---

Trust Schools

4. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): How many trust schools she expects to be established over the next four years. [58782]

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly): There are no targets for the number of trust schools to be established in the next four years. This is about schools making decisions that are right for them and their children in order to raise standards. It will be for individual schools to decide whether they want to acquire a trust, what form that trust should take, and how the trust will help to improve outcomes for pupils.

Mr. Prentice: Given that the Conservative party will try to amend the Bill to take it back to its White Paper stage and encourage the development of independent trust schools, is it not as plain as a pikestaff—I say this gently to my right hon. Friend—that this legacy legislation is completely dead in the water?

Ruth Kelly: No. I thought for a moment that I was going to agree with my hon. Friend on something, but sadly not. I can assure the House that I will never compel a school to become a trust school, although it should be an option for a local authority, where a school is failing, to look at whether a trust is one way in which it could raise standards. The Labour party does not agree with the Conservative party, which in the minority report of the Education and Skills Committee insisted that all schools should be compelled to become trust schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Rob Wilson.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): I have a slightly different question. As more and more schools become independent trusts with additional freedoms over recruitment and pay, what does the Secretary of State think the implications will be for the teaching trade unions?

Ruth Kelly: I did wonder when I read the minority report whether the hon. Gentleman and his friends had really understood the proposals, and now I am confirmed in the fact that they do not. There is nothing in the proposals on trusts, or indeed in the White Paper, that gives trust schools additional freedom or flexibility on teachers' pay. Teachers' pay will still be set in exactly the framework of terms and conditions, set nationally and negotiated with the teacher unions, that community schools follow now.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): May I help my right hon. Friend with the question of what is as plain as a pikestaff? It is as plain as a pikestaff that any incoming Government of a party political complexion different from ours can change whatever they like in education—that is the truth of the matter. Can we just concentrate on the question about the partnerships of trusts that can be of great benefit to schools? There is already a track record of very good relationships with foundations and outside partners that are good for the schools, good for the students and
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1588
 
good for the future of education. Can we not nail the myth that partnership is bad and an inward-looking school is good? That is not the case.

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that schools should be looking outward to their communities, looking to establish deep and lasting partnerships, both with other schools and indeed with external partners, such as universities, FE colleges and business foundations, where they can make a difference to raising standards for their pupils. That is precisely what the trust school proposal in last night's Education and Inspections Bill was about.

Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con): There is a slight flavour of the morning after the night before, and I detect that a squabble about paternity has already broken out. May I assure the Secretary of State that we will be very responsible in our approach to raising and encouraging trust schools, which have now been given birth to? I realise that she does not like giving predictions, but will she at least consider offering some encouragement to schools to become trust schools—it is, after all, a policy that has now had widespread support on both sides of the House?

Ruth Kelly: The best encouragement for schools to become trust schools is to see what works. To see that, one has only to talk to head teachers, who already work with foundations and trusts, who can explain what difference that makes to pupils and to raising standards in their schools. It is my view that the more schools see that working in practice, the more will be interested in trusts, but it is right to have a voluntary approach because in the end head teachers know best what is in the interests of raising standards.

Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that further work needs to be done on defining the risks that might be encountered by small primary schools in converting alone to a trust model? The evidence of foundation status and, before that, grant-maintained status in my constituency indicates that there are significant risks that governing bodies may not be aware of at the time.

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend has deep concerns about the matter, and many in the House were scarred by the experience of grant-maintained schools, but I can give him the assurance that the trust school model is the antithesis of the grant-maintained school model, in that trusts remain as local authority-maintained schools, where local authorities are responsible for the financial control and for ensuring adequate financial controls in schools—indeed, they fund the schools and can withdraw the delegated funding where they consider that there is an issue to resolve, as well as being responsible for ensuring adequate standards.

Trust Schools

5. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What discussions she has had with voluntary and charitable organisations on the implementation of her policy on trust schools. [58783]
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1589
 

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly): Both the Prime Minister and I have held a number of discussions with a range of stakeholders about the opportunities that trusts can offer. These stakeholders have included schools, local authorities, business foundations, and charitable and voluntary organisations. All these organisations may have much to offer in raising standards and improving outcomes, especially for pupils in our most disadvantaged areas.

Mr. Turner: May I assure the Secretary of State that the Conservative-led Isle of Wight council, which inherited from 20 years of Liberal Democrat control an education system that even the Liberal Democrats admitted was failing, is looking with enthusiasm on trust schools as a means of reversing that failure? Will she assure me that the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill, particularly in clauses 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25 will be used with a light touch so as not to put off charities and other organisations offering trust status to schools?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We want a light-touch system. Where a school considers it to be in its interest to acquire a trust, it should have the opportunity to do that. That will help the school deepen its existing partnerships with its specialist schools relationships, and enable schools to build federations and collaboratives of schools working together to raise standards, which is particularly important in the light of our commitment to enable every young person from the age of 14 to study vocational education—yet again, a measure delivered by the Education and Inspections Bill.

Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position with regard to schools that choose not to go down the trust route? Can she give us an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged in any way? She said that the private sector would support schools. Will she state that legislation will be drawn up to ensure that that will not be used to privatise schools?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly give my hon. Friend those assurances. It will be laid down in legislation that trusts must be charities operating on a not-for-profit basis and overseen by the Charity Commission, as well as the local authority. In no sense will schools outside the trust school regime be disadvantaged by not being trust schools. They will be funded on exactly the same basis as any other local school, in both revenue and capital terms—yet again, a sharp contrast with the GM school policy operated by the Conservatives when they were in government.

FE Colleges (Dorset)

6. Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): What assessment she has made of the level of staff salaries at colleges of further education in the Dorset area; and if she will make a statement. [58784]

The Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning (Bill Rammell): No such assessment has been made. Colleges of further education are autonomous
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1590
 
institutions that negotiate pay and conditions with staff and their unions, without Government involvement nationally or locally.

Mr. Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply, but not for the answer itself. Colleges are waiting for a response. The Minister is aware of my concerns about education funding in Bournemouth in general. My question is specifically to do with the fact that staff salaries at further education colleges, such as Bournemouth and Poole college, are often significantly lower than those of staff teaching the same subjects in a school. I know that the Government have taken some initiatives, but as long as teachers are receiving £2,000 a year more at a school than at further education colleges, colleges will be unable to compete in recruiting and retaining staff—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is over-lengthy.

Bill Rammell: Let me be clear that negotiations are a matter for colleges and the trade unions. No college in the country would thank the Government for intervening directly on the issue. It all comes back to funding. Since 1997 the Government have increased funding to the further education sector by 48 per cent. in real terms, which compares favourably with the 14 per cent. real-terms cut that took place in the five years running up to 1997. We envisage that with those increased resources, greater flexibility as regards their use and a longer-term funding framework, colleges should be able to address the structural barriers—

Mr. Ellwood: That was 14 years ago.

Bill Rammell: It was, but we must compare like with like. The calls for higher pay from the Conservatives carry no credibility. They never delivered the resources when they were in power, and they would not do so if they got the chance again.

Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester) (Lab): I remind my hon. Friend that FE salaries in Dorset and elsewhere suffered a pay freeze and therefore a real-terms cut during the 1990s. When the funding gap is closed, as he has promised in this House, the issue of staff salary differentials, which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has described, should be dealt with, too.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and know that he takes these issues very seriously. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the way in which we are reducing the funding gap between further education colleges and school sixth forms at the Association of Colleges conference back in October, the announcement was widely welcomed by the FE sector. We have made it clear that the gap will be reduced by 5 per cent. in the coming financial year, and it will be reduced by a further 3 per cent. in the following year. [Hon. Members: "Not enough"] I can hear Conservative Members, but if they are committed to cutting public spending, they need to say where they would find the funds.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1591
 

Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley) (Con): I want to restore the glorious outbreak of harmony between Front Benchers on education reform. I agree with both my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and the Minister that we need to increase academic pay in FE and HE. Does the Minister agree that it is bizarre that the Liberal Democrats should oppose any reform that involves variable fees and yet at the same time support a strike by FE teachers in Dorset and elsewhere, the explicit purpose of which is that academics should have a larger share of the fees? Is not that position completely absurd and due to be overturned?

Bill Rammell: Now I am very confused. Conservative Back Benchers are calling for increased pay, but the shadow Minister has said that we should not support increased pay. The one thing that I agree with him on is that Liberal Democrat policy on higher education is completely untenable.

---