Mr.
Leigh: I am not leader of the party yet, so my hon. Friend
does not have to suck up to me.
Mr.
Hayes: I believe that my hon. Friend’s proper
emphasis of, for example, the role of Churches and neighbouring schools
is born of his determination to ensure that new schools work as closely
as possible with the community in which they sit and take account of
the important advice and influence that Churches and other bodies can
bring to bear. I simply wonder—I shall be interested to hear his
comments—whether that, in itself, might not be a further drag on
the process. My worry
is that some of the figures in authority in various movements—I
will not be too specific—do not share my hon. Friend’s
dynamism, energy, and clear-sighted purpose. They may themselves have
become part of an educational orthodoxy that, rather than embracing
renewal and improvement, might be unhelpful to our pursuit of those
things. I simply say to my hon. Friend that we do not want to put any
barriers in the way of parents who desperately want to make a
difference. In that spirit, I am delighted to propose the amendment
that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and wait with
interest to hear what my hon. Friend will say in defence of his
amendment.
Mr.
Leigh: My amendments were probing amendments, and after
the eloquence displayed by my hon. Friend, they are now even more
probing than they were before. For all that, when coupled with my hon.
Friend’s amendment, they do a useful job. We are going to elicit
a wide range of possible consultees from the Minister and discover what
she means by saying that the local education authority must
“consult such persons as appear to
the authority to be
appropriate”. That is the
key. In all honesty,
it must be clear by now, even if members of the Committee have not read
the amendments, that my vision is that all schools should be
independent charitable trusts, free of local authority control. That is
my vision, but we are where we are. It is extremely unlikely that I
shall be able to convince the Minister of the virtue of that viewpoint,
although I am confident that, over the course of this Parliament, I
will convince those who lead for my party on education.
I do not speak for the
Conservative party. The virtue of being a Back Bencher is that one can
be a sort of outrider for the
party—[Laughter.] There is no harm in that.
All political parties need people to think creatively, which is what I
try to do. That is my role, as it is in part the role of my
amendments. The
Minister will have to address the problem. I shall not labour the
point—I made it this morning with regard to our experience with
grant-maintained schools—but I suspect that, as my hon. Friend
says, she will find that unfortunately not everyone shares her
enthusiasm for the establishment of trust schools. With a clause such
as clause 8, I fear that local education authorities will use
consultation as a means of obfuscation or of putting barriers in the
path of those wishing to set up trust
schools. Who should be
consulted? Obviously someone should be consulted, otherwise what is the
point of such a clause? My hon. Friend is right that there is no harm
in consulting parents. One of the problems with
that, as we all know, is that parents are rightly focused on their
children at the time of their education, and it is difficult for them
to take a strategic view. That is the argument continuously advanced by
the hon. Member for Bury, North, by Members of the Liberal party and
others. Are parents
best qualified to have a view—or, as I suggest in my amendments,
does the Minister envisage that local authorities will
consult “the chairman of
governors of all maintained schools in areas adjacent to the proposed
school”? That would seem
to be a fairly sensible point of view, would it not? Presumably,
therefore, the Minister might agree.
If someone wants to set up a
new faith school, based on a trust, will the local authority follow the
spirit of amendment No. 348, which
states: “in the case of
religious-based schools, the relevant church or religious
authority”. One would
think that that was sensible, but what do we mean by faith school? In
the recent census, a large number of people apparently said as a joke
that they were part of the Jedi knights religion, because a newspaper
has suggested that it would be a good way of irritating the
authorities. Would I be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school?
If I said that I wanted to set up a Catholic school, what sort of
Catholic school would it be? Would I have to consult the bishop and the
local hierarchy? It
would be useful to know the Minister’s view of who should be
consulted. The amendments, by their all-embracing nature, should
encourage the Minister to do precisely
that.
Sarah
Teather: I shall be brief. I shall refer mainly to
amendment No. 159, moved the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings (Mr. Hayes) rather than the outriding amendments.
The amendment would remove the
requirement for local authorities to consult more widely than school
parents. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether parents were
less qualified than others to have a view. They are not less qualified,
but we should accept that schools have a more important role than
teaching those young people attending the school at the time. We should
consider the wider policies of extended schools, early-years centres
and children centres, and community use of facilities out of school
hours. It is important that the community is consulted on the criteria
used when a new school is set up. Consultation is not necessarily about
slowing things down; it may be simply a matter of ensuring that a
school is appropriate for local need and that consideration goes wider
than the young people at the
school.
Jacqui
Smith: The clause to which the amendments relate is all
about the requirements to consult prior to issuing proposals for a
competition and how those proposals should be brought to the attention
of various groups. The amendments largely relate to the situation on
the consultation prior to the issuing of the notice for
competition.
Amendment No.
159 would mean that the local authority had to consult parents in the
area, not anyone else, before it published a notice inviting proposals
in a competition. That is the technical effect of the amendment.
However, I think that this is a probing amendment, because the clause
currently requires the authority to consult those it considers it
appropriate, having regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State.
I have some sympathy with the importance that the amendment gives to
parents. We had a good discussion about that in relation to amendments
Nos. 180 and 182 to clause 7 which were tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for Bury, North. There is significance in ensuring that parents
are involved. Of course, they should be consulted about proposals
affecting provision in their area and their views should be treated
seriously, but that does not mean that nobody else should be
consulted—and that would be the effect of the
amendment. Given that
this is a probing amendment, perhaps I should just clarify who we think
should be consulted about statutory proposals. Among those who we think
should be consulted are the local Member of Parliament for the area
that the school is intended to serve; any MP whose constituents are
likely to be affected by the proposals; the local district or parish
council for the area where the school is to be situated; and other
schools in the area, including those in an adjoining local education
authority that may be affected by the proposals, whether community,
foundation, voluntary, or special schools.
Any local education authority
likely to be affected by the proposals should be consulted, including
neighbouring LEAs where there may be significant cross-border movement
of pupils, as should parents and staff in the area who might be
affected by the proposals, including parents of pupils at feeder
primary schools and those living in, or who have children attending a
school in, the area of an adjoining LEA.
The local Church of England and
Roman Catholic diocese should be consulted, as should anyone else who
has previously expressed an interest in setting up a maintained school
and others who might be willing to come forward as promoters. If the
proposed school is likely to affect a school with a particular
religious foundation, the appropriate diocesan authorities, or, where
there is no diocesan structure, the national faith group that provides
that school, should be consulted.
There should also be
consultation with any trust or foundation providing a foundation or
voluntary school that does not have a religious character, if the
proposed school is likely to affect such a school. If the proposals
affect the provision of full-time 16-to-19 education, the Learning and
Skills Council should be included. Any other interested party should be
consulted. For example, the early years development and child care
partnership should be consulted, where proposals would affect early
years provision, as should all those who benefit from a contractual
arrangement giving them the use of the premises. That might cover the
point made by the hon. Member for Brent,
East. Accepting the
amendment, virtuous though its emphasis on parents is, would
disfranchise a large number of interested people whom we think have a
legitimate interest in the opening of a new school that will affect
them, whether they support the proposals or
are opposed to them. There should be a recognised route for interested
parties to make their views known. Mr.
Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the
list. She will have noted that I was worried about there being
differences between one locality and another—that some
consultees might be included in one place, but not in a neighbouring
area. She has made it clear that the guidance will not allow that.
However, does she feel that parents should merely be included in that
list or that there should be a special role for parents, a parallel
process? Just listing local parents with all those other groups would
be rather to undersell their
significance.
Jacqui
Smith: The hon. Gentleman has a fair point in that the
nature of the consultation will differ according to different groups;
if it did not, that would be completely unreasonable. Sending a letter
may be perfectly adequate consultation for a neighbouring local
authority, but doing that or publishing a notice would not be adequate
for parents, unless we could ensure that it got to them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a
reasonable point; there should probably be a differentiated approach to
how the consultation is carried out. However, it is important that
there should be clear emphasis on who should be consulted in each
circumstance. That is why the guidance is
statutory. Amendments
Nos. 331 and 348 would insert requirements to consult the head teachers
and chairs of governors of all maintained schools in the area, and, in
the case of any religiously based schools, the relevant Church or
religious authority. Given what I have said, I hope that I have
reassured the hon. Member for Gainsborough that not only are we not
opposed to such provisions, but we think that heads, chairs of school
governing bodies and appropriate religious authorities should be
consulted. We do not
think it necessary to put that in the Bill, but the duty to consult
such people as appear to the authority to be appropriate should be
represented in the statutory guidance that we shall issue in respect of
the clause. I have said that the guidance will specify that other
schools in the area must be consulted and that if the proposed school
is likely to affect a school that has a particular religious character,
the appropriate diocesan authorities—or, if there is no diocesan
structure, the national faith group that provides the
school—should be consulted too.
It is not open to the authority
to disregard the statutory guidance. If it did not consult one of the
listed persons, that would be prime facie evidence that
the consultation had not been properly carried out, and that would need
to be rectified before the competition proceeded. The guidance will require full
consultation on the proposed competition, including local schools,
religious authorities, local parents and other
stakeholders.
Mr.
Leigh: There is a clear structure in respect of existing
faith schools, particularly in relation to the role of the diocese.
Will the Minister remind me how that structure would be replicated in
the case of a new trust school? It would be unfortunate if people
wanted to produce schools based on sects within a religion divorced
from mainstream religion. What checks and balances does the Minister
envisage?
Jacqui
Smith: That takes us back to this morning’s
discussion, in which I said that I would bring to the Committee
guidance for decision makers about the process that a school governing
body would go through in acquiring a relationship with a particular
trust and that would enable us to set down the criteria for that
trust. If the hon.
Gentleman is arguing that a sect would not be beneficial to the
advancement of education at a school, he should know that it would be
prohibited by the fact that advancement of education would be one of
the statutory objects of the trust. I have made it clear that the
statutory guidance will state that the appropriate diocesan
authorities—or the nationally recognised faith bodies of
religions without such authorities—should be consulted. In light
of those reassurances about the full consultation on the proposed
competition, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings will feel able to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: I have scarcely felt more reassured. The right hon.
Lady generously described the groups that will be consulted. I note her
point that different groups may require a different approach to take
account of their sensitivities and their role in the process. She is
right that that satisfies those of us who want to see parents at the
very heart of the process.
I am conscious of the time, Mr.
Cook, and that my beautiful wife and son are waiting for me to go to
tea—[Hon. Members:
“Where?”] I am not telling hon. Members today, but I will
report back when we next meet. On that happy note, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Cawsey.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday
25 April at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
