and ensuring that the raising of standards is at the heart of every proposal for a trust. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will not press his amendments.