Schedule 13
Education Bill
11:00 am
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 227, in schedule 13, page 93, line 17, before ‘school’, insert ‘maintained’.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: 228, in schedule 13, page 94, line 43, before ‘school’, insert ‘maintained’.
Amendment 229, in schedule 13, page 96, line 11, before ‘school’, insert ‘maintained’.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
The amendment is intended to probe whether there is anything in the provision that might result in a land grab. For example, a local authority might acquire land from a former independent school that has ceased to operate within the past eight years. As part of its estate strategy, the authority might plan to use that land to provide homes at a local level.
In such circumstances, could the Secretary of State use the powers in the clause to claim the land for use as an academy, for example? What matters would be considered if the local authority had specifically acquired the land from an independent school as part of its strategy to provide necessary housing for people in the area? Would it be an extreme measure to take at the centre to prevent a local authority from pursuing its democratically accountable objectives, on which it might well have fought an election?
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
As I said, the Secretary of State has had the power since the Leaning and Skills Act 2000 to make a scheme to transfer local authority land to an academy if it has been used for a community school in the previous eight years, but is no longer so used, or is about to become so. Since then, there has been an increase in the different sorts of schools and therefore in the powers that need to be updated.
The Academies Act 2010 changed “community” school to “maintained” school to include, for example, foundation and trust schools. The purpose was to treat all publicly funded land in a similar way, which is why the Bill makes a change yet again, and refers simply to “schools”. That means that local authority land that has been used by an academy will be treated in the same way as land that has been used by maintained schools.
The effect of the amendments would be that land that had been returned to a local authority from an academy would be exempt from the Secretary of State’s power in relation to land. He would be unable to make a scheme to transfer the land to an academy, and he would be unable to object to its disposal or appropriation for the authority’s non-educational functions. It is reasonable that local authority land that has been used for a school, but is no longer being used for that purpose, should be available for a new free school if suitable proposals come forward. The option of its remaining in educational use should be fully considered before it is disposed of or otherwise appropriated by the local authority.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I understand the Minister’s point about the amendment, but if a local authority acquired a site that was not a former academy, but was perhaps a failed prep school in the private sector, and wanted to develop that land according to its election manifesto—for example, for housing—would it be caught by the changes? The purpose of the amendment is to probe him on that.
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
The answer, clearly, is no. That would be way outside the scope of the provisions, which relate to existing, publicly owned land being used for the purposes of a school.
In conclusion, it is reasonable that local authority land that has been used for a school, but is no longer being so used, should be available for a new free school if suitable proposals come forward.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow, Labour)
Will the Minister say whether that proviso applies to land that has been purchased for a new school-building development that is not currently a school—a blank sheet of paper—and whether that land can be used only for free schools or academies, so that if schools in the maintained sector wanted to benefit from such redevelopment they would have to become academies? Will the Minister rule out that scenario of a forced prescription to become an academy to obtain a new school building?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I take it, from what the Minister said, that he is confirming that if a local authority purchases a site that had previously been used by an independent school in the private sector, rather than by an independent school defined as an academy, the clause would not apply. There was some ambiguity, because he referred to land that had been previously used as a school. If it had been used as a private school, the interpretation could be the other way. From what he said, I am taking it that he is telling us emphatically that if a local authority purchased a former private school site, it would not be covered by the provision, and it could go ahead and use the site as it, as a democratically elected local body, wanted to, in the interests of the local community.
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
That would technically be covered, but policy would mean that we would not use it in those circumstances.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
That is a helpful clarification, as what the Minister said previously suggested that it might not be covered. He might add that issue to his letter in order to be absolutely clear about it, although I take the point that he has put it on the record that the Secretary of State would not seek to use the powers in the circumstances that I have outlined—where a former private school site was being purchased by the local authority to be developed for another purpose. I am grateful to him for putting that on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 230, page 99, line 25 [Schedule 13], at end insert ‘following independent arbitration.’.
As it stands, in the event of any dispute between the local authority and the Secretary of State over land, the Secretary of State will be the arbiter. I suspect that I know what the Minister will say in response to this point, but it is time to reflect whether in the circumstances, given the changes that the Government are making, it would be appropriate for somebody other than the Secretary of State—perhaps an independent body or person—to be the arbiter.
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
The land provisions are complicated. The final paragraphs of schedule 13, in particular, apply to some specific and unusual situations. The amendment, as drafted, would prevent the Secretary of State from making a direction before independent arbitration in only one rare situation, in which land is held on trust by both the governing body and other trustees.
The provision replicates existing provisions applying to school closure that were first enacted in this form by the previous Government in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Those provisions did not include a requirement for independent arbitration, nor did the more general provisions concerning the transfer of local authority land to academies that have existed in various forms since the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
Whether independent arbitration is needed before the Secretary of State determines the transfer of publicly funded land is an important principle. It is true that in some cases, when schools convert to academy status, it is necessary to do some work to determine ownership of the land. I appreciate the concerns and the intention to provide an additional mechanism for ensuring that decisions on land ownership are fair to all parties concerned, but we believe that it is unnecessary to add a requirement for independent arbitration before the Secretary of State can make a direction. In the vast majority of cases in which the governing body of a maintained school that wishes to convert to an academy holds land, it is clear to whom and under what conditions that land should transfer on conversion.
Where differences of opinion have occurred about the land of converted schools, they can usually be resolved locally, with the Department for Education facilitating any necessary discussions. The Secretary of State would need to act reasonably, or he would risk judicial review.
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Indeed. He or she would take into account all points made by interested parties and consider each case on its individual merits. However, the overriding objective is to make land available, where appropriate, to free schools and academies as swiftly and effectively as possible, to increase the choices available to parents and pupils. We do not consider that adding an additional layer of regulation and bureaucratic procedure would make the process more satisfactory to any party. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I sensed a sudden frisson of excitement in the Committee when the Minister began his remarks with the possibility of a concession crossing his lips, but he unfortunately returned to his usual riff about regulation and bureaucracy at the end, so that moment passed quickly. I hope he is right that the Secretary of State will act reasonably. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening, because if he does not act reasonably, he may well end up, yet again, being accused of an abuse of power in the courts. However, I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 231, page 103, line 36 [Schedule 13], after ‘regulations’, insert ‘requiring an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament’.
This is just a probing amendment to ascertain the Government’s intentions, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s remarks.
Nick Gibb (Minister of State (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Amendment 231 would require that any regulations made in respect of administrative and practical arrangements, which were needed to give full effect to certain land provisions in schedule 13, were subject to affirmative resolutions. That is not merited in this case. The policies are laid out clearly in the Bill. The regulations will be practical and administrative only. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured and that he can withdraw the amendment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)
I will withdraw the amendment, although we need to know the circumstances under which the Secretary of State will use the extended powers in this part of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister’s letter will reveal that in detail. We look forward to having a much more detailed look at the regulations. If necessary, we can pray against them. However, it may well have been more appropriate to use an affirmative procedure, but I will not press the issue to a vote at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.