Mr.
Simon: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I was
not criticising the Chair or suggesting that the hon. Member for Yeovil
was out of order; I was simply suggesting that a cynic might interpret
his merely reading out the Bill as a filibuster. I was suggesting not
that he was out of order, but that what he was saying sounded like a
filibuster.
The
Chairman: I call Mr.
Laws.
Mr.
Laws: The words “when in a hole” spring to
mind. It
is important to set the debate in context. The point of the amendment
is to deal with accountability to local authorities in relation to the
performance management and commissioning function of schools. Indeed,
the 2006 legislation gave local authorities a key strategic role in
school performance management and commissioning schools. The amendment
would ensure that the Government’s stated intention was
respected in relation to the key role that local authorities should
have. The
explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that the changes that it
introduces ensure that when the chief inspector makes an interim
statement about a community foundation or voluntary school, a community
or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, she has to
send a copy of that interim statement to
the “appropriate
authority of the
school”, which
can be either the governing body or the local education authority. In
respect of academies and other schools specified in the Bill, the chief
inspector “must
send a copy of the interim statement to the school’s proprietor
and
others”. What
both those elements of the Bill are sadly lacking is any assurance that
this very important statement of how a school is performing and how it
should be inspected will be available to the local authority. After
all, under the Government’s 2006 legislation—and we must
presume that this is still their approach—the local authority is
supposed to be discharging a key responsibility in relation to
performance management and commissioning. In the two circumstances that
I mentioned, however, a local authority, with its supposed strategic
oversight, would not even be copied in.
The amendment
would therefore ensure that an interim statement from the chief
inspector stating that a school does not need to be inspected for a
year would be sent to the local authority as well as the school in
question. That is crucial. If the Government are serious about local
authorities’ performance oversight role, surely authorities must
know whether a chief inspector is
giving an exemption from inspection for a period. Surely authorities
must be able to cross-check whether that is sensible. The Bill sets
out a number of circumstances in which there would be no duty to inform
the local authority. They concern schools where the governing body is
the relevant authority, and apply to academies and other specified
schools, in respect of which the statement would go to proprietors and
not local authorities. Such an approach has been taken despite
the fact that local authorities are increasingly being seen
and treated as commissioners for academies. As the Bill
stands, authorities are not even being allowed to see the
interim statements issued by the chief inspector. That is crucial for
the oversight of such schools and for performance
management. Increasingly,
the Government are funding and providing school improvement partners,
which are working in and for local authorities to assess the progress
and performance of schools. How can it possibly be right that those
individuals are not made aware of such an important interim statement
that indicates that a school does not need to be inspected for a
specified period? If the information is not provided to local
authorities, there will be a risk that, where there is a difference
between the local authority’s view and the chief
inspector’s assessment, there will be no opportunity to air the
matter. There will be occasions when the local authority, with all its
knowledge and the complaints that it may have received from parents and
others, has an insight into how a school is performing that the chief
inspector does not have. This common-sense amendment is both necessary
and consistent with Government policy and, at this early hour of the
morning, the Minister could easily accept it. That would improve the
Bill, satisfy me and ensure that Government policy would be delivered
more effectively. I invite him to accept this important and excellent
amendment.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to be generous, but
I fear that we will not agree. There is a clear case for the local
authority to be automatically sent a copy of the health check report on
a school that it maintains, particularly in the light of the
authority’s role as an employer and given its direct
responsibilities for the school’s improvement. The Bill allows
for
that. There
is equally a case for the local authority to be automatically sent a
copy of the health check report when it provides funding for pupils to
attend non-maintained special schools. Again, the Bill covers that.
However, the case in respect of other non-maintained schools—in
particular, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for
the technology of arts—is far from clear. The local authority is
neither the employer nor the funding source for such schools and it is
not correct to imply that the inclusion of those schools in the list of
relevant partners for the children’s trusts somehow means that
they have been brought under the control of the local authority and
that the authority could therefore have an automatic right to receive
the health check report. On the basis of those arguments, I invite the
hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: You will not be surprised to hear, Mr.
Chope, that I am not particularly satisfied with that explanation. It
is astonishing that a local authority, and particularly
one that had commissioned with enthusiasm academies in its area, should
not be informed of the conclusion of a judgment by the chief inspector.
It also seems extraordinary that the schools that are listed in
proposed new section 14A of the 2005 Act and paragraph 646 of the
explanatory notes would not be included in that group of schools about
which the local authority would be informed of the results of the
interim
statement.
Jim
Knight: If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I can assure
him that there are no barriers to a local authority gaining access to
any of the reports. All the health check reports will be published on
the Ofsted website and a local authority can, if it chooses, obtain a
copy from the school. In addition, a local authority representative is
on the governing body of every academy and all the other schools
listed. There will therefore be no problem in local authorities
accessing the reports if they want them. We just do not propose to send
them to
them.
Mr.
Laws: I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both
ways. He cannot say that he wants to send the reports on presumably the
majority of schools in the country to local authorities and create this
sensible duty and, at the same time, say that there is an expectation
that all the others can be looked up on a website, or a hope that a
local authority representative will have attended a particular meeting
of the governing
body. 2.15
am Paragraph
646 of the explanatory notes
says: “Section
14A applies in cases where the Chief Inspector makes an interim
statement about a community, foundation or voluntary school, a
community or foundation special school, or a maintained nursery
school.” It
is worth highlighting for a Minister in another Department the fact
that these words are in inverted commas, because the paragraph
continues: “Subsections
(1) to (3) of 14A require the Chief Inspector to send a copy of the
interim statement to the appropriate authority of the school (either
the governing body or the local education authority) and to other
specified
people.” If
the Minister wants to satisfy us even moderately, will he tell us,
under the circumstances listed in paragraph 646, for which
of those schools the reports would be sent to the local education
authority and for which schools they would not? Paragraph 646 is
ambiguous about whether the governing body or the local education
authority would be the relevant authority in each
case. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes
8.
Division
No.
42] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause
210 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
211 and 212 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
15The
School Support Staff Negotiating
Body
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 377, in schedule
15, page 221, line 10, at end
insert— ‘(5) The membership
of the SSSNB shall include an equal number of persons
representing— (a) the
interests of prescribed school support staff organisations,
and (b) the interests of
prescribed school support staff employer
organisations.’. We
now come to schedule 15 and clause 212, which establishes the school
support staff negotiating body. The amendment would insert into
paragraph 2 of the schedule, which relates to the membership of the
body—paragraph 1 relates to its constitution—a fifth
aspect of the membership by saying that it shall include an equal
number of people representing the interests of prescribed school
support staff organisations and the interests of prescribed school
support staff employer organisations. It is designed to ensure that the
SSSNB is not dominated by one side or the other in negotiations and
that employers and employees are given an equal voice in the body. That
is one concern of the Foundation and Aided Schools National Association
and other employers, so I should be grateful if the Minister addressed
the amendment and let us have his
opinion.
Jim
Knight: I wholeheartedly agree that there should always be
equal representation of employers and employees on the school support
staff negotiating body. It goes without saying that it would be
unlikely for trade unions or organisations representing employers of
support staff to agree to be party to any body that did not allow them
fair representation and equal voting
rights. Schedule
15 already provides the necessary means to ensure that employer and
employee organisations are treated equally by providing that the SSSNB
will be constituted in accordance with arrangements made by the
Secretary of State after consultation with the school support staff
organisations and the school support staff employer
organisations. A
constitution for the non-statutory body, which the Secretary of State
will set up using his prerogative powers, is being drawn up in
consultation with all the organisations that will make up the
membership of the SSSNB. Arrangements made for the constitution of the
non-statutory body will be treated as if they were arrangements made
for the statutory body once it comes into effect. That draft
constitution allows the organisations representing school support staff
employers and employees to agree collectively the number of individuals
who will represent each named organisation. However, it also stipulates
that the total number of individual members representing support staff
employer organisations must not exceed a total of 15; similarly,
individual members representing support staff must not exceed
15.
Mr.
Gibb: The right hon. Gentleman has almost answered my
question. If he is consulting on a constitution that provides for an
equal number of people representing employers and employees, there is
no reason why he cannot accept the amendment. It would not clash with
the constitution, which has other things in addition—more detail
on the numbers and so on. The amendment is not inconsistent or
incompatible with the constitution.
Jim
Knight: I do not believe that it is necessary to
reiterate the point that the hon. Gentleman made in the schedule.
Before making revisions to the constitution, the Secretary of State is
required by the schedule to consult the member organisations that
represent the interests of school support staff and employers. That
will help to ensure the fairness and equity of membership that is being
sought, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment on the
basis of those
assurances.
Mr.
Gibb: It is a little churlish of the Minister not to
accept the amendment, but I am reassured, so I might be thought
churlish if I pressed it to a Division. His assurance was delivered at
great speed, so I shall read the Hansard report and
consider the matter further with a view to returning to it on Report. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Mrs.
Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab): I beg to move amendment 547, in schedule 15,
page 222, line 4, leave out
‘represents’ and insert
‘is a trade union recognised to
represent’. This
is a small but perfectly formed and important amendment to paragraph 8
of the schedule, which includes some important definitions of the
organisations that will be members of the negotiating body. School
support staff are represented by recognised trade unions, such as GMB,
UNISON and Unite, and that is incorporated into their employment
contracts via the local government Green Book conditions. If the Green
Book terms are replaced with the SSSNB’s terms, the recognised
status of support staff unions will be lost. What replaces it under the
SSSNB structure is membership of the body, but that is not the same as
being recognised. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the
continuity of trade union recognition for support staff, and I look
forward to the Minister’s
response.
Jim
Knight: My hon. Friend has set out clearly what the
amendment is trying to achieve, and I am aware that some trade unions
are worried that their status of recognition in collective bargaining
will be lost. The SSSNB will be a statutory body and membership will be
prescribed in regulations. UNISON, Unite and GMB will be the prescribed
unions as currently titled, and employers and unions represented on the
SSSNB will be required by statute to consider and negotiate on matters
relating to the remuneration of support staff. The statutory provision
supports the view that the employers who are represented on the SSSNB
have recognised the unions for collective bargaining purposes by virtue
of the fact that both unions and employer representatives are required
under legislation to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement.
Naming the relevant organisations within the prescribing regulations
provides the unions with appropriate statutory recognition, so the
amendment would add nothing of further significance in strengthening
that level of recognition. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the
amendment.
| 
