Jacqui
Smith: As I have outlined, the competition proposals in
the 2002 Act related only to completely new schools. In the Education
Act 2005 we broadened those provisions to include reorganised schools,
to widen opportunities. As I said to the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton last week, those are the provisions on
which we are consulting. Such a broadening of competition proposals
will provide the opportunity for more new providers to come
forward. I hope that
I can provide reassurance to the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings(Mr. Hayes) on the point that he made on amendment
No. 30 about the position of academies. Clause 9 will replace section
28A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which was inserted
by section 65 of the 2005 Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman is
intimately aware of those sections. Members of the Committee will have
noticed when we discussed clause 7 that academies are included in that
clause, which will replace section 66 of the 2005 Act. That will ensure
that where a local authority holds a competition for a new school, the
possibility of opening an academy is not overlooked.
As we have discussed, clause 9
deals with cases in which the Secretary of State gives consent for
proposals to go ahead without a competition. We do not need
specifically to include academies in the clause because there is
already a clear legal process for establishing a new academy without a
competition, under section 482 of the Education Act 1996, as inserted
by the 2002 Act. The amendment would therefore not add to the power to
propose new academies.
Of course I welcome the
suggestion that the success of academies means that we should promote
the establishment of more of them, but we do not need the amendment to
do so. The legal process already in place includes clear requirements
for the establishment of academies and for appropriate checks on the
probity of potential sponsors. It spells out a solid basis for setting
up academies and allowing them to improve pupils’ educational
opportunities, and ensures that the route outlined by the hon.
Gentleman exists outwith the competition proposals in clause 7. I hope
that with that reassurance he will not press amendment No.
30.
Sarah
Teather: As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), the duties at the start of
the Bill already place a duty on local authorities to increase
diversity of provision. Presumably, when the Government drafted the
clause, they expected local authorities to implement it. So I cannot
see what the Government have to lose by leaving them to get on with
it. If the Minister
is implying that I have an ulterior motive for tabling this or any
other amendment, she misunderstands how seriously the Liberal Democrats
take local decision making. That runs throughout all of our
philosophy—we take it very seriously. We believe that the local
authority should make the decisions about service provision in its
area, regardless of how special the circumstances—end of
story. We could
probably have an interesting debate about the historical nature of
government, and where it began, with the hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings. I suspect that in the feudal system, power began at a
much lower level than central Parliament. Perhaps we could debate that
and come to
a decision on another occasion—it is probably not appropriate in
our deliberations on the Bill before us. Regardless of historical
understanding, localism should not be about a benign gift of power,
from the centre to the local authorities, when the centre so
chooses. Mrs.
Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): Will the hon.
Lady give
way?
Sarah
Teather: No, I am about to
finish. We believe
that the process should be bottom-up, not centre-down. With that in
mind, I shall press amendment No. 153 to a
vote.
Mr.
Hayes: Amendment No. 30 was a probing amendment, and the
Minister has satisfied me that her attachment to, and enthusiasm for,
academies is undimmed. She reminded me of the 1996 Act, amended by the
2002 Act, which in respect of academies effectively does what we want
to do. That renders our amendment unnecessary and ensures that the
process of setting up academies is not adversely affected by the
provisions in the
Bill. I am satisfied
with the response to my amendment, but I am not persuaded by the hon.
Member for Brent, East and the case that she made for her amendment. If
she chooses to press her amendment, I will advise my colleagues to
oppose her. For my own part, I shall not press amendment No.
30. Question put,
That the amendment be made:—
The Committee
divided: Ayes 3, Noes
19.
Division
No.
13] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 9 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Publication
of proposals to establish maintained schools: special
cases
Jacqui
Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in clause 10, page
9, line 2, leave out ‘2002' and insert
‘1996'. The
amendment is purely a technical one to correct an error in the drafting
of clause 10, for which I
apologise to the Committee. Subsection (4) states that approval of
non-maintained special schools is given under the Education Act 2002.
That is not the case. Non-maintained special schools are approved under
section 342 of the Education Act 1996, and the amendment corrects the
date. Subsection (4) makes provision for circumstances in which a new
foundation special school is to be regarded as replacing a
non-maintained special school comparable to that in subsection (3) for
independent schools. I hope that the Committee will agree that the
amendment is helpful in clarifying and tidying up the drafting, and
willsupport it. Amendment agreed
to.
Sarah
Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 350, in clause 10,
page 9, line 16, at end
insert— ‘(6A) Where the
proposals relate to a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special
school providing education suitable only to the requirements of persons
above compulsory age, the persons to be consulted under subsection (6)
must include all colleges of further education providing education for
16-19 year olds in the relevant
area.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 351, in clause 10, page 9,
line 23, at end
insert— ‘(10) In determining
any proposal under this section the authority or proposers (as the case
may be) must have regard to the impact of any proposed new school on
existing provision in schools or colleges of further
education.'. No.
352, in clause 19, page 14, line 28, at end
add— ‘(7) The regulations
must require any local education authority publishing proposals on the
establishment of educational provision suitable to the requirements of
pupils over compulsory school age to consult all colleges of further
education providing education for 16-19 year olds in the relevant
area. (8) In assessing a
proposal under this section the authority or adjudicator must take
account of the impact of the proposal on existing
provision.'.
Sarah
Teather: The amendments are probing amendments to test out
who should be consulted and the weight that should be given to their
views. Amendment No. 350 seeks to provide that colleges of further
education should be consulted by a local education authority when it
seeks to establish any new educational institution catering for post-16
education. Amendment No. 251 would go further, requiring the LEA to
consider the impact on FE colleges of any new school opening in an
area. Colleges are
the largest provider of 16-to-19 provision. Almost twice as many
students go to FE colleges as attend school sixth forms. They are also
much more likely to provide for the most disadvantaged students. It is
notable that 15 per cent. of learners in colleges are from ethnic
minorities, compared with 8 per cent. of the general population.
Indeed, 64 per cent. of those in receipt of educational maintenance
allowances study in FE or other colleges.
FE colleges have a high
customer satisfaction rate. They offer high-quality courses in a wide
range of subjects. According to a survey by the Association of
Colleges, 84 per cent. of the British public believe that their local
college is as important to business as any
other factor. The Bill’s proposal to allow local authorities to
propose new sixth-form schools seems to contradict the FE White Paper,
which contains a presumption that there should be sixth-form colleges
rather than sixth-form schools. I should be interested to hear from the
Minister how that apparent contradiction will be resolved. The Bill provides for local
authorities to propose new sixth-form schools, but not to fund
them—that would be for the Learning and Skills Council to
do—and it says that the learning and skills council for an area
should be consulted about the setting up of new sixth-form schools.
However, colleges feel that that body is not best placed to act on
their behalf. I suspect that there are many reasons for that, but
colleges are independent bodies, not subsidiaries of the learning and
skills council.
Colleges are concerned that
smaller sixth-form schools tend to have inferior results, quality of
teaching and choice of subject and that, as theright hon.
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich(Mr. Raynsford) pointed out
on Second Reading, they are more expensive because of the funding gap
between themselves and FE
colleges. We are not
opposed to the setting up of new sixth-form schools; they might be the
best and safest environment for some young people. In that case, it is
important that any new sixth-form school be set up in collaboration
with others in an area to ensure that choice and quality are not
affected. Often, small schools are unable to provide as much choice as
might be
required.
11.30
am
Mr.
Chaytor: Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a
direct relationship between achievement and the points score at A-level
and the size of the sixth form? The smallest sixth forms have the
lowest achievement in terms of A-level point score; the largest have
the highest. Each band of size of sixth form increases progressively
towards the higher end of the achievement
level.
Sarah
Teather: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was
about to make; that is very much the case. That is why colleges are
very concerned about a presumption in the Bill towards setting up
smaller sixth forms, which are more expensive to provide and which may
yield lower-quality results. If there are occasions when sixth form
schools should be set up because it is appropriate for the locality, it
must be done in collaboration with others to ensure that all those
opportunities for quality, choice and teaching are provided
for.
Mr.
Hayes: The case made by the hon. Lady in support of her
amendment is one that I want to explore. This is an important aspect of
the Bill that thus far we have not had a chance to discuss, but which
the amendment focuses on rather clearly. The lead amendment has some
merit. It would
include “all colleges of
further education providing education for16-19 year olds in
the relevant area” in
the consultation process under subsection (6). The other amendments
follow in similar vein. I understand
the hon. Lady’s proper attention to the necessary relationship
between schools and FE institutions in the locality and her consequent
desire to involve FE in the consultation process. However, she has
illuminated yet another difference between the Conservatives and the
Liberals. It was
Harold Macmillan who
said: “As
usual the Liberals offer a mixture of sound and original ideas.
Unfortunately none of the sound ideas is original and none of the
original ideas is
sound.” That is perhaps
an overstatement of their virtues. It was very true
today.
| 
