| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In relation to the other set of amendments, we accept, as the Minister says, that four months is reasonable. As I have suggested, in so far as it would be a group of parents proposing to do this, it would take time to get together, particularly if proposals have to be put forward in full legalistic form. It takes time to find the appropriate legal expertise and to raise the money to pay for the expertise that one has to lay on in the circumstances. The Minister made it clear that it is up to the school governing body to be discriminatory among those who might be suggesting themselves as sponsors of trusts, particularly if it is a small primary school, However, it is also important to remember that it is not always easy for such a governing body to be particularly knowledgeable and in this sense I am pleased to hear that as far as he is concerned they will have the help of the schools commissioner in being able to discriminate between what one might term good and bad sponsors. The framework of regulations as he says lays that down but nevertheless they have to be interpreted and implemented by the governing body and it is not always easy for a governing body to be able to discriminate in this way. It could be useful to have a register in such circumstances.
I am delighted that the Minister is as positive ashe is about the concept of community trusts or foundations. From these Benches this is very much our vision of the way in which we would like to see the provisions working. We have made it clear that we are not enamoured of the private sector sponsors and would prefer to see such foundations emerging from the local community, but with the reassurances that he has given us I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 64 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 65:
- “( )
The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection
(5)(b)(ii) in any case in which the request by the authority for such
consent is shown to be supported by parents in such numbers and in such
categories as may be prescribed by
regulations.”
The noble Baroness said: The heart of this group of amendments concerns ballots and their consequences and the expression of parental opinion in a clear majority with regard to the establishment of new schools and the laying down of proposals for the establishment of new maintained schools. The essence of the Government’s view of the Bill as I mentioned a moment or two ago is that the role of parents should be given the fullest possible width and that parents should be involved in the maintenance and establishment of schools to the limit that is possible within a system.
18 July 2006 : Column 1136
The earlier group of amendments that we discussed was intended to give the maximum possible information about future sponsors of schools to parents. This group of amendments concerns the right of parents to make their views known about the establishment of a new community school or a new community special school in certain circumstances where it is clear according to regulation that parents have established that they have a majority wish to go ahead with the establishment of a new community school that should override any attempt to limit that, for example, by requiring the Secretary of State’s consent.
To put it simply, either the Government believe that parents should have the decisive voice in the establishment of one type of school or another, or they do not. We have therefore indicated in this group of amendments the circumstances in which parental opinion should be decisive. One of those is with regard to an attempt put forward by a local authority to establish a new community school where it is clear after consultation with parents that the majority of parents wished that to happen. We do not believe it is right that there should be additional sets of bureaucratic requirements that would override that wish of parents.
We have also indicated that where a local authority puts forward proposals for a new community school, those proposals should be published if again it is the wish of the parents of children registered at school or registered at feeder schools that the proposals should be considered and should go ahead. Some years ago, parents were largely excluded from the education process. That changed rather dramatically in 1976 with the Taylor commission, which was the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is I am delighted to say a Member of this House. The commission proposed that one-quarter of the governors of the governing bodies of maintained schools should be elected by parents and should represent them.
One concern that we have about this Bill is that with trust schools and academies the role of parents is decisively reduced. We find that hard to associate with a Bill that is intended to give parents a larger not a smaller voice. Therefore, to put it straightforwardly, on the crucial issue of changes in category of schools and on the proposals for establishing new maintained schools, and for putting forward those ideas, we believe that a ballot should be held. The ballot should turn on a majority of parents having their voices heard and their opinions made known, which should be a decisive factor in deciding whether to establish a new school of a maintained community nature or, for that matter, in putting forward such proposals.
I
remind the House what the former Minister, Ruth Kelly, said in another
place, when she referred to the common sense of parents. My noble
friend quoted her remarks. But if we do not know what parents want,
referring to their common sense does not add up to very much. I pay
tribute in that respect to the previous Conservative Government, who
insisted that there should be a ballot before a school became a
grant-maintained school. Some 2,000 ballots were duly held, after the
establishment of the idea of grant-maintained
18 July 2006 : Column 1137
So what is the argument against ballots, in straightforward terms? The strangest one that I have heard so far, which was put forward in another place, was that ballots would in some way restrict the likelihood of foundation schools being allowed to go ahead and restrict the innovatory prospects for academies and CTCs, so that it would not be wise to give parents this major part in the system. One thing that has emerged clearly from discussions on the Bill, from beginning to end, in discussing children with special educational needs and those who are disadvantaged and whose parents do not take a full part in concern for their education, is that it is absolutely crucial to a good education that parents are involved from the beginning to the end. It is crucial that their association with their child’s future and school and with their own responsibilities in that respect should be considered as a primary purpose of legislation.
Sadly, we live at a time when there is not a great deal of trust in the political system and when more and more people argue that they are not consulted and listened to and that their views are not taken fully into account. There is a simple mechanism for taking those views fully into account—a mechanism that has been tried and tested over many decades in this country and which, above all, should apply to schools. It has been much welcomed by parents, who have enthusiastically taken part in ballots of this kind. Indeed, the grant-maintained school ballots attracted turn-outs of 67 per cent and more on average, far above the level of turnout that one associates with local government and roughly level with what one associates with general elections. There is no evidence whatever that parents are apathetic about this kind of question; indeed, they feel very deeply involved.
Not to prolong the discussion—although I believe it to be absolutely central to the whole nature and quality of this Bill—we must ask whether we believe that parents should be fully involved. If so, why do we not trust them to make that decision on the basis of a properly organised ballot on the crucial issues of changing a school from one category to another and of whether a school should continue when there is a proposal to discontinue it? Surely, we should listen to the parents and, when they are of suitable age, the pupils. I beg to move the amendment, and I do so with very strong feeling about how much is at stake.
18 July 2006 : Column 1138
4 pm
Lord Gould of Brookwood: I am strongly in favour of empowering parents; I am in favour of empowering everyone. That is the basis of my politics and that is why I support this Bill. I want parents to have the chance to choose the school that is right for their children; not just a good local school, but the best possible school for them. This Bill is about empowering parents and about giving them choices, voices and access, as the noble Baroness said, from the beginning until the end. That does not mean a compulsory one-off ballot; it is not about that. It is about a continuing process of engagement and participation through school choice, parental councils, schools that respect and listen to the views of parents as mandated by the Bill, real rights of redress and a real involvement over time on a continuing basis. Some 72 per cent of parents want more involvement in their schools, and the Bill enables that to happen.
The question that we have to ask is whether the amendment mandating balloting takes the cause of empowerment forward or back. Compulsory ballots are a cumbersome, time-consuming and rather intimidating procedure that is intended to slow down the pace of reform and to make genuine parental participation less likely rather than more. That is not to say that ballots should not be held if the governing body wishes to hold them; but it is to say that one-off, compulsory ballots do not help the cause of greater parental empowerment but are likely to slow it down. One-off compulsory ballots are not genuine participation; they are a device to get in the way of genuine participation, and they should be resisted.
The metaphor of politics has been used. Just as it is true to say that a general election every four to five years no longer represents participation and no longer represents involvement, it is true to say that a compulsory ballot, held possibly once in the life of a parent, does not begin to offer the participation that we need. This Bill is about real empowerment and real involvement over a period of time from the beginning to the end, as the noble Baroness said, and the compulsory balloting procedure is an attempt to get in the way of that, not to assist it.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I did not expect to agree so completely with the words of the noble Lord, who is one of the gurus of the Labour Party, but I do. I find the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness unconvincing. I thought that the amendments were confused, and I wanted to hear her explanation. I now am clear where she starts from; as I understand it, she wants the views of parents to predominate. That is her main consideration. I agree with that, but I do not think that this is the way to do it.
The Government clearly expect from this Bill something corresponding to the Scandinavian pattern where, as a result of allowing communities to come together, there will be a welling-up of the parental opinion saying that they want a new school. They will put forward their proposals, and the parents will be very committed. I do not think that there will be an absence of parental commitment to fulfilling the objectives of the Bill, and I support that.
18 July 2006 : Column 1139
Let us suppose the parents in a town such as south Bolton came together and said that they wanted a new school. Who should vote in that ballot? All the parents in south Bolton? All the parents of primary school children in south Bolton? All the parents of secondary school children in south Bolton? It is a totally impractical suggestion when you are considering a new school. You could not devise the electoral list on which a ballot could take place.
But what of a ballot in a school which already exists? This was the problem with which I was faced when I introduced grant-maintained schools. Back in 1988, if I had left it purely in the power of the governing body to create a grant-maintained school, I could not have got the Bill through. I could not have got it passed either by the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Many Conservative local education authorities would have burnt my effigy and said that it was absolutely unforgivable. So I introduced the complicated arrangements of ballots, and I did so to break the mould. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. If they were introduced now, they would be used as a delaying device by the local education authorities, because in nearly all those grant-maintained-school ballots, pitched against the wishes of parents was the local education authority, which would spend vast sums of public money on publicity in an effort to prevent schools becoming grant maintained. Many local education authorities will not embrace the idea of new community schools being established. They like to maintain their hegemony and their monopoly. I do not believe that their attitudes have changed at all.
Therefore, the proposals of the Liberal Democrats in this matter are not at all feasible as regards new schools and are unnecessary as regards established schools. They would have a delaying effect. As I have said, I did what I did to break the mould. The mould is broken. Parents are now much more involved in the running of schools than they were back in the 1980s. They are very committed, not only in the leafy suburbs but also in the inner cities. The amendments are unnecessary and would be harmful to the Bill.
Baroness
Walmsley: I rise in response to
the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gould. If this Bill is really
about empowering parents, why not give them a vote in the most
important decision to be made about any school, which is its
governance? Why are the Government frightened of parents? The noble
Lord, Lord Gould, talked about one-off compulsory ballots as if they
were the only way in which we on these Benches wanted to have parents
involved in schools. Of course, that is not the case. There is no
reason why a one-off compulsory ballot should preclude all the other,
very desirable ways in which good schools should involve parents. It is
like saying that you can have four or five years of focus groups, but
that you cannot have a general election at the end of it. Does the
noble Lord assume that the results of the ballots will get in the way
of the expansion of trust schools? In objecting to the amendment of my
noble friend Lady Williams, he seemed to be assuming that parents will
vote against the establishment of trusts. If the Government really
18 July 2006 : Column 1140
Lord Northbourne: It is encouraging to hear such unanimity across the Committee on the importance of parents. Let us be sure when we consult parents that we consult all parents and not merely those who are accustomed to public speaking and those who have a voice; we must listen also to those who are deprived and disadvantaged.
Lord Adonis: The amendments would amend the process by which schools are established and, in some cases, interpose another statutory layer, the parental ballot, into the local decision-making process.
Parental ballots were the subject of long debates and, indeed, a ballot in the elected House of Commons, which voted by a huge majority of 291—that is, 412 votes against 121—against proposals similar to these. The Governments arguments against these proposals have not changed: first, a ballot may be an appropriate form of consultation in some circumstances—I am strongly in favour of local ballots in appropriate cases, including local referendums conducted by local authorities—but both governing bodies and local authorities have powers to conduct such ballots at present. It would be disproportionate to require ballots for a change to trust status to take place. Secondly,if ballots are to be mandatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, the precise electorate for the ballots would need to be set out either in primary or secondary legislation. It would be highly problematic to do so and it is not attempted in any of the amendments before us.
Thirdly, it is fairly obvious from the debate so far that the essential motivation behind these amendments is one of antipathy to trusts and trust schools. This is shown by the fact that there is a whole range of other equally—if not more—fundamental decisions affecting the character of schools and local educational provision, in respect of which no amendments requiring ballots have been tabled. For example, there are school closures—including the closure of special schools, the single most emotive issue for parents that crosses my desk as a Minister—changes to admissions arrangements, the addition or subtraction of 6th forms—another highly emotive issue for parents—the addition or subtraction of special needs provision, the change to specialist status, the choice of specialism, the relocation of a school and the move in a locality from a three-tier to a two-tier system.
All those are hugely difficult and often controversial issues of educational policy for individual schools and local provision, and there are no amendments down to ensure that these are subject to ballots. Nor do I recall the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Children Bill which would have required ballots on the setting up of children's centres, or the judging between, for example, proposals put forward by existing state schools as against those put forward by private and voluntary sector providers.
Fourthly,
there are, however, substantial requirements as to consultation in all
the changes of school status and organisations set out in the Bill, and
on proposals
18 July 2006 : Column 1141
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Briefly, I will not push these amendments at present, but I shall make a couple of points. First, we have specifically called for a ballot on the discontinuance of a school, one of the areas the Minister referred to. We have indicated that, where a school is to be discontinued, there should be a ballot of parents because they are profoundly affected by it. We proposed, in a new clause, that there should be a meeting of parents before any final decision is made. That goes some way to refute the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brockwood, who suggested that we were only pressing for a single ballot once there was to be a change in the nature of a school, or the advancement of a new school. That is not the case: we specifically called for a parental meeting.
The Government are using the argument that this will delay everything in an extraordinary way. Surely what matters most, as has been central to our discussion of this education Bill, is that there should be the highest possible quality of schooling and that children should be secure in a well organised, accountable and responsible school. That is what concerns us. As we have often argued from these Benches, there should be a level playing field. Parents should have a strong voice in the choices to be made. Whatever our views may be on a particular trust school one way or the other, our crucial responsibility is to ensure that parents are given the choice of the kind of education they want for their child. Frankly, without a ballot or a requirement for a parents’ meeting, it is difficult to see why governing bodies should think they know what parents’ wishes might be better than the parents themselves. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |