Mr.
Chaytor: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 181. In
one sense we are repeating the arguments that we went through on an
earlier clause. It is important that parents have a voice in the
decision, but that voice should not be used in a systematic way to
allow a small and unrepresentative group of parents to undermine the
broader democratic processes. That is why my amendment does not specify
a minimum number of parents, but allows for the numbers of parents and
the categories of parents to be specified in regulations.
The hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that there was no reference to
the quality of the local education authority, but there is not always a
direct relationship between the quality and the performance of the
local education authority and the quality and the performance of
individual schools within that authority. If there were such a direct
relationship life would be much simpler, but there are many schools of
outstanding quality within local education authorities with poor
performance ratings, and vice versa.
Mr.
Gibb: To pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman made
just before he came on to that point, he stated proudly that his
amendment does not specify the number of parents that would be required
to demonstrate support and that that would be specified in regulations.
Does he not feel that as an elected Member of Parliament he should have
a say in what the Government would propose in those regulations, and
does he have a view that he can express
now?
Mr.
Chaytor: No, I honestly do not feel qualified to decide
whether 20, 30 or 40 per cent. or 50, 70 or 90 parents is the right
threshold. The matter needs more consideration, which is why it is more
appropriate for secondary legislation.
On the question of the quality
threshold of the local authority, my amendment has the advantage that
by allowing for further consideration to be given to the exact number
and category of parents who would be able to exercise their voice in
this way, we can reasonably and safely assume that if a large group of
parents were overwhelmingly in favour of a new community school, it
would reflect very effectively the quality of that LEA. If parents had
no confidence in the performance of their LEA, presumably they would
not sign up to the cause of a new community school. That is an
important point. We have to trust the judgment of parents. In one sense
it is rather patronising to assume that parents would sign up for the
cause of new community school without any knowledge of the quality of
their local education authority. Parents have a better gut instinct of
the quality of what is going on locally than the hon. Gentleman perhaps
gives them credit
for. 10.45
am
The
Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): We have had a short
but good discussion on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton ably spelt out the intentions behind
clause 9, so I will not go over that again.
Amendment No. 29 would prevent
a local authority from proposing to establish any new schools outside a
competition. As we discussed in relation to clause 7, we have
introduced competitions to create and promote diversity and choice
within the education system, and in particular to provide an
environment within which new promoters will be able to propose the
establishment of new schools. However, there are
circumstances—exceptional circumstances; the hon. Gentleman is
right about that—in which a competition might not be
appropriate. In effect, clause 7 is the default position for proposals
for new and reorganised schools, but clause 9 provides some flexibility
to allow a local authority or promoter to propose the establishment of
a new school without the need for a competition.
Hon. Members have asked me to
outline some of the limited circumstances in which that might be
appropriate. If a school was failing, the local partners, in concert
with expert advisers, might decide that the best way forward would be a
collaborative restart of the school with a particular character and
ethos; that would need to happen quickly and there would have to be a
consensus on how to deal with that example of failure. As for primary
schools, a junior and an infant school sharing a single site might want
to amalgamate to form an all-through primary; we do not think that a
competition would necessarily make sense in those circumstances. I
shall give other examples when I discuss some of the other
amendments. Of
course, in deciding whether to consent to proposals outside a
competition, the Secretary of State will take into account the local
authority’s track record on educational performance, the
existing degree of
diversity in the school system and parental preference and the views
expressed by parents in the area. Also, any proposals by the local
authority, whether for a foundation school or a new community school,
would be decided in such circumstances by the schools adjudicator.
There would be another stage to complete following the Secretary of
State’s consent to the publication of proposals outside a
competition: that stage would consist of consultation, the publication
of proposals and the making of a decision, similar to the process that
have already discussed. In those circumstances it is
appropriate for the schools adjudicator to be the decision maker,
because it is important to avoid any question of the authority’s
being judge and jury in its own case. If the Secretary of State agrees,
however, we think it right that a local authority should be able to
publish proposals for a new community or foundation school. I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will realise the sense of that in certain
circumstances, and that he will feel able to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment
No. 67 would enable local authorities to make proposals outside
competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State. As we have
heard, the arguments are very similar to those that we rehearsed at
length under clause 7 about allowing proposals for new community
schools to be made within competitions without the consent of the
Secretary of State.
To reiterate some of the
points that I made then, the argument is not about centralisation or
localisation, but about the direction in which we want to move the
local authority’s role and the nature of the dynamic that we
want to create in the school system. We are not opposed to local
education authorities. We are strengthening their role as the champions
of parents and in assuring the quality of provision in an area.
However, that is a modernised role as commissioners of services, rather
than as direct providers.
As I suggested earlier, it is
important that we do not, as the amendment would, allow local
authorities to sidetrack competitions. We made it clear in the White
Paper that we think that competitions will normally be the best way to
encourage diversity in the system. If the system is to be open to new
ideas and to innovation by new providers, potential providers should
have the necessary information about opportunities for new schools and
should be encouraged to make proposals for local people to consider.
That is how we are most likely to get a diverse range of schools, which
will increase not only the choice for parents and pupils, but the
chance that schools will learn from each other. Clause 9, like clause
7, represents the right balance between encouraging a diverse and
dynamic system and allowing proposals outside a competition when that
makes sense.
Amendment No. 28 would remove
the ability of a local authority to propose a community school outside
a competition. We had a lengthy discussion last week about what we said
in the White Paper and the fact that we considered that there might be
circumstances in which it would make sense for a local authority to
promote a community school either under the clause 7 arrangements or,
in certain circumstances, outside a competition.
In circumstances in which the
Secretary of State agrees that a community school might be the right
option, a local authority should be able to publish proposals for that
community school or a community special school. As I have said, the
normal route would be to hold a competition under clause 7 and the
local authority would propose a new community school as part of that
competition. The decision will be made according to criteria that, as I
have said, wewill produce on Report. However, in exceptional
circumstances, a local authority should be able to make the case for
proposing a community school without a competition. I gave the example
of the collaborative restart idea in the case of failure. It seems to
be appropriate for that option to be available, with the consent of the
Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 77 would limit
the Secretary of State’s power to agree to allow a local
authority to publish proposals for a new community school outside a
competition unless the authority can provide evidence that the
establishment of such a school would lead to better results. Without
going over old ground, I have made it clear that we think that the
circumstances in which we agree to a school being established without
competition will be limited. I have already given the example of a
failing school that is to be replaced by an agreed collaborative
restart. Another
example, which would not directly meet the criteria outlined by the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton but which I think he
might think would be appropriate, would be if denominational schools in
an area were being reorganised and it was proposed that the replacement
school or schools be of the same denomination. In such a case, we would
not be talking directly about a standards test. However,if,
say, two Roman Catholic schools were being reorganised because of
falling rolls, it would be appropriate to propose one Roman Catholic
school to replace them. That would seem to be an appropriate
circumstance in which to make a proposal outside a
competition. It was
our intention in the White Paper to say that new community schools
should not be able to be established in any circumstances, but we
listened to representations from hon. Members, local authorities and
others, and agreed that there are circumstances in which a community
school might be the right option. Also, as I have suggested, it might
be appropriate to allow proposals outside a competition even in
circumstances in which there is not, as the amendment suggests, a clear
standards case. It is important to allow freedom to consider all the
factors in each case—the process should not be purely
mechanistic. The
amendment is narrow and could lead to arguments and counter-arguments
about the respective merits of different categories of schools, whereas
what we want is the best school for each area—one that meets the
specific needs of local parents and of the community. Of course, as I
said, even if the Secretary of State agrees that proposals can be
published, the final decision will be for the schools adjudicator, who
will naturally consider the impact on local standards and
circumstances. If the proposals do not provide hard evidence that a
school will make a positive contribution to local standards, to
community needs, and to parental choice, I expect that the proposals
would be rejected. Consideration of standards is therefore included in
the process for publication of proposals, so I hope that the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton agrees that there may well be
circumstances that would not fit into his proposals. Our priority is to
secure high standards, but we also need to be free to judge each case
on its own merits. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Bury, North said, we had a similar discussion on
the role of parents in relation to clause 7 as we have had on
amendmentNo. 181, so I shall not rehearse the arguments in
detail, because our position is well known. We strongly support the
role of parents and we have made specific provision in the Bill to
strengthen it. My hon. Friend is right to argue that that role should
be developed in a systematic way that recognises the variety of
different ways in which parents may make representations or express
concerns. That is why, when we discussed clauses 2 and
3,which place new duties on local authorities to promote
diversity and parental choice and to respond to specific
representations from parents, we discussed the ways in which we would
expect local authorities to respond and examined in detail the guidance
published alongside those clauses—guidance that explained the
action that we expect from local
authorities. If
parents wanted a community or a foundation school that was being
proposed by the authority, that would add weight to the arguments in
favour, but it would not be the only or the decisive factor. I hope
that my hon. Friend is reassured about how seriously we take the need
to consider parents’ requirements and by our recognition of the
complexity involved in doing so. I hope that he will be willing not to
press his
amendment. Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive
explanation of her resistance to the amendments. She cited a suitably
narrow range of examples of when the provisions of clause 9 would be
needed by a local authority to establish a school outside of the
competition arrangements of clause 7. That confirmed my understanding
of the clause, that it is only to be used by local authorities in
exceptional circumstances. She convinced me that the wording of
amendment No. 29 may be unnecessarily wide, in that it would remove any
possibility of a local authority establishing a school outside of the
competition arrangements. The examples that she cited of when a local
authority may wish to do that were
valid. However, I was
unconvinced by her justification for not removing the ability of local
authorities to establish a community school outside the competition
arrangements. As with clause 7, I believe that that provision was
inserted into clause 9 as a concession to Labour party rebels.
Therefore, although I shall withdraw amendment No. 29, I shall move
amendment No. 28 formally at the appropriate
point. 11
am
Sarah
Teather: The Minister argues that that
the presence of the Secretary of State’s veto in the clause and
elsewhere is not about centralisation, but that is precisely what it is
about and I do not understand how she can conclude otherwise. The
definition of centralisation is taking power away from local
authorities and putting it
in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can come to no other
conclusion. It is like arguing that the world is flat when we know it
is round, or that the sun is shining when it is raining. It is no good
arguing that something is the case when it blatantly is not. The right
hon. Lady is right to say that the clause is about the role of local
authorities and what we consider it to be. We believe that their role
should be to make decisions about their local
area. The clause
allows the Secretary of State to sidetrack competition. If that is not
what the right hon. Lady wanted, the clause should have been drafted
differently. Our amendment provides that in the special circumstances
when we do not want the competition rules to apply, the decision-making
body would be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. That is
a point of principle and we shall divide the Committee on amendment No.
67.
| 
