| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Warnock: I am not clear whether Amendment No. 97 means that the local authority will have the ability to insist on the enlargement of a school, or whether the school will be able to refuse to take more pupils. Perhaps particularly in the case of schools mentioned under Clause 19(2) for pupils with special educational needs, it seems important that the governing body and the head determine the size of the school. It seems a great danger to think that, if a school is successful, therefore it ought to enlarge its numbers, because a school’s character may be determined by the fact that it is small. Will the Minister kindly clear that up?
Lord Adonis: I think that I need to write to the noble Baroness to give her the categorical answer to her question. I shall speak from my knowledge of decision-making, not from a note, which may be slightly hazardous. My understanding is that, where the school is a community school, the local authority has the power to publish proposals and decide on them. However, where it is another category of school, if the school is not amenable these matters could not be decided by the local authority unilaterally. I shall come back to her.
18 July 2006 : Column 1171
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Publication of proposals with consent of Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Publication of proposals to establish maintained schools: special cases]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 79:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 79, I shall speak to another large group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 80, 82, 85, 86, 90, 93 and 102. Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 82, 85 and 86 relate to aspects of school closures, mergers and consultations about mergers and closures, whereas Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with issues arising from alterations and expansions. I would like to speak first to that first half of the group, and then to move the second half.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 relate to the special case of when two primary schools merge, and seek to probe the Government’s thinking on whether that requires a competition to set up a new school. To reduce the tensions that can result from the merger of an infant and junior school, both schools are often closed and reopened as a new school with a new name, rather than one school simply being taken over by another. That matter was raised in a letter dated10 May 2006 to the new Minister for Schools,Jim Knight, by Vernon Coaker MP on behalf of one of his constituents. In his letter of response dated31 May 2006, Jim Knight explained the proposed regulations governing the establishment of a community school and the criteria governing the Secretary of State’s consent. He concluded:
- “Proposals
for new schools would normally fall under the above procedures, but the
Bill does make provision in clause 9 for proposals for new schools,
including community schools, outside a competition with the consent of
the Secretary of State. We would envisage that mergers of infant and
junior schools would not normally require a
competition”.
Amendment No. 82 relates to Clause 15(4). At present, that subsection relates only to rural primary schools and largely re-enacts Section 70 of the Education Act 2005, which we argued over at some length in this Chamber about 18 months ago, just before the last general election. Section 70 of that Act was the result of a government defeat in this House and required that, before making a proposal to close a primary school, the relevant body—the local education authority—must take account of the effect of the closure on the local community and transport implications.
18 July 2006 : Column 1172
We argue that these criteria should be applied not just to rural schools but to any local school. The knock-on effects of closure need to be considered. There needs to be wide consultation, not only with parents but also with local district town and/or parish councils.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 relate to Clause 17 which is concerned with the closure of special schools and seeks to extend the consultation required should the Secretary of State avail himself of the powers granted by this clause to shut a special school. Amendment No. 8 would provide that the consultation should be extended to the parents of children attending the school. Amendment No. 86 also provides that whenhe gives notice of his decision under subsection (4) he sets out the reason for his decision.
In Committee in the other place the Minister argued that both amendments were unnecessary and that Clause 17(3)(d), which states that consultation should take place with,
might be expected to include parents and children attending the school. We respond that “might be expected” is not good enough. Given the emphasis that the Government are putting on parents’ views and preferences, and that they also regard the voice of the child to be an important aspect of consultation, we feel that both should be on the face of the Bill as consultees.The Government also argued that having to set out the reasons for his decision—as provided in Amendment No. 86—was an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on what might need to be a hasty decision in the interests of the health and safety of the children involved. Again, the amendment does not demand any lengthy report but merely that the reasons for the decision are given in at least summary form when the notice is issued. For a Government who produce so many unnecessary pieces of paper—not to mention unnecessary legislation—I believe that this is not too much to ask.
Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with the issues arising from alterations and expansions in schools. Amendment No. 90 is a probing amendment to clarify that Clauses 18 to 23, which come under the heading of “Alterations to schools”, include the physical alteration of the school premises to accommodate more pupils and to add a sixth form. Those cited in subsection (2) and (4) of Clause 18 are all alterations to governance structures. But since much has been made of encouraging successful schools to expand, it is to be assumed that such expansions are indeed covered by these provisions of the Bill. What has not been generally publicised is that any such expansion requires—as I understand from subsection (2)—a community school to become a foundation school. I seek clarification from the Minister if that is the case. As we have made clear elsewhere, we have little sympathy with this element of government policy and regret in particular the shift away from governors representing the local community, including elected parent governors, to a governance structure which reflects the aims, aspirations and preferences of those running the foundations.
18 July 2006 : Column 1173
We also seek further assurances from the Minister about the role of Building Schools for the Future. When I asked in Committee last week whether they would be using Building Schools for the Future as a lever to encourage schools to become foundation schools and to require them if they were to participate in the programme to become foundation schools, the Minister said very firmly that that was not the case and that there was no intention to use that programme in order to push schools into foundation status. I should be grateful if the Minister would reiterate that statement because it is an important one.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 argue a similar cause. In arguing the case about closures and the need for consultation, I quoted previously the Ofsted report of October 2003, The influence of school place planning on school standards and social inclusion. I do not wish to repeat what I read out previously. In particular, the report warned that allowing popular schools to expand to meet parental demand risks sending an already struggling school into a spiral of decline. Perhaps I may repeat the warning contained in the report: losing a school does not enhance a community. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 provide that, when expansion is considered, the overall provision of education within the community as a whole should be considered, not just the narrow interests of the particular school or one section of the community. Clause 1 puts the duty on LEAs to promote fair access to educational opportunity and to enable every child to fulfil their educational potential. Yet allowing a free-for-all expansion of popular schools, allowing other schools to wither on the vine, does not necessarily promote fair access and can result in the most disadvantaged being even more disadvantaged. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 ask, therefore, that when proposals for expansion are being considered, the impact of that expansion on the overall provision of education by the LEA as a whole and by other schools in the area is taken into account.
There are two important aspects regarding further education colleges: the provision of specialist vocational courses for 14 to 16 year-olds; but also for 16 onwards. Those further education colleges often provide a vital facility. Schools do not have the specialist facilities to provide vocational courses such as construction or hairdressing. It is important—I know that the Government are sympathetic to this—that where schools want to provide such specialist courses they should seek to collaborate with the further education colleges rather than seek to duplicate the facilities. Two sinks stuck in the corner of a domestic science room and the taking on of a part-time hairdresser are not enough to offer a course in hairdressing. It is important that those children are trained using the good facilities which often exist at further education colleges.
Many who move from
school to further education colleges do so because they have not
enjoyed school. What is surprising is how often they speak highly of
the courses they study at the further education colleges where they
retake their GCSEs, study for A-level and often do surprisingly well.
In that sense, further education colleges are a very important
second-chance saloon
18 July 2006 : Column 1174
- “At present,
statutory guidance specifies that among those who must be consulted are
other local authorities and other schools who may be affected by the
proposals, parents and teachers in the area, local dioceses or national
faith groups, the Learning and Skills Council and any other interested
party, for example the early years development and child care
partnership when the proposals affect early years
provision”.
- “argument
that FE colleges in the area would have an interest and would therefore
need to be consulted. To put that beyond dispute, I am happy to give
the Committee an assurance that statutory guidance on consultation for
new schools and additions to existing schools under the Bill will
specifically include FE colleges in the area as well as schools and the
Learning and Skills Council. I hope the hon. Lady finds that assurance
satisfactory”.—[Official Report, Commons Standing
Committee E, 25/4/06; cols.
373-4.]
Will the Minister confirm that any expansion plans will be considered within the overall context and implications for the community? Secondly, will he specifically confirm that consultation with FE and sixth-form colleges will be included within the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, I simply add my voice in support of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. The discontinuation of a special school is, in many ways, a very special case. Parents of children with special educational needs often put great weight on their relationship with the school and put a great deal of work into trying to make that school and their child meet one another’s needs. While it may well be possible that the Bill will deal with the issue of consulting parents, I see no real reason why it should not say so. It would obviously be satisfactory and on the whole comforting to parents if it did.
Amendment No. 86 requires the Secretary of State to give reasons. I can think of no other case where there is a stronger argument for reasons being given by the Secretary of State to explain why a special school is being discontinued. In almost every case this causes great concern and upheaval to the parents and the children. Therefore, the fact that it is a central government responsibility of the Secretary of State more than proves that in most cases the Secretary of State is required to consider the issue very carefully and should give full reasons for the action he is taking. I hope therefore that on this non-party contentious issue the Minister will consider whether he can accept these amendments.
18 July 2006 : Column 1175
Baroness Buscombe: I support AmendmentsNos. 85 and 86. We recognise that the SEN amendments would go hand in hand with the measures introduced in Amendment No. 84 which would ensure that no special school could be closed unless there are enough places of sufficient quality to cater for the needs of those children that would be displaced. I will be interested to hear what proposals, and I hope reassurances, the Minister has to offer for the future of special schools in this country.
We are coming to a watershed in the debate on special educational needs provision, and I look forward to a fuller debate on the matter in next week's Committee debates. In the mean time, I hope the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Government have instigated a reaction to the Cambridge University report, mentioned by myself and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, last week, and the Select Committee report released last week.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102. Amendment No. 90 would explicitly include,
- “the
enlargement of premises and the establishment of provision suitable for
the requirements of pupils over compulsory school
age”
Amendment No. 93 prevents the expansion of schools where this would prevent a local authority or school carrying out a statutory duty or function. That seems to be slightly contradictory to AmendmentNo. 90, unless it was intended that Amendment No. 90 would make clear that such proposals were not completely prohibited.
Amendment No. 102 would prevent the approval of certain proposals involving school expansion. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as Amendment No. 93 would already prohibit such proposals being carried out. Subsection (2) ofClause 20 lists a number of provisions that may be made by regulation. None of them allows for proposals to be automatically forbidden. It would also be totally up to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether such provision was made.
The amendments seem to be based on the assumption that schools expand at the expense of other schools. We need to examine why schools expand in the first place. Surely it is because parents demand the best education possible for their children. At present too many schools do not offer this. Choice is a vitally important lever for raising standards in failing schools because head teachers and governors will realise that if they do not improve the quality of education, parents will be able to go elsewhere. These amendments would undermine that choice. They would allow local authorities to block the expansion of popular and oversubscribed schools and, by extension, result in more pupils attending undersubscribed failing schools.
18 July 2006 : Column 1176
The Prime Minister has said that,
- “you cannot say
that good schools are unable to expand simply because you have got
surplus places elsewhere when the surplus places elsewhere may be in a
school that is not up to
standard”.
Lord Adonis: Some perfectly legitimate issues have been raised in the debate, and I hope that I can provide the reassurances that have been sought.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 seek to give local authorities the freedom to establish community schools if they are formed by the merger of any two or more primary schools which the authority proposes to discontinue. Local authorities may seek to publish proposals outside a competition under Clause 10. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the merger of a junior and an infant school into a single school is exactly the sort of situation where such consent may be granted under Clause 10. I should apologise to her and to other noble Lords as my honourable friend Jim Knight’s letter on this issue should have referred to Clause 10—proposals outside competitions with the consent of the Secretary of State—and not to Clause 11, which covers special cases where a competition is never required; for example, nursery schools.
Amendment No. 82 would extend the additional requirements in respect of rural primary schools, which was added to the present arrangements by an amendment to the Education Act 2005 made by this House. It would extend those present arrangements to all schools. The Government recognise, not least under the influence of your Lordships, which was very plainly felt in a government defeat, the particular importance of rural schools to their communities, and we support and encourage their preservation unless there are strong educational grounds for closure. This is why we already have a presumption against the closure of rural schools in statutory guidance to those who decide school organisation proposals. In addition, we have the provisions in the Education Act 2005 which the House inserted as factors that must be taken into account before any decision can be made.
Those considering making proposals to close any school will look at a range of factors, including those set out for rural schools in the 2005 Act—the impact on standards, pupil number forecasts, the pattern of parental demand and levels of diversity—in addition to the factors set out in Clause 15. The body that takes the final decision on such proposals will expect to see hard evidence and well reasoned arguments for closure on these and a range of other grounds.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 to
Clause 17. I should make it clear that Clause 17 re-enacts provisions
giving the Secretary of State the power to direct a local authority to
close a maintained special school on a particular date when—and
I stress this point—it is considered that it is in the interests
of the health, safety or welfare of the children. I entirely
18 July 2006 : Column 1177
Clause 17, even in these limited cases where there are particularly vulnerable pupils at risk and closure is in the interests of the health, safety and welfare of the children, allows for consultation with,
We would expect that to include parents of children attending the school, as indicated in the amendment. We believe it is covered, and I have made it clear for the record how the Secretary of State would behave in those circumstances.6.30 pm
We do not believe that publishing statutory proposals for the closure of schools under the clause would be appropriate, because emergency action may be needed very quickly, and the normal length and scope of consultation may not be appropriate because of the particular health and welfare issues at stake when the Secretary of State decides to proceed to closure. However, the clause already requires the Secretary of State to give notice of the direction in writing to the governing body and head teacher of the school. Before issuing a direction, not only should the interested parties be consulted, as I have said, but a letter giving the direction should clearly set out the reasons for that direction. I believe that answers the other points made by the two noble Baronesses.
On Amendment No. 90, on post-16 provision, Clause 18 already specifies that the prescribed alterations permissible under it may include alterations of any nature except those listed in subsection (4). They do not include the enlargement or the addition of a sixth form. Subsection (3) says that prescribed alterations may include anything that is not ruled out by subsection (4). Therefore, the objective, which the noble Baroness seeks to achieve, is met by the clause.
Furthermore, the illustrative regulations made available to the Committee specify in Schedules 2 and 4 that alterations such as the introduction or expansion of sixth-form provision are among those for which proposals must be published. Enlargements and the addition of sixth forms are significant changes to school organisation for which consultation and the publication of statutory proposals have long been required. This will continue, and it will include consultation with the consultees whom the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, listed.
Amendments Nos. 93 and
102 would, in effect, make it impossible for a school to expand unless
that expansion was endorsed by the local authority. I do not want to
get into the underlying issue of whether it is a good or a bad thing
for schools to expand, but I simply want to make it clear—I
think this meets the noble Baroness’s point—that local
authorities already play, and will continue to play, a decisive part in
18 July 2006 : Column 1178
However, we do not believe that a school should be required to have the consent of a local authority before it can submit expansion proposals. That would negate our intention to give schools the capacity to expand appropriately to meet the needs of pupils and parents. We think that schools, including community schools, to which the noble Baroness referred, should be able to submit proposals to expand. Any category of school may publish proposals to expand and to add sixth-form provision. The local authority then decides but, in a dispute between a school and the local authority, the school may in prescribed circumstances appeal to the adjudicator when proposals are turned down by the local authority.
I hope that responds to the points made by the noble Baroness to her satisfaction.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that and for his reassurances on quite a number of the issues that I raised. I am particularly pleased to have received clarification of the merger of the infant and the junior schools, because it is good that schools know that they do not have to go through a lengthy competition in those circumstances.
I have one more question to ask the Minister. My Amendment No. 90 was a purely probing amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to take it at face value, but it was intended simply to be probing, because it was not totally clear whether physical alterations were included. Am I right that Clause 18(2) means that if a community school submits a proposal to expand its sixth form, any such alteration must involve “one ... of the following” alterations in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)? That would imply that it has to become a foundation school.
Lord Adonis: The complexity of Clause 18 eludes me at the moment. I will respond to the noble Baroness afterwards. The problem is how the clause relates to the other clauses that also give other powers to other schools to publish proposals. The fundamental point is whether all categories of schools can publish proposals to expand post-16 provision. The answer is yes, they can, and they must be subject to statutory consultation.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should also say that I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about the closure of special schools. He makes it very clear that there will be an explanation of why a special school is being closed and that the pupils will be consulted if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
18 July 2006 : Column 1179
Baroness Massey of Darwen moved Amendment No. 81:
- (1) No proposals may be published under
this Part or any other enactment for the establishment of a foundation
or voluntary school of a religious character.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 81, I shall speak to Amendment No. 205 in my name and in that of other noble Lords.
During our consideration of the Bill, we have heard some truly inspiring speeches from all sides of the Committee and, indeed, from the Minister on what constitutes education. Members of the Committee have talked about reaching academic and sporting potential, about children with special needs, about learning social skills, about a positive ethos, about developing creativity, and about education being a force for social good.
I do not consider any of these qualities necessarily to be brought about by faith schools. I have tabled the amendment because I know that there are concerns on all sides of your Lordships’ House about the potential expansion of the number of faith schools under the umbrella of foundation schools. I am a humanist and an associate of the National Secular Society, so it is obvious where I am coming from. However, other noble Lords do not share this stance and will have other things to say. I believe that those of us who are concerned share a similar view; an expansion of faith schools could divide communities when we should be trying to unite and integrate them. Reports on Bradford and Burnley from the noble Lords, Lord Ouseley and Lord Clarke of Hampstead, respectively, pointed out forcefully the need for young people to feel more integrated. Lord Ouseley’s report states:
more cultural and social interaction—- “to
overcome the negativity they feel is blighting their young lives and
leaving them ignorant of other cultures and
lifestyles”.
What about the parents? My school governing body has parents of three different faiths, which is of enormous benefit to the school. Parents of different cultures organise, contribute to and mix at social events. They benefit, the children benefit and the school benefits. I understand the historical reasons for faith schools, which was admirably described by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in her speech on Second Reading. However, that was then and this is now, where we are.
18 July 2006 : Column 1180
Why should we worry that foundation schools will increase the number of faith schools? Non-religious schools have been closing to reopen as faith schools. Eight—one in three—of the new academies are controlled by religious interests; three of them replaced non-religious schools. This expansion represents a huge public subsidy. I hope tonight for clarification on the right reverend Prelates’ Amendment No. 128, on the dispersal of land, and how that will work. It is very worrying that the expansion of religious schools may well decrease job opportunities for non-religious professionals. I would seek clarification from the Minister on the right reverend Prelates’ Amendment No. 129. What is taught in religious education may not be broad and balanced, and admissions may be carried out on the basis of religion. I am told that faith schools get good academic results. Any selective school gets good academic results. A study by the think tank Iris in 2005 showed that many faith schools take in pupils whose family circumstances are very different from the neighbourhoods in which they live. One school, with only 10 per cent of children receiving free school meals, was in a postcode area with more than 45 per cent on free school meals. One faith school had much vaunted GCSE results. In fact, this relied on small class sizes and only six pupils taking GCSE. I am told that faith schools increase parental choice. Choice is rarely possible in small communities. In larger ones choice is often at the expense of others. Faith schools choose their pupils and proliferation of such schools will decrease choice for other parents unless they are prepared to join, or pretend to join, a religion.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |