Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, the noble Baroness ranged widely over the whole of—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I was not quite sure if I ought to speak before him or not.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am so sorry.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I would like to add my voice to the prayer that my noble friend has put to the House. I would like to consider the three regulations in the order that they appear on the Order Paper: 2005/1730, 2005/1731 and then 2005/1801.

The first regulation relates to governing bodies of secondary schools, and proposes that there should be an ability to appoint up to four sponsor governors, instead of two, to such governing bodies. The sponsor governors might come from local companies that, for example, have put up money for the school to become a specialist secondary school, or they may just come from other local bodies that sponsor the school in
 
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1252
 
some way, by providing gifts either in finance or in kind. I assume that this regulation holds in spite of yesterday's White Paper, and will go forward.

Under the 2003 school governance regulations, strict limits were put on the number of LEA governors. Indeed, as the Minister undoubtedly knows, there is a table of permutations as to the number of governors allowed in different categories. It limits it, in most cases, to two LEA governors on any school board. Why is it proposed, therefore, when the LEA is funding the school—frequently to the tune of well over £1 million a year—that someone who, perhaps, makes a gift of only £50,000 should have the right to four governors, whereas the LEA is limited to two? It seems disproportionate.

To some extent, this picks up a point I want to make about Statutory Instrument 2005/1731, which is concerned with fast-tracking the process by which community and voluntary controlled schools become foundation schools. The point that my noble friend has raised stands here. We are uncertain how far the whole regulation becomes redundant as a result of the proposal to establish trust schools. We would be glad if the Minister could elucidate that. Assuming that it does not become totally redundant—and even if it does, presumably there will be somewhat similar regulations—there is an issue of accountability, which my noble friend has not yet raised.

Under what I shall call the "old system" of local education authorities, the bulk of expenditure on local schools went through those authorities. A varying amount comes from central government, but a good deal of it comes from local taxpayers and went to local education authorities. What went on in local schools was the responsibility of those authorities. If people did not like what was being done in schools, then they had the right, at the ballot box during elections, to throw out those who represented that local education authority and to bring in others with other ideas on education. This process is what we would call democratic accountability.

The total schools' budget is £27 billion. I am well aware that a good deal of this comes from central government, not from local government. Nevertheless, a fair amount comes from the local taxpayer. Decisions about schools are not now taken by the local education authority or local councillors. Yes, there is a strategic role; we shall be looking at that in a moment. My noble friend has raised many issues about this proposed strategic role on the part of local education authorities. With the money that is being spent, there is perhaps a form of democratic accountability—through the local education authority appointing, as it does, governors to the governing board who are delegated representatives of the authority there. But who is responsible for the school's budget? Where does democratic accountability lie?

It is not at all clear that there is any democratic accountability left in these proposals. Foundation schools are allowed to spend their budget as they wish, and frequently no LEA governors are appointed to a foundation school board, so there is not even delegated responsibility.
 
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1253
 

Is the Minister proposing—I am extending the White Paper forward here—that the Government should do away completely with the role of local education authorities? Is he saying that the budget should be taken on entirely by central government and therefore accountability should no longer be through local education authorities and through the local ballot box but directly to the Secretary of State? Is he saying that the only democratic accountability we should have is through casting our votes in the general election? That is logically where we are heading; is that what is proposed? Is it proposed that in effect in local education there is no longer to be any local democratic accountability for expenditure at that level?

That was one of the issues raised under the consultation. I shall pick up three other points that were raised during the consultation process on the proposals last year, which the DfES has decided do not merit consideration. First, what is the conflict between the five-year strategy plans for collaboration and the proposals for foundation schools? That came out in the consultation. How is it possible on the one hand to encourage schools to collaborate, which is required under the five-year strategy, while on the other hand setting schools as independent under foundation status? Once they have foundation status they tend to compete with each other rather than collaborate. It is hardly the best way to encourage collaboration.

Secondly, there is the issue of parent-governors in foundation schools and academies. I recognise that they are not considered under the regulations, but they have fewer elected parent-governors than community schools. How does that mesh with the Government's policies for increased parental influence?

Finally, but by no means least, there is the vexed question of admissions. The White Paper issued yesterday talks about fair admissions, but the Minister was not at all explicit in his response on the White Paper about what is meant by fair admissions. A foundation status school is its own admissions authority. It is suggested that we might move to some system of banding, but the Minister will recognise that one school banding its own admissions is of very little value indeed. Banding has to be set across a number of schools. Is that what is suggested for admissions?

I pose all those questions to the Minister on the regulations because although they may be superseded they are nevertheless very real questions that will arise in the future in relation to some of the proposals that we heard yesterday.

I shall briefly mention the expansion of popular schools. I reiterate the points made by my noble friend about the difficulty of the LEA maintaining a strategic role if the important decisions are taken by the school. What does one mean by a "strategic role" for a local education authority? Presumably the key issue on the strategic roles is expansion and contraction of schools and whether you need to provide extra places. Broadly speaking, you plan, you look at the changes in demography in an area and the LEA takes a strategic view on whether new schools are wanted. I recognise
 
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1254
 
that in its new role as a commissioner the LEA will be encouraging providers to come along and provide new schools if they need them. But if an individual school has the right to expand its capacity without any consultation with the LEA because it is a successful, expanding school, how is that reconciled with any kind of strategic role on the part of the local education authority? How can it be considered a strategic role? Does it not run a coach and horses through the concept of a strategic role?

On the other side, there is the issue of closures. It is not fair on the children to allow schools to wither on the vine. Closures must be managed, and yet the proposals being put forward here would allow a successful school to expand and others just to wither away. That means that some pupils will be left in schools that are withering away, where teachers are departing, and where they are left with supply teachers all the time. Rightly, the teachers concerned will recognise that the school is unlikely to have a long-term existence and that it would sensible to quit that school. We must put the welfare of our children at the forefront. Is the Minister not concerned about that? All the respondents to the consultation from local government to local education authorities and schools organisation committees were concerned about the need to have some kind of management in the system, in so far as you are going to allow a free-for-all on expansion.

Finally, who will pay for this? Where is it proposed that there should be expansion, does the local education authority have to find the capital sums concerned? If so, what chance is there of the local authority keeping control over its own budget? None of these issues have been answered, and the DfES rode roughshod over them in the consultation process. Why is the DfES so arrogant on these matters?


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page