Mr.
Chaytor: I am grateful for the Minister’s
reply. I will not press my
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
proposed: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave
out ‘with the consent of the
Secretary of State'—[Sarah
Teather.] Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
18.
Division
No.
11] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line 37.—[Mr.
Gibb.] The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
16.
Division
No.
12] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly
negatived.
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page
7, line 43, after ‘7)', insert ‘an
academy,'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 41, leave out
‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘local education
authority'.
Sarah
Teather: The reason for tabling the amendment is based on
arguments similar to those that I advanced earlier and in a previous
sitting: even in the special circumstances in which an external body
may come forward to publish proposals outside the remit of a
competition, the body whose agreement must be sought should be the
local authority, not the Secretary of State. The local authority is
best placed to decide about the circumstances in an area, what criteria
should be used to set up a school, and what kind of school it should
be. The local authority should take that strategic role, as the
Minister argued elsewhere.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Before
I speak to amendment No. 30, I welcome you again to the Chair, Mr.
Cook, as ever. Indeed, why not do so on a regular basis?
As the hon. Member for Brent,
East rightly said, the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats
reprises the argument that has run throughout the Committee between the
different parties about the nature of the role of LEAs and the balance
between that and the role of local communities and the Secretary of
State. Different
views on the matter have emerged and I want to make it clear that we
perceive a role for LEAs in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said at our last sitting. Had we not
believed that, we could not reasonably have supported the Bill, because
it perceives an ongoing role for LEAs. However, the Bill makes
important changes to that role, and the hon. Lady’s amendment
and her comments on it reflect earlier comments that show a difference
between the Liberal Democrats’ perspective on the subject and
that of the Opposition and the Government. Our views on education are
not identical to those of the Government, but we are close to their
position on the corresponding roles of LEAs and the Secretary of State
because we appreciate that although local government is more than an
agency of central Government, it is the creation of
Parliament. We do
not have a federal system; we have a unitary constitution in which the
power of local government is defined both by its legitimacy drawn from
the people whom it represents and by the statutory powers vested in it
by Parliament. The nature of central and local relations reflects that;
there is always a balance to be
struck between the proper considerations of Government—and, in
this case, the educational considerations of the Secretary of State,
who has a responsibility to ensure that schools are established
properly and that they are fit for purpose—and the role of local
authorities in determining the provision in their locale. Thus, I have
doubts about the Liberal Democrats’
amendment. Amendment
No. 30 would insert the words “an academy” into the
clause. The omission of the phrase is surprising, given that the White
Paper states that the Government
will “continue to
promote Academies as a key part of our system...tackling the acute
challenges in areas of real and historical
underperformance”. We
had a short debate about academies last week and the Minister waxed
lyrical about their virtues. Of course it is true that the performance
of academies has been patchy. Some have done well and some less well,
but it would be wrong to exclude academies from this part of the Bill,
as though they were no longer the pivotal element of the policy the
Minister reaffirmed a few days ago in Committee.
Our amendment is consistent
with the Government’s intention and our perspective. We do not,
of course, make a blind judgment that all academies are working as well
as they might, but we are anxious to give them a fair wind and to
support the good work that is being done. They are founded on a proper
consideration of the need to engage in educational renewal in areas of
disadvantage. That deserves support—and, by the way, we should
not let the other current debate, about the way they are resourced,
colour our views on the relevant aspect of the Bill.
I resist the overtures that
are being made once again by the Liberal Democrats to frustrate the
intention of the Bill, by undermining the balance that I have
described. It should not be for local authorities to grant consent for
proposals to establish new schools. The best local authorities work for
the people they serve, rather than dictating what is to be provided.
The White Paper
states: “The
best local authorities are strategic leaders of their communities,
listening to, and then speaking for their citizens, demanding the very
best for those who elected them and building cultural and civic
identity. They work with neighbourhoods and local communities to help
them articulate their needs, and ensure that the pattern of local
services matches up to their vision and aspirations. They act as the
commissioners of services and the champions of
users.” That is not a
role to be underestimated. It is notan understatement of the
significance of local government, but a reaffirmation of our belief in
local government of a kind that can deliver the best by understanding
when it should step forward and when it should step back so that others
can step forward.
Jacqui
Smith: With these amendments we are considering the
circumstances set out in clause 9 in which promoters other than local
authorities can make proposals for schools outside the competition
provisions. In discussing the previous group of amendments we focused,
on the whole, on the circumstances in which local authorities could
make proposals outside those provisions. In that context, the impact of
amendment No. 153 would be to enable
local authorities to decide whether proposers other than local
authorities could make proposals for new schools.
I appreciate the point made by
the hon. Member for Brent, East, that our proposals would ensure that
the Government could take powers to control the publication of
proposals outside competitions. As I have said, that is precisely to
ensure that competitions will be effective and will remain the default
mechanism for presenting new proposals. I do not think that the hon.
Lady’s motive in tabling the amendment is to help to promote
competitions and diversity in the system.
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Will the
Minister comment on the duty on a local authority, which arose in an
earlier clause, to provide diversity and choice? Does not that set a
framework in which local decision making can take
place? 11.15
am
Jacqui
Smith: It certainly does, and I hope and expect that local
authorities will take that duty seriously. However, it is also
appropriate for us to reinforce the structure that was put in place by
the 2005 Act—that is effectively what the provisions
do—to ensure, through competition proposals, that there is a
process and a statutory framework that enables new providers to come
forward. Groups other
than local authorities have always been able to make proposals for new
schools; the large number of voluntary schools bears witness to that.
Such providers have made a valuable contribution to education and will
continue to do so. That is why we are introducing the trust school
model and encouraging foundation schools of all kinds.
As we have made clear, we
support competitions because they will encourage openness to
innovation. A range of providers will be able to consider how they
might make a contribution to education, and that will potentially
increase the number of proposers. The danger in amendment No. 153 is
that if proposals could be made without the consent of the Secretary of
State, a local authority could avoid a competition by entering into a
private arrangement to support the proposals of a particular provider,
denying others the opportunity to have their proposals considered. That
would not be in line with the intention behind the proposed programme:
to open up and diversify the education system and give new providers
opportunities to make a contribution. On that basis, we oppose
amendment No.
153. Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): As I understand it, no
competitions to find alternative providers have been held by local
authorities since the 2002 Act. What does the Minister think will
change after this Bill to encourage new providers to come forward and
local authorities to hold
competitions?
|
