Clause 31
Education and Inspections Bill
2:15 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Our amendment No. 256 suggests changing from 20 to 10 the percentage of voting rights on a foundation allowed to persons appointed by local authorities. The reason is plain: for a local authority to have 20 per cent. of the voting rights on a foundation is likely to give it undue influence. It is a matter of judgment. Some will argue that it is right and proper that the local authority should have a powerful voice on the foundation, but I repeat that not all local authorities will embrace the changes with the enthusiasm present in the Committee. I therefore feel that we need to be cautious about the structural role that we give local authorities.
The Prime Minister’s intention was to embrace the idea of genuinely independent non-fee-paying state schools. It was not only the right hon. Gentleman who embraced it; we embraced it too. He wanted his party, the House and the whole country to embrace the idea. Why, then, should 20 per cent. of the representatives be appointed by the local authority? Why not a smaller number?
The amendment is essentially probing, and designed to discover the Government’s thinking. That is not to say, in my view and that of the shadow Schools Minister, that people working for a local authority should not be able to become members of a foundation. I make no bones about the fact that some in the Committee will express other views, but I take the view that local government is important and that those who work for it perform a great public service.
I do not have a prejudiced view about local government. I was a local councillor for many years and I enjoyed that time. I hope that I made a useful contribution to the locality that I represented. I got to know many councillors of all political parties and persuasions, and many local government officers, who greatly benefited the people whom they served. It would be quite wrong to prohibit members of local authorities from being part of the process. They should be able to participate in the local community. Indeed, some may have educational experience and an understanding that could be highly beneficial to a foundation. Why would one want to prohibit their involvement and possibly lose the opportunity of bringing that experience and knowledge to bear?
The structural role of local authorities in the process is qualitatively different from the involvement in foundations of those who happen to work in a local authority. I urge the Committee to accept amendment No. 256.