| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate and on having the opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents and other residents of Northumberland, and particularly on bringing his family experience to bear on his opening remarks. I am acutely aware of the very high level of concern and interest in this matter among people living and working in Northumberland, which is obviously particularly felt among not only parents and pupils but staff, governors and the broader schools community. I shall seek in responding to the debate to address the particular concerns that he has raised.
We welcome and support the stated aims of the local education authority in conducting the review: to raise standards and to transform and improve the education
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1543
service. We understand that the LEA is reviewing provision on the basis of a possible move to a primary and secondary system, as the right hon. Gentleman set out. My understanding is that its proposal is to start public consultation on a county plan in the autumn.
The right hon. Gentleman challenged me to come clean on the view in the Department for Education and Skills. My starting point in seeking to do so is to say that we do not prescribe a particular pattern of provision. That is very much to be determined locally. He asked specifically whether our officials are telling Northumberland that there will be no money for new schools unless it abolishes the middle schools. The answer to that is emphatically no. There is no suggestion of Ministers or officials in the DFES prescribing that.
In more general policy terms, the Department knows that the national position is varied. The majority of LEAs have a primary and secondary model, but a significant minority operate middle school systems. We accept as a Department that both systems can be effective, and we are not aware of any clear research evidence to suggest that one is preferable to the other. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman set out arguments for both the two-tier system and the three-tier system. Having seen both in practice in different parts of the country, I think that his points are a legitimate part of the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the county may undergo considerable reorganisation and then face the question of whether funds will be made available to enable that to be implemented on the ground. He referred to the "Building Schools for the Future" programme, which aims to rebuild or renew all secondary schools in England over the next 10 to 15 years. The first wave of "Building Schools for the Future" was announced a couple of months back. Northumberland was not successful in that first wave of the programme, but will certainly feature in a future wave. We hope to be able to make an announcement on the future waves later this year. Clearly, there is contact between our officials and those in Northumberland on that.
Mr. Beith: This is a crucial matter of timing. I can only assume that Northumberland failed in the previous bid because it was too early a stage in the process. Is it therefore likely that some clear indication about funding possibilities could be given during the autumn or towards the end of this year, when the reorganisation is under discussion and it will be important to give some assurance to parents?
Mr. Twigg: Absolutely. Only 14 LEAs were successful in the first wave of "Building Schools for the Future". We are hoping to be in a position to make announcements in the early part of the autumn about the next wave. That will be important as a reassurance to Northumberland, as well as to schools in other parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility that at least some areas—he mentioned Rothbury and Wooler—in Northumberland will keep middle schools because of travelling distances, and asked for the
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1544
Department's view on a mixed system and whether it would still be prepared to fund Northumberland if it decides to go down that route. I emphasise that funding from "Building Schools for the Future" is not dependent on the adoption of a two-tier system; it is not dependent on having a primary and secondary model. Other parts of the country continue to operate a three-tier system with middle schools, and they are preparing their applications and are in discussion with the Department about the funding under BSF that could be available to their schools. When we consider proposals as part of "Building Schools for the Future", we will be concerned to ensure that there has been appropriate consideration and consultation at the local level to secure the local consensus necessary for the particular application that an authority has made. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman made a specific suggestion about rural pathfinder bids. I want to take that suggestion away and write to him about it.
"Building Schools for the Future" is a hugely ambitious national programme of renewal for all schools. Large authorities, in particular rural authorities, may wish to phase their programmes within "Building Schools for the Future", with clusters of different schools receiving funding at different stages. Those are the sorts of discussions that we are having with other county and large metropolitan areas. It may well be a suitable way for us to proceed in Northumberland. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman, setting that out in more detail.
I have a couple of other things to say about the position in Northumberland and how the process will move forward. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Ofsted inspection, which was conducted in June 2003 and published last September. It set out a number of serious concerns about the local education authority, and there had been some deterioration since the previous inspection in 1999. He set out some of the ways in which the LEA has been trying to address those weaknesses. The Department for Education and Skills has worked closely with the LEA to assist it in drawing up and progressing an action plan to overcome the weaknesses and some of the problems highlighted. We welcome some of the early signs of progress as a consequence of that work.
The right hon. Gentleman also rightly said that surplus places are a significant issue in Northumberland. Of course, that is not unique to Northumberland because of demographic trends, in particular the declining number of children of primary school age. The latest review of surplus places last year shows an overall level in Northumberland of around 5,000. I emphasise that it is very much a matter for individual LEAs to decide whether and how they reduce their number of surplus places. I welcome some of the innovative ideas to which he referred—collaboration, clusters and federations—as possible models in moving forward. The other possibility is to look to extended schools and using some of the surplus capacity in school buildings to provide extended services for the local community, rather than simply to take the option of closing a school down all together, thereby losing that critical asset for the local community, which is especially important to those in rural areas.
I have spoken about "Building Schools for the Future", so let me conclude by saying a little about where the process goes from here. It is important that
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1545
the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, and the schools, parents and pupils in Northumberland, are aware of where the debate and consultation will go now. The combination of issues that he referred to form the backdrop for the consultation that the LEA will undertake. Any LEA that decides to reorganise provision takes that decision locally. Such decisions are not taken in the Department or by Ministers.
The LEA will consult all interested parties, as is required by law. It must issue statutory notices in a newspaper, post them at the gates of the affected schools and put them in another prominent place locally. There is then a six-week period for objections and comments, and the notice and other supporting documentation need to be sent to the local school organisation committee. If no objections are received, the LEA may proceed to implement its proposals. If objections are received, the proposal goes to the school organisation committee, made up of five or six groups representing the major stakeholders in the provision of education. If the school organisation committee cannot reach a unanimous decision, the case is referred to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
We recently issued new guidance from the Department for those who are publishing and deciding upon these proposals for changes to local school organisation, making it clear that the Secretary of State wants to see local education authorities organise provision so that places are where parents want them. We are clear that the removal of surplus places must always be in support of the agenda of raising standards and matching places with parental choice.
I reiterate that any decision to change the current pattern of provision rests, first, with the LEA and, secondly, needs to support those key policy priorities of improving standards and ensuring that we maximise choice for parents. The Department does not specify the type of provision that should apply. It is true, as I said earlier, that increasingly LEAs have adopted a two-tier approach, but there are a number of LEAs that
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1546
successfully operate three-tier systems with middle schools, with the benefits of middle schools, as set out by the right hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that there are no plans on the part of the Department to phase out middle schools, as a matter of national policy, or to make our funding of particular programmes, including "Building Schools for the Future", in any way dependent on that sort of reorganisation.
Our priority as a Department is to give support to local communities in reaching these decisions themselves. I hope that the community in Northumberland will have the opportunity to have a full and informed debate about the merits of the proposed reorganisation, in which parents, governors, pupils and the wider community can seriously consider the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo as against the proposed change in the system.
I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents that whatever decision is reached locally, the major programme of investment that we are undertaking through "Building Schools for the Future" will be available to the schools in Northumberland to support their improvement, in the way that we seek to improve schools throughout the country. Our other capital programmes in the Department are also available to support first schools, which obviously by their nature will not qualify for "Building Schools for the Future". However, there will be opportunities, for example, through target capital funding as well as the mainstream capital funding of primary schools, to ensure that those schools are also receiving the investment that they need.
I finish where I started, which is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for airing this important issue for the people of his constituency. I very much hope that a full, open and rigorous debate can happen among the people of Northumberland.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |