Clause 21
Education and Inspections Bill
Public Bill Committees, 27 April 2006, 1:15 pm
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 343, in clause 21, page 16, line 4, at end insert—
‘(d) any other religious body or foundation relevant to the school in question.'.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)
The amendment would delete subsection (4) of the clause, which allows for a diocesan board of education, a local Roman Catholic bishop or—for education for children aged 14 or over, the Learning and Skills Council—to appeal to the adjudicator against decisions taken by the governing body of a school or the local authority.
It is unclear why such a power of appeal to the adjudicator is needed, because a diocesan board is unlikely to want to appeal against decisions taken by the governing body of one of its own schools. It will have its own internal mechanisms for exercising control over Church of England schools, and the same will apply to a Catholic bishop’s control over Catholic schools. The subsection is about giving a voice to the bodies specified, who sat, among others, on the school organisation committees that clause 27 will abolish.
Paragraph 5.18 of the regulatory impact assessment makes that point when it states:
“Other members of School Organisation Committees may feel that their voice has been reduced, but regulations associated with the Bill will provide for them to be able to refer proposals to the Schools Adjudicator to decide in specified circumstances.”
It is unclear why the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Learning and Skills Council are being given the right of appeal to the adjudicator merely because they are losing their voice on the school organisation committees. Many other bodies on those committees are losing their voice but do not get that right of appeal. Furthermore, the governing bodies of Church of England schools, Catholic schools and, indeed, all foundation and voluntary schools will get a right of appeal under clause 21(5) if the local authorities are making a decision in respect of them. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those points and clarified the position.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
As the hon. Gentleman has spelt out, amendment No. 78 would prevent local dioceses and the Learning and Skills Council from appealing to the adjudicator about decisions on proposals for changes to schools. The hon. Gentleman is right. In the light of the new strategic role of the local authority as the commissioner of education services in the area, the Bill proposes abolishing the school organisation committee and making the local authority the decision maker in the first instance.
We recognise, however, the continuing role and importance of local stakeholders in education in the area. We have made it clear in discussion with the Churches that our intention is that they will continue to have the power that they had as members of the school organisation committees to ensure that proposals go to the adjudicator for decision if they have concerns. In a moment, I shall give examples of where that might be the case. Similarly, the Learning and Skills Council has a legitimate interest in 16-to-19 provision in the area and should be able to ensure that a second look is taken at proposals that affect that age group.
As the hon. Gentleman says, all schools will be able to propose to expand or change their category, and foundation and voluntary schools, including trust schools, will be able to propose any changes to the school that require statutory proposals. It is right, and it may well be welcomed by, for example, the diocese that represents the schools if they are voluntary aided, that that happens. However, we should not forget that one thing that a local authority might be able to do in its decision-making role is to reject proposals from schools, and that the powers of the diocese to refer proposals to the adjudicator could be helpful in ensuring that the matter is considered afresh where concerns are shared.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be concerned that it would be possible for the diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to refer decisions such as that of acquiring trust status. In fact, as the clause spells out and we have just discussed, that would be a possibility for the local authority, but not for the other organisations that we are talking about. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there may be circumstances in which, notwithstanding the importance of the local authority’s decision-making role and the ability of foundation and voluntary aided schools to make the proposals, it is appropriate for the diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to want the adjudicator to take a second look at those decisions.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s explanation because of course they would not want decisions taken by their own schools to be referred to the adjudicator. The Minister referred to decisions being turned down by the local authority. That is covered, as far as I can see, by subsection (5), which says that after the initial determination by the authority, the governing body or the trustees of the school can refer the decision to the adjudicator. Does that not cover that point or have I misunderstood the subsection?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
I think that the provision indeed gives that capacity to such bodies. However, given the role that they have had on school organisation committees to date, it is reasonable that we also enable that role to continue for dioceses and for learning and skills councils. It is certainly something that the churches have requested we ensure as we proceed with the new regime, in which the local authority is the decision maker.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)
Is it not the purpose of clause 27, to which we shall come shortly, to abolish the school organisation committees, and is it not the case that clause 21 puts back some of the elements of those committees, with all of their associated problems?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
No, I do not believe that that is the case. We shall discuss why we are potentially abolishing school organisation committees when we get to clause 27. In any case, school organisation committees also have a range of other functions in addition to their function as a route for referral to the adjudicator. One of those functions is to give a voice to the Learning and Skills Council with respect to 16 to 19-year-olds, and to the dioceses with respect to school organisation changes that had an impact on their schools or on local education provision.
To clarify the point about subsection (5) on which the hon. Gentleman questioned me earlier, that subsection relates only to local authority proposals, and would not enable a referral when proposals had not originated from a local authority. I hope thatthe hon. Gentleman is persuaded and reassured on the basis of those explanations and will withdraw the amendment.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am not entirely reassured. I think that there issome diplomacy going on—an attempt to reinsert measures that weare trying to get rid of by way of clause 27. Given that we have airedthe issues, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I want to commenton the clause, because it seems quite elitist. The Church of Englandand the Roman Catholic Church will have recourse to the adjudicator thatwill not be afforded to other groups. The first Hindu school to beestablished in the UK has already been mentioned, and there aresome—though admittedly not many—Methodist, Jewish, Muslimand other voluntary aided schools at the moment. It is strange that thechurches I mentioned will have the powers afforded to them by theclause, but that the other groups willnot.
Many hon. Membersin the Committee have ethnic groups in their constituencies. Hackney,South and Shoreditch, Leeds North-West, Wakefield and Bury, North mayall have schools such as Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or other faith schoolsbeing established. One of the beauties of the Bill is that many faithgroups will be able to establish their own faith schools. Why shouldthey not have the same access to the adjudicator that the Church ofEngland and Roman Catholic schools will have? Is that not slightlyunfair?
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I think that the hon. Lady makes a good point,and I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s answer. We shouldmake sure that the Bill provides a means for other faith groups to maketheir voices heard on decisions that affect the localarea.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
To conclude, my point is to ask what provisionwill be made for other faith groups and schools to have the sameredress to the adjudicator that the Church of England and RomanCatholic bodies willhave.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point in herremarks on the clause stand part motion, which I suspect reiteratedsome of the arguments concerning amendment No. 343. As I have arguedpreviously, the suggestion that we would include both Church of Englandand Roman Catholic local dioceses, not least because of theirlong-standing role on the school organisation committee, does not meanthat other schools and other faiths should be disadvantaged, and infact they are not. As we have already discussed under subsection (5),both the governing bodies and the trustees of foundation and voluntaryschools will be able to ensure that proposals in respect of theirschool made by the local authority are decided by the adjudicator. Ihope that I can also reassure the hon. Lady that we make it clear inthe regulations that other faith organisations also need to beconsulted.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
If that is the case, why can they not be named inthe same clause as the other bodies? Why can they not be groupedtogether so that it looks as though it isequitable?
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)
It is appropriate and usual for those who should beconsulted and have a particular role in the process to be listed andnamed in regulations. We would have pretty long lists in the Bill ifall the organisations in some of the circumstances we talked about nowwere included. Secondly, the hon. Lady herself has argued that we arein a dynamic system. New organisations are coming into the system. Itis much easier to add new organisations to regulations than it is toinclude them in theBill.