Education and Inspections Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 April 2006.

Standing Committee E

Clause 9

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (1).

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out

‘with the consent of the Secretary of State'.

No. 28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line 37.

No. 77, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the publication of proposals under subsection (1) for the establishment of a community or community special school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that the establishment of such a school would lead to substantially better academic results than would be the case for a foundation or foundation special school.'.

No. 181, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 1(a) 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.'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Subsection (1) of the clause provides that:

“A local education authority in England may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish...proposals to establish”

a new school otherwise than under clause 7—that is, without a competition or having regard to the other clause 7 provisions that apply to competitions.

Clause 9 is a repetition of section 65 of the Education Act 2005, which is more of a safety valve than a section of real substance or importance. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the objective of section 65 is:

“To promote diversity by extending the requirement for secondary school competitions so that competitions are held whenever a new school is proposed unless the Secretary of State decides that a competition is not required in an individual case.”

The section therefore dealt with individual cases and was intended to cover unforeseen exceptions.

The Bill repeals section 65 of the 2005 Act and replaces it with clause 9, which is simply an updated version of section 65, but which relates to primary schools as well as secondary schools. The regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill confirms that point in paragraph 5.20, stating that:

“The requirement on local authorities to seek the prior consent of the”

Secretary of State

“to propose new community schools is therefore intended to apply only in exceptional circumstances. Similar provisions already exist where the Secretary of State gives consent for the publication of proposals for new schools outside competitions. The purpose of requiring local authorities and others to seek consent is to ensure that there is greater contestability and that local people have the opportunity to consider a range of proposals from different providers when new schools are to be established.”

That paragraph refers to clause 7 as well as clause 9, but it is clear that clause 9 is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances because the aim of the Bill is to ensure greater contestability when new schools are being proposed.

We agree with that aim, and the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to promote that purpose further. If subsection (1) were removed, local authorities would lose the right to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to establish a new school without going through a competition; clause 9 would apply only to non-local authority proposers of new schools. The amendment would thus make the Bill even stronger and move it further in the direction set out by the Government.

In fact, paragraph 5.17 of the regulatory impact assessment states:

“Under the extensions proposed in the WP, there might be around 100 competitions a year”

under clause 7, but

“This would depend on the frequency with which the Secretary of State exercised her powers to allow proposals for new schools outside a competition.”

I am not necessarily against the Secretary of State using such powers, but it would be helpful if the Minister set out the circumstances in which she envisages those powers being exercised.

Amendment No. 28 is a variation on the theme of amendment No. 29, but instead of removing the whole of subsection (1), it would remove only paragraph (a), which refers to local authorities that wish to establish a new community school. The right of a local authority to establish a new foundation school outside of a competition, with the permission of the Secretary of State, would remain. Again, the amendment would help to achieve the Government’s objective of achieving more diversity of provision.

Amendment No. 77 essentially is the same as the amendment that we tabled in relation to clause 7. It sets out the fall-back position that if the Secretary of State decides not to exercise her veto, the criteria for permitting a local authority to establish another community school will be confined strictly to cases in which there is clear evidence that such a school would achieve better academic results than a foundation school.

I turn to amendment No. 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her colleagues, and amendment No. 181, tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Amendment No. 67 is superficially similar to the amendment that the Liberals tabled to clause 7, in that it would remove the need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if a local authority wishes to establish a new community school. I say “superficially” because, although the amendment is worded similarly to the previous amendment, when applied to clause 9 it would provide local authorities with much greater powers than they have now. It would allow a local authority to set up any type of school without going through the competition process set out in clause 7. I am not sure whether that is what the Liberals intended, but it would take us back to the position before the Education Act 2002. We will therefore oppose the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Amendment No. 181 would require the Secretary of State to consent to proposals to establish a new community school if there was parental support. In their response to the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the White Paper, the Government said:

“Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school that will command the support of parents, the Secretary of State will not normally intervene.”

The purpose of the amendment is presumably to put that commitment into the Bill, but it would do so without the important caveat that the local authority must have a good track record in education. I guess that the hon. Member for Bury, North does not care about that point and is happy for local authorities with a poor track record to continue to establish new schools on the same basis.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

That remark is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He argued last week that the essence of amendments that I had tabled was little different from the spirit of his amendment that provided for new schools of a particular kind to be established on the vote of a specified number of parents. I assert the importance of the parental voice for one purpose and he asserts it in a different way for a similar purpose, so I do not think that he can argue that he is concerned about standards and I am not.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but his amendment, No. 181, relates to local authorities, not to the wider range of proposers to which our amendments referred, and he has specifically omitted from the amendment any reference to the track record of a local authority, which is important in relation to allowing authorities to establish schools outside a competition.

It is important to remind the Committee of another comment in the Government’s response to the Select Committee. The Government stated:

“It is important that local authorities seriously consider all alternatives to secure the best education for their community, however, and do not just promote local authority community schools as the default option.”

In their application to clause 9, amendments Nos. 181 and 67 would create the same problem: they would allow local authorities to bypass a competition under clause 7, which would undermine the principle that local authorities should consider all alternatives to secure the best possible education for their community, not just promote local authority community schools. As such, if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment, we will oppose it.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

We accept that the clause is intended only to apply in special circumstances, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister what those circumstances will be.

Amendment No. 67 is not intended to allow local authorities to get around the need for a competition. However, clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to get around that need. Our argument is that even in those special circumstances, the local authority is best placed to decide what is most appropriate for its area. We made that argument on clause 7 and I do not intend to rehearse at great length points that I have already made in Committee, except to say that we believe that the proper place for strategic planning of education is within the local authority. It is the elected tier of government that is closest to the decisions that have to be made and closest to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions.

Localism depends on a willingness to let go. It is true that the implications of our policy are that in certain areas a Labour council or a Conservative council might make decisions with which we disagree. We accept that. That is the nature of localism. If we disagree, we will campaign on a local level to remove that local council. That is what democracy is all about. We believe that even in special circumstances—I hope that the Minister will elucidate those—it is still for the local authority to make the decisions on what schools best fit the local area.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 181. In one sense we are repeating the arguments that we went through on an earlier clause. It is important that parents have a voice in the decision, but that voice should not be used in a systematic way to allow a small and unrepresentative group of parents to undermine the broader democratic processes. That is why my amendment does not specify a minimum number of parents, but allows for the numbers of parents and the categories of parents to be specified in regulations.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that there was no reference to the quality of the local education authority, but there is not always a direct relationship between the quality and the performance of the local education authority and the quality and the performance of individual schools within that authority. If there were such a direct relationship life would be much simpler, but there are many schools of outstanding quality within local education authorities with poor performance ratings, and vice versa.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

To pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman made just before he came on to that point, he stated proudly that his amendment does not specify the number of parents that would be required to demonstrate support and that that would be specified in regulations. Does he not feel that as an elected Member of Parliament he should have a say in what the Government would propose in those regulations, and does he have a view that he can express now?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

No, I honestly do not feel qualified to decide whether 20, 30 or 40 per cent. or 50, 70 or 90 parents is the right threshold. The matter needs more consideration, which is why it is more appropriate for secondary legislation.

On the question of the quality threshold of the local authority, my amendment has the advantage that by allowing for further consideration to be given to the exact number and category of parents who would be able to exercise their voice in this way, we can reasonably and safely assume that if a large group of parents were overwhelmingly in favour of a new community school, it would reflect very effectively the quality of that LEA. If parents had no confidence in the performance of their LEA, presumably they would not sign up to the cause of a new community school. That is an important point. We have to trust the judgment of parents. In one sense it is rather patronising to assume that parents would sign up for the cause of new community school without any knowledge of the quality of their local education authority. Parents have a better gut instinct of the quality of what is going on locally than the hon. Gentleman perhaps gives them credit for.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have had a short but good discussion on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton ably spelt out the intentions behind clause 9, so I will not go over that again.

Amendment No. 29 would prevent a local authority from proposing to establish any new schools outside a competition. As we discussed in relation to clause 7, we have introduced competitions to create and promote diversity and choice within the education system, and in particular to provide an environment within which new promoters will be able to propose the establishment of new schools. However, there are circumstances—exceptional circumstances; the hon. Gentleman is right about that—in which a competition might not be appropriate. In effect, clause 7 is the default position for proposals for new and reorganised schools, but clause 9 provides some flexibility to allow a local authority or promoter to propose the establishment of a new school without the need for a competition.

Hon. Members have asked me to outline some of the limited circumstances in which that might be appropriate. If a school was failing, the local partners, in concert with expert advisers, might decide that the best way forward would be a collaborative restart of the school with a particular character and ethos; that would need to happen quickly and there would have to be a consensus on how to deal with that example of failure. As for primary schools, a junior and an infant school sharing a single site might want to amalgamate to form an all-through primary; we do not think that a competition would necessarily make sense in those circumstances. I shall give other examples when I discuss some of the other amendments.

Of course, in deciding whether to consent to proposals outside a competition, the Secretary of State will take into account the local authority’s track record on educational performance, the existing degree of diversity in the school system and parental preference and the views expressed by parents in the area. Also, any proposals by the local authority, whether for a foundation school or a new community school, would be decided in such circumstances by the schools adjudicator. There would be another stage to complete following the Secretary of State’s consent to the publication of proposals outside a competition: that stage would consist of consultation, the publication of proposals and the making of a decision, similar to the process that have already discussed.

In those circumstances it is appropriate for the schools adjudicator to be the decision maker, because it is important to avoid any question of the authority’s being judge and jury in its own case. If the Secretary of State agrees, however, we think it right that a local authority should be able to publish proposals for a new community or foundation school. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise the sense of that in certain circumstances, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 67 would enable local authorities to make proposals outside competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State. As we have heard, the arguments are very similar to those that we rehearsed at length under clause 7 about allowing proposals for new community schools to be made within competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State.

To reiterate some of the points that I made then, the argument is not about centralisation or localisation, but about the direction in which we want to move the local authority’s role and the nature of the dynamic that we want to create in the school system. We are not opposed to local education authorities. We are strengthening their role as the champions of parents and in assuring the quality of provision in an area. However, that is a modernised role as commissioners of services, rather than as direct providers.

As I suggested earlier, it is important that we do not, as the amendment would, allow local authorities to sidetrack competitions. We made it clear in the White Paper that we think that competitions will normally be the best way to encourage diversity in the system. If the system is to be open to new ideas and to innovation by new providers, potential providers should have the necessary information about opportunities for new schools and should be encouraged to make proposals for local people to consider. That is how we are most likely to get a diverse range of schools, which will increase not only the choice for parents and pupils, but the chance that schools will learn from each other. Clause 9, like clause 7, represents the right balance between encouraging a diverse and dynamic system and allowing proposals outside a competition when that makes sense.

Amendment No. 28 would remove the ability of a local authority to propose a community school outside a competition. We had a lengthy discussion last week about what we said in the White Paper and the fact that we considered that there might be circumstances in which it would make sense for a local authority to promote a community school either under the clause 7 arrangements or, in certain circumstances, outside a competition.

In circumstances in which the Secretary of State agrees that a community school might be the right option, a local authority should be able to publish proposals for that community school or a community special school. As I have said, the normal route would be to hold a competition under clause 7 and the local authority would propose a new community school as part of that competition. The decision will be made according to criteria that, as I have said, wewill produce on Report. However, in exceptional circumstances, a local authority should be able to make the case for proposing a community school without a competition. I gave the example of the collaborative restart idea in the case of failure. It seems to be appropriate for that option to be available, with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 77 would limit the Secretary of State’s power to agree to allow a local authority to publish proposals for a new community school outside a competition unless the authority can provide evidence that the establishment of such a school would lead to better results. Without going over old ground, I have made it clear that we think that the circumstances in which we agree to a school being established without competition will be limited. I have already given the example of a failing school that is to be replaced by an agreed collaborative restart.

Another example, which would not directly meet the criteria outlined by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton but which I think he might think would be appropriate, would be if denominational schools in an area were being reorganised and it was proposed that the replacement school or schools be of the same denomination. In such a case, we would not be talking directly about a standards test. However,if, say, two Roman Catholic schools were being reorganised because of falling rolls, it would be appropriate to propose one Roman Catholic school to replace them. That would seem to be an appropriate circumstance in which to make a proposal outside a competition.

It was our intention in the White Paper to say that new community schools should not be able to be established in any circumstances, but we listened to representations from hon. Members, local authorities and others, and agreed that there are circumstances in which a community school might be the right option. Also, as I have suggested, it might be appropriate to allow proposals outside a competition even in circumstances in which there is not, as the amendment suggests, a clear standards case. It is important to allow freedom to consider all the factors in each case—the process should not be purely mechanistic.

The amendment is narrow and could lead to arguments and counter-arguments about the respective merits of different categories of schools, whereas what we want is the best school for each area—one that meets the specific needs of local parents and of the community. Of course, as I said, even if the Secretary of State agrees that proposals can be published, the final decision will be for the schools adjudicator, who will naturally consider the impact on local standards and circumstances. If the proposals do not provide hard evidence that a school will make a positive contribution to local standards, to community needs, and to parental choice, I expect that the proposals would be rejected. Consideration of standards is therefore included in the process for publication of proposals, so I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton agrees that there may well be circumstances that would not fit into his proposals. Our priority is to secure high standards, but we also need to be free to judge each case on its own merits.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, we had a similar discussion on the role of parents in relation to clause 7 as we have had on amendmentNo. 181, so I shall not rehearse the arguments in detail, because our position is well known. We strongly support the role of parents and we have made specific provision in the Bill to strengthen it. My hon. Friend is right to argue that that role should be developed in a systematic way that recognises the variety of different ways in which parents may make representations or express concerns. That is why, when we discussed clauses 2 and 3,which place new duties on local authorities to promote diversity and parental choice and to respond to specific representations from parents, we discussed the ways in which we would expect local authorities to respond and examined in detail the guidance published alongside those clauses—guidance that explained the action that we expect from local authorities.

If parents wanted a community or a foundation school that was being proposed by the authority, that would add weight to the arguments in favour, but it would not be the only or the decisive factor. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured about how seriously we take the need to consider parents’ requirements and by our recognition of the complexity involved in doing so. I hope that he will be willing not to press his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of her resistance to the amendments. She cited a suitably narrow range of examples of when the provisions of clause 9 would be needed by a local authority to establish a school outside of the competition arrangements of clause 7. That confirmed my understanding of the clause, that it is only to be used by local authorities in exceptional circumstances. She convinced me that the wording of amendment No. 29 may be unnecessarily wide, in that it would remove any possibility of a local authority establishing a school outside of the competition arrangements. The examples that she cited of when a local authority may wish to do that were valid.

However, I was unconvinced by her justification for not removing the ability of local authorities to establish a community school outside the competition arrangements. As with clause 7, I believe that that provision was inserted into clause 9 as a concession to Labour party rebels. Therefore, although I shall withdraw amendment No. 29, I shall move amendment No. 28 formally at the appropriate point.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The Minister argues that that the presence of the Secretary of State’s veto in the clause and elsewhere is not about centralisation, but that is precisely what it is about and I do not understand how she can conclude otherwise. The definition of centralisation is taking power away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can come to no other conclusion. It is like arguing that the world is flat when we know it is round, or that the sun is shining when it is raining. It is no good arguing that something is the case when it blatantly is not. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the clause is about the role of local authorities and what we consider it to be. We believe that their role should be to make decisions about their local area.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to sidetrack competition. If that is not what the right hon. Lady wanted, the clause should have been drafted differently. Our amendment provides that in the special circumstances when we do not want the competition rules to apply, the decision-making body would be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. That is a point of principle and we shall divide the Committee on amendment No. 67.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I will not press my amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, after ‘7)', insert ‘an academy,'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 41, leave out ‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘local education authority'.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The reason for tabling the amendment is based on arguments similar to those that I advanced earlier and in a previous sitting: even in the special circumstances in which an external body may come forward to publish proposals outside the remit of a competition, the body whose agreement must be sought should be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. The local authority is best placed to decide about the circumstances in an area, what criteria should be used to set up a school, and what kind of school it should be. The local authority should take that strategic role, as the Minister argued elsewhere.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Before I speak to amendment No. 30, I welcome you again to the Chair, Mr. Cook, as ever. Indeed, why not do so on a regular basis?

As the hon. Member for Brent, East rightly said, the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats reprises the argument that has run throughout the Committee between the different parties about the nature of the role of LEAs and the balance between that and the role of local communities and the Secretary of State.

Different views on the matter have emerged and I want to make it clear that we perceive a role for LEAs in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said at our last sitting. Had we not believed that, we could not reasonably have supported the Bill, because it perceives an ongoing role for LEAs. However, the Bill makes important changes to that role, and the hon. Lady’s amendment and her comments on it reflect earlier comments that show a difference between the Liberal Democrats’ perspective on the subject and that of the Opposition and the Government. Our views on education are not identical to those of the Government, but we are close to their position on the corresponding roles of LEAs and the Secretary of State because we appreciate that although local government is more than an agency of central Government, it is the creation of Parliament.

We do not have a federal system; we have a unitary constitution in which the power of local government is defined both by its legitimacy drawn from the people whom it represents and by the statutory powers vested in it by Parliament. The nature of central and local relations reflects that; there is always a balance to be struck between the proper considerations of Government—and, in this case, the educational considerations of the Secretary of State, who has a responsibility to ensure that schools are established properly and that they are fit for purpose—and the role of local authorities in determining the provision in their locale. Thus, I have doubts about the Liberal Democrats’ amendment.

Amendment No. 30 would insert the words “an academy” into the clause. The omission of the phrase is surprising, given that the White Paper states that the Government will

“continue to promote Academies as a key part of our system...tackling the acute challenges in areas of real and historical underperformance”.

We had a short debate about academies last week and the Minister waxed lyrical about their virtues. Of course it is true that the performance of academies has been patchy. Some have done well and some less well, but it would be wrong to exclude academies from this part of the Bill, as though they were no longer the pivotal element of the policy the Minister reaffirmed a few days ago in Committee.

Our amendment is consistent with the Government’s intention and our perspective. We do not, of course, make a blind judgment that all academies are working as well as they might, but we are anxious to give them a fair wind and to support the good work that is being done. They are founded on a proper consideration of the need to engage in educational renewal in areas of disadvantage. That deserves support—and, by the way, we should not let the other current debate, about the way they are resourced, colour our views on the relevant aspect of the Bill.

I resist the overtures that are being made once again by the Liberal Democrats to frustrate the intention of the Bill, by undermining the balance that I have described. It should not be for local authorities to grant consent for proposals to establish new schools. The best local authorities work for the people they serve, rather than dictating what is to be provided. The White Paper states:

“The best local authorities are strategic leaders of their communities, listening to, and then speaking for their citizens, demanding the very best for those who elected them and building cultural and civic identity. They work with neighbourhoods and local communities to help them articulate their needs, and ensure that the pattern of local services matches up to their vision and aspirations. They act as the commissioners of services and the champions of users.”

That is not a role to be underestimated. It is notan understatement of the significance of local government, but a reaffirmation of our belief in local government of a kind that can deliver the best by understanding when it should step forward and when it should step back so that others can step forward.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

With these amendments we are considering the circumstances set out in clause 9 in which promoters other than local authorities can make proposals for schools outside the competition provisions. In discussing the previous group of amendments we focused, on the whole, on the circumstances in which local authorities could make proposals outside those provisions. In that context, the impact of amendment No. 153 would be to enable local authorities to decide whether proposers other than local authorities could make proposals for new schools.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East, that our proposals would ensure that the Government could take powers to control the publication of proposals outside competitions. As I have said, that is precisely to ensure that competitions will be effective and will remain the default mechanism for presenting new proposals. I do not think that the hon. Lady’s motive in tabling the amendment is to help to promote competitions and diversity in the system.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the Minister comment on the duty on a local authority, which arose in an earlier clause, to provide diversity and choice? Does not that set a framework in which local decision making can take place?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It certainly does, and I hope and expect that local authorities will take that duty seriously. However, it is also appropriate for us to reinforce the structure that was put in place by the 2005 Act—that is effectively what the provisions do—to ensure, through competition proposals, that there is a process and a statutory framework that enables new providers to come forward.

Groups other than local authorities have always been able to make proposals for new schools; the large number of voluntary schools bears witness to that. Such providers have made a valuable contribution to education and will continue to do so. That is why we are introducing the trust school model and encouraging foundation schools of all kinds.

As we have made clear, we support competitions because they will encourage openness to innovation. A range of providers will be able to consider how they might make a contribution to education, and that will potentially increase the number of proposers. The danger in amendment No. 153 is that if proposals could be made without the consent of the Secretary of State, a local authority could avoid a competition by entering into a private arrangement to support the proposals of a particular provider, denying others the opportunity to have their proposals considered. That would not be in line with the intention behind the proposed programme: to open up and diversify the education system and give new providers opportunities to make a contribution. On that basis, we oppose amendment No. 153.

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

As I understand it, no competitions to find alternative providers have been held by local authorities since the 2002 Act. What does the Minister think will change after this Bill to encourage new providers to come forward and local authorities to hold competitions?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

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.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

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.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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.

Clause 10

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

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.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

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.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

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.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

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.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Get on with it!

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I never know whether the hon. Lady is more churlish than childish or more childish than churlish. She is certainly both. Nevertheless, shemade an important point about whether we see FE’s continuing role as duplicating the role that is performed in sixth form colleges and schools or whether, like Sir Andrew Foster, we believe that one of the problems that faces FE is the fact that because it does a large number of things, its purpose is insufficiently defined.

Sir Andrew Foster described in his report last year how FE’s identity is blurred by the fact that it is seen as doing different things by different people. He stated that teachers and learners in FE often have a blurred sense of the college’s purpose and that there may be some displacement of resource and attention because FE lacks focus.

There is a case to be made for FE focusing much more heavily on vocational skills and on upskilling and re-skilling the work force. There is a parallel but equally powerful case for FE picking up the whole “Skills for Life” agenda, in the way the Government elucidated after the Budget, in the new entitlements for people up to the age of 25, and doing less work that could be as usefully done elsewhere. I do not make a definitive judgment on that because I do not have a definitive view on it, but it certainly needs to be explored. It has direct relevance to this part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain his vision of what students might study if they are based at a school? Would that include only A-levels at school, and vocational studies at college? Does he not see that a particular student, based primarily at one institution, might study for a range of diplomas being developed by the Government?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is precisely the argument that we have been having about the breadth of opportunity available to young people, post-14 and post-16, and the need not only to review the curriculum, which is what the Government have done through the diplomas, but—in my judgment—to look more closely at the relationship between schools and FE institutions.

I have no prejudices about the idea of schools and FE institutions jointly designing, managing and even funding courses so that skills can be shared. Schools have a problem of providing sufficient resources and skills in order to offer the breadth of provision within their own compass that students might demand. Even schools, such as Gleed girls school in my constituency, that have gained vocational specialism have that problem. To do that, they need either to collaborate with other schools or to have a much closer working relationship with other institutions, such as colleges.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I remind the Committee of two things: first, the Chair is located at this end of the Room, and, secondly, comments are meant to be directed towards it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am sorry, Mr. Cook. I shall follow your advice with my usual diligence.

We learn from the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the purpose of the amendment is to discourage or inhibit the expansion of schools offering sixth-form provision because she discerns that that might be unhelpful to FE. As I said, my case is not prejudiced, but hypothetical. One might say that there is a direct counter-argument that it might be rather helpful to FE to refocus its energies away from what could be done through collaborative arrangements, but essentially around school education.

As I said, that is not a prejudiced or partisan matter, but it is one that needs to be debated in the context of the Bill and the amendments. If the hon. Lady’s vision, in which FE would continue much as it is now, is to be realised, we would be ignoring Sir Andrew Foster’s conclusions. I suspect that my view and that of the Minister are more similar to each other than either is to that of the Liberal Democrats.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate that he thinks that there is the possibility of collaboration so that an individual pupil might study academic and vocational subjects—in other words, a mix, which is the direction in which we are moving 14-to-19 provision? Does he not think therefore that FE institutions need to be consulted to see where they would fit into that collaboration?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, I think that that is one of the purposes of the provision, which is why I talkedabout collaboration, jointly designed, managed and implemented courses, and the possibility of joint institutions. For example, I have a school in my constituency—I shall not go into too much detail—that is hoping to develop a centre working with other schools to take advantage of the vocational specialism that it has acquired and to deliver precisely the range of products described by the hon. Lady.

Of course I am in favour of FE institutions and schools working together more closely so that they can offer the mix of which the hon. Lady is in favour. However, I am not sure that that kind of collaborative model can be squared with the view that began to emerge from those on the Liberal Front Bench—I accept that it was only a short speech on a particular amendment—which seemed to be rather hostile to the idea of encouraging school sixth forms and that model.

Unless we are prepared to rethink more radically how we provide post-16 education, both academic and vocational, we will not overcome the problems identified by Sir Andrew Foster, to which I draw the Committee’s attention. He argued that FE

“lacks a clearly recognised and shared core purpose.”

I think that he is right. FE colleges should develop specialisms in which they can excel. That happens increasingly in schools and has long happened in higher education. Of course higher education institutions provide a range of courses, but we all know that some have specialisms in which they have particular expertise and focus, and for which they have a reputation. Why should not that situation be reflected in colleges?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as he is quoting Sir Andrew Foster so favourably, he supports the Government’s White Paper, “Raising Skills and Improving Life Chances,” which implements 74 of the 80 Foster recommendations. We are implementing the other six in a different way. He cannot quote Foster only in support of FE colleges, but he can support the White Paper.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, the Government have got some of this right. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Under-Secretary’s personal commitment to the matter is undoubted. I know that he has given considerable attention to the Foster report, but the Government start from a difficult position on skills, because we have a skills crisis. No Government want to admit that, but it is clear from the interim Leach report—we expect the final report this summer to say nothing different—that the task is immense.

One of the dilemmas at the heart of the matter is the fact that the Government’s core skills entitlement for those up to the age of 25 might well further skew the resources and attention of FE away from upskilling and re-skilling the existing work force towards a second chance for those up to 25. I put that point to the Under-Secretary as he has challenged me on the matter.

One understands entirely why the Government want to give the entitlement, and I do not wish to question their intention or ignore the necessity of dealing with core skills, which are vital to the life chances of individuals and to national competitiveness. However, I worry about the impact that the policy might have on FE, which is already telling us that the Skills for Life campaign concentrates resources in a way that makes it even harder to get at the hardest to get at groups—older people, more disadvantaged people, existing workers or people outside the work force. That is my judgment, and that of some FE principals to whom I have spoken. I raise that caveat to my general words of praise of the Government and the Under-Secretary.

As I have said, we should be even more creative and imaginative in reconstructing the provision of skills training. We must be radical in breaking down the barriers between schools, colleges and employers, and we must look more closely at how courses are designed and how to implement vocational education. We must think much more laterally about such matters.

In meeting the parity of esteem challenge, we can borrow from accreditation practice in industry. We can draw on the best talents available in each sector and not be hidebound by the conventional structural barriers that can lead us to replicate and contradict some of what is done in vocational education.

I am not ignoring the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made about the need to consult FE and the important debate to be had about the role of school sixth forms and sixth-form colleges. I do not intend just to be adversarial, but I am just not sure that I agree with her about what FE colleges should be doing.

The hon. Lady makes an important point in that my argument is most applicable in places where it iseasy in practice to access the kind of mixed provision through collaboration that she advocates. That kind of provision is probably more straightforward to access if one lives in a conurbation or other area in which it is easier to get about than it might be in a rural area in which travel distances and the simple act of getting to the places where learning and resources are located make things more difficult. In rural areas, it is harder to construct a model around what I said in relation to Sir Andrew Foster. There, travel issues are a profound problem, particularly for younger learners. We shall say more about that when we consider transportation in the later parts of the Bill. The viability of post-16 provision because of numbers in sparsely populated areas—another matter that relates to the hon. Lady’s comments—also needs to be factored into our considerations, but perhaps that is a debate for another time.

It is right that we take full account of the important role of colleges, and that we understand the significance of vocational education in the mix of education that is to be provided, and which is affected by the Bill. It is right, too, that we make a judgment about how and from where we want that educationto be provided. However, I am not instinctively sympathetic to the amendments and nothing that I have heard has made me more so, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to them.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to register the fact that I am not a mind reader. Anybody who wants to catch my eye ought to stand erect. Greg Mulholland.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I hope that that was erect enough.

I hope that the Minister will agree that this is an important point, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings acknowledged that it is important to have the discussion. The Liberal Democrats agree that we need to focus on post-16 education and to improve what is on offer. That is why we have been consistently supportive of the Tomlinson agenda. I was a little concerned about the way in which the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings came across. He appeared not to acknowledge or even value the contribution of the FE sector and colleges to post-16 education. We are very aware of that on these Benches, and support it and I hope that the Government will echo my comments. Indeed, a recent Government survey of 27,000 businesses showed that 95 per cent. of employers approved of the trainingthat they receive from colleges. Together with the facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East set out, and despite the 10 per cent. funding gap that still exists between FE colleges and school sixth forms and the fact that there is no timetable or plan as to how that will be changed—

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about support for vocational education. How does he square that with his party’s opposition to a Bill that proposes 14 post-14 vocational diplomas?

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

As the hon. Lady well knows, that is not why we opposed that Bill. The point is collaboration. The word has been used in the Committee, but we are still not convinced that the necessary collaboration is occurring at local level to analyse the effect of the Bill on local education as a whole. It is precisely because of the need to improve post-16 education—a need that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings touched upon—that we support the extension to vocational education that the Government have proposed. The point of our amendment, however, is that post-16 education will be threatened unless its planning and implementation is examined as a whole at local level, along with the effects on different institutions.

All members of the Committee would agree that parents want good local education from the ages of five to 18 and 19. My party is certain that in proposing a new school, subject to the Secretary of State’s veto, local authorities will continue to work with the local FE sector, but I ask the Minister to assure us that that will be the case. The amendment acknowledges and reinforces the commitment of local authorities to the strategic planning of education, because we believe that that has been abandoned by both the Government and the Opposition.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Just to be clear, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: there is an immense amount of good work being done in FE colleges both by managers and teachers, and in no way do I underestimate that. My point was that we expect too much of FE. If we are not clear about what we want from FE it is a bit rich when we complain about what it provides. It does a good job and we need to give more strategic direction, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described, about what we want from the sector. We need local agreement and national clarity of purpose.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I am pleased to hear that acknowledgment, and I challenge the Minister to show that the Government have the same commitment. From their policy, it does not appear to our party that they have the interests of colleges uppermost. In general, we are not convinced that there is sufficient acknowledgment of the effect of decisions about new schools and new sixth forms on local provision in other schools. I ask the Minister to comment both from an FE perspective and generally, because the issue isthe Bill’s direction of travel—the atomisation of education, as Neil Kinnock put it, which my party wants to avoid.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Onlookers to this debate might have thought that clause 10, or even the amendments, were about the future of education for 14 to 19-year-olds, or the collaborative role of FE colleges, but they are not—although those are important issues that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss when we reach clauses 61 and 62 and clause 149, which makes new provision for schools and FE colleges to be able to collaborate. I shall therefore focus my comments on the clause and the amendments.

The clause relates to special cases that are outside the competition provisions of clause 7 and the provisions of clause 9 whereby proposals may be made for new schools. One category of such proposals indeed relates to schools for 16 to 19-year-olds. However, the provision largely replicates an existing one and allows local authorities and others to publish proposals for foundation or voluntary schools that cater only for pupils above compulsory school age.

Although the proposals would be brought forward outside competition—the context is that therewould usually be a competition arranged by the Learning and Skills Council for significant new 16-to-19 provision—it would be non-statutory as opposed to the statutory competition process that we discussed in clause 7. It would be followed by the publication of proposals in the usual way. Capital funding for 16-to-19 provision is provided through the 16-to-19 capital fund, which is also administered by the Learning and Skills Council.

As the hon. Member for Brent, East made clear, the impetus for the amendments to the consultation provisions in the clause is that FE institutions should be consulted before new 16-to-19 schools or new sixth forms are proposed, and that in deciding proposals for new 16-to-19 provision, their effect on the existing provision should be taken into account.

I have no problem with those requirements. We agree that all those with an interest in proposals for new provisions should be consulted and that decision makers need to consider the effect of proposals on existing provision. Decision makers would not be doing their job properly if they did not consider all the relevant factors.

There is a technical problem with the amendments in that it is not necessary to put the requirements in the Bill. These matters are usually handled as they are in the clause as drafted, with a requirement to consult such persons as appear appropriate, having regard to statutory guidance from the Secretary of State.

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.

I accept the hon. Lady’s 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.

Similar considerations apply to statutory guidance to decision makers on the factors that they will need to take into account in deciding proposals for new schools or additional provision at existing schools. Paragraph 8(6) of schedule 2 states that when deciding whether to give approval to proposals for new schools

“the local education authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”

Paragraph 17(1)(b) applies that provision to the adjudicator.

In respect of new provision at existing schools, clause 19(6) provides that regulations may require decision makers to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State. Existing guidance specifically states that in deciding proposals for new schools and new sixth forms, the decision maker must take into account the views of other schools and colleges in the area, as well as the views of the Learning and Skills Council.

I am happy to assure members of the Committee that new guidance under the Bill will carry these provisions forward and that the views of FE colleges in the area will be taken into account by those deciding on proposals. I hope that hon. Members will consider my proposals sufficient to meet their concerns and will agree not to press their amendments to a Division.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I want to thank the Minister for her tremendously helpful clarification and for putting those points on the record. We are extremely grateful to her for dealing with our amendments in the spirit in which they were tabled, in contrast to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who made another very long speech setting up a straw man to knock down, trying to find divisions between the parties when in truth we are pretty much in agreement on pretty much the same things. I thank the Minister for saying, on the record, what will be in the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 11

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to say a few words about the issue of federated schools. The purpose of the clause appears to be to enable the provisions on federated schools in the Education Act 2002 to apply to theBill’s provisions on the establishment of new schools. Clause 11(2) states that the phrase

“ ‘federated school’ has the meaning given by section 24(2)”

of the 2002 Act. I looked up that section, which states:

“In this Chapter ‘federation’ means a group of schools that are federated by virtue of this section, and "federated school" means a school forming part of a federation.”

So that is clear, then.

Section 24 deals with two or more schools being able to form a federation, with a single governing body, which in prescribed cases can be treated as a single school. That type of federation is, I presume, of the type referred to as a hard federation, whereas in a soft federation the head of a successful school would take on the additional headship of a local school that was failing or coasting, but would not formally merge the two governing bodies.

Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the creation of a federation of schools of the hard kind, the exam results of the individual schools within the federation would continue to be published separately? Will she also confirm that parents applying for their children to attend a school in the federation would be able to specify the one that they wanted their children to attend, and would not be forced to apply just to the federation?

Does the Minister envisage any maximum size for a federation? I recently met an LEA officer who presented me with an apocalyptic vision of what a future federation could look like. She said that there could be a federation of 20 schools; that parents could have to apply to the federation rather than to an individual school; that the federation could allocate children to one of its schools as it saw fit; and that the exam results of the schools could be consolidated into a block for the federation as a whole.

That would in effect create a mini-education authority, within which parents would have no choice of school and exam results would no longer be published. That would take us back to the regime of the 1970s and early 1980s. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such a use of the federated schools provisions in clause 11 and in section 24 of the 2002 Act will not be permitted.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to make somebrief comments because the Liberal Democrats support the general principle of federation. It fitswith our alternative vision—alternative to that of the Government and the Conservatives, that is—of a collaborative model. I have some questions about exactly what is envisaged under the clause. Like the hon. Gentleman I find that that is not entirely clear when one refers to the 2002 Act, and we join in the request for clarity.

I am interested also in the fact that federation could be horizontal, vertical or a mixture, and would like the Minister to comment on that. I can see that in some areas a vertical federation would provide advantages such as continuity and economies of scale in purchasing, among other things; interesting ideas also emerge from what would effectively be the twinning of schools, when a school with a particular strength could support another that might be weaker in that area, and vice versa. We support the principles, but would like more detail.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I want to raise briefly some points that have arisen from correspondence that I have had with Wiltshire education authority on federated schools. I support the concept; it offers opportunities to solve the problems that will occur when school rolls fall and we have to consider closures. In particular, Wiltshire has had difficulties with small rural schools, which it has raised with me. A number of the children in my constituency go across the border to Wiltshire schools, and I want to raise the matter on their behalf.

Federations enable small rural schools to remain open, and Wiltshire has enthusiastically pursued the concept in order to keep rural communities going. However, it believes that this clause and clause 7 might prevent it from continuing to do so. I should appreciate an opportunity to discuss the matter further with the Minister in private in order to ensure that Wiltshire is afforded every opportunity to carry on federating as it is doing. The Bill should not prevent authorities from finding creative solutions to federating schools so that they may remain open. I am sure that all hon. Members would regret it if that were to happen.

The difficulty is that when schools federate as some have done, the Department for Education and Skills says that they have to announce a school’s closure. That is putting some schools and governing bodies off federating, and might lead—in some cases, has led—to the closure of small rural schools, which have been unable to remain open without federation. I shall be very interested in the Minister’s comments. My summary might not be exactly correct, but I think that I have the gist: Wiltshire and other rural LEAs should be able to federate in order to keep their schools open.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause re-enacts the provisions of section 68 of the Education Act 2005 in respect of England. It provides for specific circumstances in which a new maintained school may be planned to be a member of a federation from the outset, and become one as soon as it opens. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is right in his assumption that that relates to what we tend to call a hard federation, as opposed to a softer or more informal one. He mentioned accountability. Even in a hard federation, schools retain their individual identities. They will publish separate results, although they may also decide to publish joint results as well. However, the accountability for results remains clear for each school, and there will be separate admissions processes for the individual schools, so the choice that the hon. Gentleman identified will remain with each school within the federation.

The vision that the hon. Gentleman outlined is apocalyptic, but I do not imagine it to be a serious concern. On the whole, the direction of travel in respect of collaboration and federation is beneficial for the development of standards and local collaboration. We will remove by regulation the current maximum of five for a federation of schools, but I do not foresee the development of unwieldy federations. One of the intentions behind the trust model is that it will provide us with a different way of developing collaboration and joint working between schools. However, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that accountability and admissions proposals in respect of federations remain as he asked me to assure him they would.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about rural schools. There are similar circumstances in my constituency. However, what is the purpose of increasing the number beyond five? In practice, surely one reaches a point at which federation cannot be achieved without compromising the relationship with the local community, the identity of the schools, the historical relationships with parents and so on. Why increase the number? Does the Minister want to set a new limit?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Those are precisely the sorts of issues that the governing body will consider when determining whether it wants to enter into a federation. Let us be quite clear that, in almost every circumstance, decisions about entering into federations are made by governing bodies and, of course, they are interested in the extent to which that would help them to deliver the objectives they had set out for the schools. I tend to think that that would be the logical way to determine the appropriate size of a federation, rather than a centrally imposed limit. There is one circumstance in which a federation would be proposed outside of a decision made by a governing body. It relates to some of the proposals for those schools that are causing concern, which we will come to in part 4 of the Bill. We are suggesting that a local authority could propose a federation as a response to failure in particular schools.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked whether vertical and horizontal federations would come under the clause. The answer is yes, and I agree with the her that there might well be circumstances in which there would be a federation of some primary schools and a secondary school. As well as that structure, horizontal federations of schools in the same phase would be appropriate. Once again, which of those was appropriate would depend on the particular circumstances.

The clause relates to specific provisions for the setting up of a new school. Effectively, it ensures that a governing body is not prevented from setting up a new school as part of a federation. Of course, there is a range of other collaborative arrangements—ranging from soft federations to hard federations—that is outside the remit of the clause, but as I suggested earlier, many of them are desirable and we would want them to be developed.

On the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), I am happy to take up the specific points that she outlined with respect to Wiltshire. I would be concerned if small local schools were prevented from federating. As my hon. Friend will know, in the toolkit that we produced to deal with falling rolls we proposed that federation may be an effective measure. So, although I do not have the answer today, I will consider the specific case that my hon. Friend outlined and come back to her with a response.

The clause ensures that existing regulations allow those proposing a new school, or the temporary governing body of a school before it opens, to complete the processes normally carried out by the governing body of a school that wishes to become a member of a federation. That involves consulting parents and others about the proposals before taking a final decision. It is a sensible and time-saving provision and may be particularly important to the fresh start of a school in need of additional support.

Clause 14

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 333, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, leave out ‘rural'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 334, in clause 14, page 10, line 43, leave out subsection (b).

No. 335, in clause 15, page 11, line 8, leave out ‘rural'.

No. 336, in clause 15, page 11, line 11, leave out ‘rural'.

No. 337, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, leave out ‘rural'.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

This is an important clause. My amendments relate to subsection (4), and Members will see that they deal with four criteria, which must be considered and taken into account by those proposing to close a rural school. I am in favour of subsection (4), and these are sensible criteria. I am delighted that the Minister is obviously concerned about what is going on with the closure of rural schools.

I represent a rural constituency. One of the greatest heartaches over the years has been our campaigns, successful and unsuccessful, to keep open small rural schools. They often involve very small schools, such as the recent campaign in Holton le Moor. At the start of the campaign the school had 17 pupils in total; the closure has now been confirmed with the school roll having fallen to seven pupils. Those who represent urban constituencies may question how a school can be effective with only 17 pupils, but these schools in remote rural areas are often extremely popular and provide a very good education. Some educationists deny this, because year groups have to combine, but I assure hon. Members that the tremendous spirit, care, love and all the rest of it in these primary schools is a joy to behold.

The school that I am talking about now has been in existence for over 100 years. It is at the heart of the community in a small village. It is often heartbreaking when these rural schools close. Often, as happened at Holton le Moor, a school closes because the head teacher is approaching retirement. We now live inquite a competitive environment. There is nothing wrong with that, and of course I support that in terms of education—schools are competing for pupils. Sometimes when a head teacher is approaching retirement or perhaps has a more traditional view of education based on catchment areas, the school may not be as vigorous in recruiting pupils as neighbouring schools. That is obviously what happened in this case. There is nothing wrong with the head teacher; he gave years of loyal service. Equally, in Lincolnshire as elsewhere, we have falling school rolls and this puts pressure on the county council which itself is under pressure from the Department. They have to find schools to close and some of these small schools can be an obvious target.

I have no objections to the subsection. It seems perfectly sensible that when one is closing a rural school one should look at the likely effect of its discontinuance on the local community. It is undoubtedly true that when these villages have lost their village shop, when the church only operates one Sunday a month, and when the school is ripped out, they become almost suburban dormitories, albeit in the middle of the countryside, with no life going on during the day.

Certainly, a county like Lincolnshire is hit extremely badly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings will confirm, as he is also a Lincolnshire Member, we have a great problem with the cost of school transport. We argue constantly that the Department does not give adequate recompense to the county council to deal with the heavy costs that we have to meet in bussing children around. If a school closes in a village by definition the children have to be transported further afield. Paragraph (b) is very sensible. Paragraph (c) mentions the use of motor vehicles. Obviously if a school closes the use of motor vehicles increases.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As my hon. Friend mentioned my constituency interest, will he say a word in this context about the particular difficulties of providing services in sparsely populated rural areas? Much is said about rurality, but less is said about sparsity. They are different but overlapping factors and have a real impact on local public service provision, including education, and a consequent impact on the need for proper transport. It is worth emphasising that on behalf of sparsely populated rural areas such as those we represent.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

“Sparsity” is a technical term of art, but it is important to recognise the difficulties that it causes to local authorities such as Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire’s population is evenly distributed throughout the county, whereas counties such as Devon have some areas of high population concentration and others, such as Dartmoor, where there is virtually no one at all. They do not, therefore, suffer as much as Lincolnshire does from the sparsity problem. Because our population is so evenly distributed its transport costs can be very high. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making. All the paragraphs in subsection (4) are perfectly sensible, and I am delighted that the Minister seems to have understood the position. Presumably it is why the provision has been framed as it has.

The reason for my amendments is that, although I have no argument with the idea of considering the criteria in the clause in relation to rural schools, I wonder why the Minister does not consider that many of the factors listed in the relevant paragraphs apply to all primary schools, wherever they are—this may be where I attract the interest of Members representing urban and suburban seats. My amendments would merely ensure that the sensible factors in the provision, which should be considered, would be taken into account when any primary school was closed.

Why, for instance, should the closure of a school affect the local community only if it is in a rural area? I should have thought that if we were to close a school in the heart of an inner city, a suburb or anywhere else the community might well be affected; it might be a big issue. My amendment is intended to tease out from the Minister why she thinks that those factors apply only to rural schools.

Another instance that we might consider concerns

“the availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of transport to other schools”.

I must now wear my green hat, because of course I am now totally committed to green politics. I have done the school run in London for many years, and it is not only in rural areas, as we know, that people take their kids to school in cars. I do not, therefore, know why the Government think that the likely effect of a closure on transport to other schools is relevant only to rural schools. One need only look around London to see large numbers of 4x4s transporting kids to school. What do the Government mean by that paragraph?

The same argument also applies to paragraph (c) and to considering

“any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school”.

Why does the Minister think local education authorities should not take into account those factors?

To add insult to injury there is subsection (7)(b). I would like to know what it means. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to define a rural school. That might, surely, be a quite arbitrary decision. The paragraph enables the Secretary of State to choose which primary schools are expendable and which are not. I am sure that that is not the intention, so my amendment would delete that paragraph. It is surely difficult for anyone, let alone the Secretary of State in London, to determine whether a school is rural.

I suppose that I represent four or five traditional market towns and more than 100 villages, but some of the villages are not really villages any more. They are huge suburban communities to the north of Lincoln, which could by no stretch of any definition be termed rural. Presumably there is no difficulty in determining that other villages, with tiny populations of perhaps a dozen or two dozen people, are rural. However, there are many villages in between. How can the Secretary of State choose which primary schools are rural and therefore entitled to the extra defence under subsection (4), by which the local authority must have regard to the various factors?

I am delighted that subsection (4) is in the Bill and that the Government are taking note of rural schools, because, contrary to what many educationists believe, small rural schools provide an excellent service. I want to find out from the Government, however, why they think that the effects on transport and on the community do not apply equally in urban and suburban areas.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Perhaps in surprise, I find myselfin total agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I did not quite follow the exact reasoning behind the amendments before I heard his speech, but I am now absolutely convinced of the argument. People struggle with my constituency’s name, but, as may be imagined, Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a mix of urban and rural communities. It has village schools that struggle for numbers, while in the more urban areas there are very large primary schools that possibly suffer in funding because of the existence of other schools.

Nevertheless, the contribution of those other schools to the local community is so great that a value must be put on it, and I agree that the closure of a school situated in an locality classified as urban might be just as devastating as the closure of a rural primary school. I support the sentiments that underlie the amendments.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I, too, support the amendments. Although I represent a rural constituency, I have spent most of my life in the city of Liverpool, so I am in a strange position because, although the provisions have advantages for my constituency, I am slightly aggrieved for the schools of my home city, where the same considerations would not apply.

In mid-Bedfordshire there are three, small, urban conurbations, but there are many rural schools in the constituency. We have been in the strange situation of discussing whether to go from the three-tier system to the two-tier system, which may result in some school closures, and we are currently in the consultation period and we know that that would have a devastating effect. The constituency is rural, so there are not that many roads, but if local, rural schools began to close we would find ourselves in the bizarre position of having gridlock during rush hours, because the roads already get into that kind of state.

Nevertheless, the fact that consideration is being given to rural schools but not to schools in cities and urban areas is of some concern, and I ask the Minister why schools in cities such as Liverpool would not merit the same consideration. I support the comments of my hon. Friend. Subsection (4) is excellent for mid-Bedfordshire but does not have any bearing on urban areas, which seems unfair to schools in cities such as Liverpool.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to raise one quick point with the Minister. My hon. Friend mentioned that the definition of a rural primary school is in subsection (7)(b), which says that

“‘rural primary school’ means a primary school designated as such for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.”

In the Minister’s letter of 27 March to Committee members, the only illustrative regulations circulated in relation to clause 14 are the School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. In my reading of those I could not see a definition of a rural primary school. Will the Minister shed some light on that?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As has been discussed during our deliberations on this group of amendments, the Government take the role of rural schools seriously. In fact, the protections in clauses 14 and 15 for rural schools reflect amendments made during the passage of the Education Act 2005, but there was already recognition in legislation and in the processes for the consideration of school closures of the importance to their communities of rural schools, and we support and encourage their preservation.

Notwithstanding the important points that have been made by hon. Members about the difficult decisions in respect of any school closure—in a moment, I shall talk in detail about the processes involved in that—there are specific issues relating to rural schools, particularly primary schools. For example, often they provide services beyond educational ones. That is becoming increasingly important with the development of extended schools. Such schools might well be centres for local child care provision as well as other services—for example, some rural schools run the local post office, too—so they have a significance beyond educational services. If a rural school closes, it is more likely that there is not another school within walking distance, which is an important consideration. That is why in statutory guidance to those who decide on school organisation proposals we have a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and have had for some time. Since 1998, that has brought about a big reduction in the number of rural school closures per year.

The provisions of clause 14 require any local authority or governing body preparing proposals for a rural school closure to consider the potential impact on the community, transport implications and possible alternatives to closure. Clause 15 requires that body to consult parents, the local authority and district and parish councils before publishing those proposals. The vast majority of authorities and governing bodies would take those steps without such requirements in the Bill, but their inclusion puts those important steps beyond doubt. As I outlined, we attach special importance to the preservation of rural schools if they contribute to standards, are wanted by parents and have the support of the local education community.

The hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Gainsborough asked about the designation of rural primary schools. On the 30 March, we wrote to directors of children’s services in England and diocesan directors of education, and asked them about that issue, particularly with respect to the commencement of section 70 of the Education Act 2005 which puts in place proposals for a specific designation of “rural primary school”. We identified for each local authority, those schools that we think come within that category. In preparing the draft order in which we will designate certain schools as “rural primary schools”, we used the rural indicator on the EduBase register to identify those schools.

In case hon. Members are not aware, that register is an indicator based on the Office for National Statistics’ rural indicator developed by the Countryside Agency, the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly. It is the same indicator to which decision makers refer when considering proposals to close rural schools in relation to the presumption against closure that I have outlined already.

As I said, we asked directors of children’s services for their comments on the proposed inclusion of a list, which we attached for each of those 150 authorities, of primary schools in the area that we intend to include in the designation order as “rural schools”. We also said specifically:

“You should consult the schools as appropriate when considering the list. We will review the designation order annually and will consult individual local authorities and dioceses on proposed changes as appropriate.”

Not only are we using a recognised measure of the nature of a school that could be designated as rural, but we are also inviting consultation responsesfrom directors of children’s services and diocesan authorities, and asking them to discuss that with the schools before including them on a list, which we shall then be willing to review in order to keep it up to date.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The recognised measure that the Minister describes does indeed take account of sparsity in the mix of considerations that it uses to define rurality, but given the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, will she look again at the circumstances of a large area with a sparse population, such as the county of Lincolnshire? There are concerns that, even though the measure takes sparsity into account, it is given insufficient weight where sparsity affects the whole of a county. It does so rarely, but that is certainly the case for Lincolnshire. Would she have another look at that?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Of course it will be possible for the director of children’s services in Lincolnshire, when considering the designated list, to comment if schools have been left off that the director considers to be rural. We are inviting comments from directors of children’s services by Friday 23 June. I am not convinced that individual schools would be excluded because of the measures that we have used, but we are consulting precisely because we want to ensure that the list is right.

The amendments, as we have heard, are probing amendments about the extent to which we should extend the requirements to all cases where a local authority or governing body proposes to close any category of primary school. I know only too well—I am sure that other hon. Members do as well—how sensitive school closure proposals can be for pupils, parents, staff and others who might be affected. We would not expect a decision to close any school to be taken lightly. I would not want hon. Members to think that because we are discussing the specifics of the closure of rural schools, that implies somehow or other that there is not an important and significant process for the consideration of the closure of any school, primary or secondary.

Responding to the proposed amendments to clause 14—amendments Nos. 333 and 334—as I have said, those considering making proposals to close any school will consider a range of factors, including the impact on standards, pupil number forecasts, the pattern of parental demand and levels of diversity in addition to the factors in clause 14. The body that takes the final decision on such proposals will expect to see evidence and well reasoned arguments for closure on those and a range of other factors. Establishing a statutory requirement to consider the four factors set out in clause 14 could be misinterpreted. For example, it might be read as lessening the importance of the other factors that I have spelt out. I do not think that there is a defensible argument for treating primary school closures as a whole differently, as that would bring into doubt whether the issues that I have outlined should be considered with respect to all school closures, rural and urban.

I turn now to clause 15 and amendments Nos. 335, 336 and 337. Those preparing to publish any type of statutory proposal, including for closure, must consult any such persons as appear appropriate. In doing so, they are required to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. That guidance already exists and is in operation. It includes the parties listed in the provision. If the decision maker wanted to set that guidance aside and not consult some of those parties, they would have to have an extremely good reason; if not, they could be subject to a judicial review. I cannot see any reason to make special provision and to treat primary school closures differently from any other type of school closure.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members not only that we take the specific position of rural schools seriously, which is the reason for the presumption relating to closure and the provisions that we have made, but that we have in place robust guidance and processes for proposing and considering the closure of all types of school—rural or urban, secondary or primary. We fear that the amendments would put in question the robustness of those arrangements, which is why I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough feels reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am pleased that we have had this debate. It has given the Minister the opportunity to put on record the importance that she attaches to rural schools and the factors that might apply to them—for instance, the fact that they provide other services to the local community. I am very reassured by that and by the fact that factors such as the effect on a local community and local transport will be taken into account before an urban or suburban school is closed.

I am less convinced by her argument that such factors cannot be included in the Bill in the case of an urban school because they might somehow detract from the importance of other elements. Surely that argument could also apply to rural schools. I am still slightly worried about why subsection (4) appliesonly to rural schools. However, if I were to press the amendment to a Division, it might be misunderstood outside the Committee. Some people might come to the incorrect conclusion that I somehow wanted to lessen the protection of rural schools.

Somewhat reassured by the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, at end insert—

‘(aa) the effect of the discontinuance of the school upon the ability of the local education authority, andupon the governing bodies of other schools maintained by that authority, to continue to perform and carry out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment,'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave out

‘to the local education authority'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Amendment No. 100 would insert an additional criterion into subsection (4). It brings a new dimension to the debate. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we have already been through—the hon. Member for Gainsborough put the case extremely well and made an important argument for having a set of criteria that applies to all potential school closures. That would be helpful to local authorities and governing bodies in preparing their proposals. He could have made the case for deleting not only the word “rural” but the words “primary school,” because the arguments apply equally to secondary schools.

Amendment No. 100 would ensure that the wider system of schooling in a given area would have to be considered before decisions on school closures were taken. It draws particular attention to the capacity of the local authority and of other schools to continue to perform and carry out their duties and functions—that is, to run viable schools with a broad and balanced curriculum. That is an important dimension. Too often in the case of school closures, we look in a rather narrow way at the individual school and the immediate impact on the community that it serves. In most parts of the country—rural areas are arguably an exception—there is a network of interrelated schools and it is difficult to take decisions on one school without there being a wider impact.

My recollection is that subsection (4) emerged as a compromise during the debate on the EducationAct 2005 because of a Government defeat in the Lords, so it may not be in the Bill for the most logical reason, having come about as a result of a political fudge. There is, however, a strong case for strengthening it to apply to all schools, both primary and secondary, and including an additional criterion to focus on the impact of the whole network of schools on a given local authority.

This is not an argument for or against closing schools, or for increasing or reducing the likelihood of their closure; it is simply an argument that all local authorities and governing bodies should act in accordance with an agreed set of criteria that have credibility and take all factors into account. I am currently involved with a school closure in my constituency and during the past nine years I have supported the closure of a number of schools in my constituency. I know how sensitive such issues are and how easy it is for parents not to understand a local authority’s wider reasons for proposing such closures. I know how easy it is for parents to adopt a very narrow focus on the impact on their child in the immediate future. Those cannot be the only criteria; we have to take a wider view.

I have another point, which was made particularly effectively by the 2003 Ofsted report on pupil place planning and more recently by the Audit Commission’s submission to Education and Skills Committee’s inquiry on the White Paper. Attention was focused on the relationship between quality and popularity. There is a tendency to believe that when a school seems to be losing pupils or when, for a variety of reasons, it does not have as many pupils as the neighbouring school down the road, that is a reflection of quality. Myright hon. Friend the Minister stressed the important criteria of standards, parental preference and diversity in determining any school closure, but that is not a simple and straightforward matter because parental preference may be exercised in favour of school A rather than school B for a variety of reasons other than an objective assessment of the quality of the school.

I am putting down a marker in support of the argument that we need to consider the wider impact on the local system of any school closure. We should separate the issues of popularity and of quality. There may well be very good schools—occasionally high-performing ones—that are not judged to be popular schools, based on the patterns of parental preference. It is a mistake always to go for popularity rather than quality as the key criterion for a decision on the future of a school.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is now downplaying the importance and validity of parental preference and choice in an area? When he moved his amendment during the debate on the previous clause, he cited how important parental choice and involvement are in establishing new schools.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

No, that is not the case at all. It is not an either/or matter. I think that the situation is slightly more complex than the official Opposition would have us believe.

Popularity does not equate to quality. A simple example of why that could be the case is the fact that many schools happen to have been built—whether it was 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years ago—in the wrong location. They were built to serve a community that existed then but economic change has meant thatthose communities no longer exist, or that thelocal population has declined greatly. That causes difficulties. If a school is trapped by its geography and a decision on its location that was taken many years ago and it cannot draw on new areas of residential housing, it will struggle for ever to increase its numbers—unless it is able to reach out to new groups of parents in adjacent areas. However, that does not mean that it is a poor or unpopular school. It may well be popular with those parents within easy travelling distance who can send their children to that school.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I can see some sense in his argument. However, is his view not at variance with the basic premise of the Bill, which is that greater parental choice and greater responsiveness to the choices they make are likely to drive up quality? Is that premise right or wrong?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

In relation to previous amendments, I said that parental choice is important. My criticism of the arrangements in the schooling system in England and Wales is that we confuse parental choice with institutional choice. In many parts of the country, schools determine which pupils will attend. Parents do not have an absolute right to send their children to certain schools. The point of my amendment is that parental choice does not happen in a vacuum; there are a series of constraints. Most parents understand that there is no such thing as pure parental choice. The system cannot be based on pure parental choice without building in vast excess capacity. The issue is how parental choice is managed and regulated and the framework in which it operates.

Amendment No. 100 suggests that when a decision is taken about the future of an individual school, the framework must include the consideration of the decision’s impact on neighbouring schools.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am not unsympathetic to thehon. Gentleman’s amendment. School closure has implications not only for the community that it serves directly, but for the schools that are required to educate the children who would previously have been educated at that school. Amendment No. 31 would ensure that the matters that must be taken into account before deciding whether to close a school, as set out in subsection (4), should include the increased transportation costs that would accrue as a result of the closure. Subsection (4)(b) provides that the likely additional cost of transport that would accrue to the local authority must be taken into account, but it says nothing about the likely costs to individual parents. They are just as much costs to the community as costs incurred by local authorities. We shall debate school transport issues under part 6, but it is incongruous that in determining the efficacy of a school closure, costs that might be incurred by local authorities should be a factor in determining whether the school should close, but costs to individual parents should not.

The Forum for Rural Children and Young People points out that rural children and young people often find school transport unresponsive to their needs. Those problems are echoed by the social exclusion unit in its report on transport and social exclusion, “Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion”. The report noted that children in some areas are prevented from taking part in extra-curricular activities because of a lack of public transport at the required time. The Central Council of Physical Recreation is quoted in the report as saying that in one school, 40 to 45 per cent. of pupils were missing out on after-school activities owing to transport constraints.

The report also highlighted more general concerns about the availability of transport in rural areas.More than half of people in rural areas live more than 13 minutes’ walk away from an hourly daytime bus service, and 29 per cent. of rural settlements have no bus service at all. The lack of public transport, combined with the lack and cost of taxis, leave people unable to get to key places. Some rural families have to go without certain things in order to afford to run a car. The cost of transport would also be an issue if a denominational school were closed in a rural area.

Our amendment would therefore remove the words

“to the local education authority”

from subsection (4)(b) to make it provide simply that the matters that should be taken into account are the availability and likely cost of transport to other schools.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, amendment No. 100 would add to the criteria listed in subsection (4). In particular it would ensure that, when a school was being considered for closure, the impact on other schools in the area and on the local education authority—especially in relation to its ability to provide parents with diversity and choice in school provision—would be considered. I also seek an assurance from the Minister that, when a closure process is to go ahead, it will be properly managedand that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to make a brief comment on amendment No. 100. I very much support the sentiments behind it, but I wonder whether it should refer to local authorities in the plural, to cover instances of schools on boundaries. Poole unitary authority has schools on its boundaries—except for the one with the sea. Schools on the boundary with other authorities suffer knock-on effects and it can be difficult to get both authorities, which have their own budgets, to take the decision that is best for the community overall. In the proposed reorganisation it is proposed to delay any activity in respect of a large and excellent comprehensive school that is right on a boundary. That causes considerable concern among constituents who live in the adjoining local authority. I should like the amendment to be strengthened to cover the cross-boundary issues.

I have some sympathy with the intention behind amendment No. 31, although I am not quite sure whether that would be achieved.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have got on well this morning, have we not? Just before I start, for the information of the Committee, I should point out that when we break for lunch information will be available for hon. Members to consider alongside clauses 17 to 19—in case we are fortunate enough to reach those this afternoon. I do not want to push my luck, but I am hopeful.

To deal first with amendment No. 100, as we discussed on the previous group of amendments, we already make special provision when it is proposed to close a rural primary school. We require local authorities to consider a range of specific factors; that requirement reflects an addition to the present arrangements under an amendment to the Education Act 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North is right about the provenance of that amendment, but it was built on a presumption against the closure of rural schools that the Government had already established for decision makers. For the reasons that I gave previously we strongly support the continuation of rural schools that have strong parental support and contribute to the community and to education standards in their area.

My hon. Friend rightly argued that it is important to consider the wider implications of proposals to close schools. Those proposals would be made only by the local education authority or the governing body of a foundation or voluntary school. Given the potential impact of closing a rural primary school, we shall require the local authority or governing body when drawing up school closure proposals to consider whether there are any alternative options. They should consider the impact on the local community; the availability and cost to the local authority of transport to alternative schools; and the increased use of cars by parents who must drive their children to school.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The Committee will have observed a Government Front-Bench representative approach the Chair seeking permission to deposit on the Table material for consideration alongside clauses 17 and 19. The Chair has been quite pleased to be able to grant permission retrospectively for that.

Standing Committee E

Clause 14

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave out

‘to the local education authority'.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I hope that you have noted the splendid progress we made this morning. We worked jolly hard and had just got to amendmentNo. 100, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He rightly made the argument that the impact of a school’s closure will be felt beyond that school.

The amendment concerns the effect of the closure of a rural primary school, and the ability of other local schools and authorities to continue to perform their duties in relation to education. That goes to the heart of the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services. I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities will need to consider the impact on other schools, parents, pupils and the community as part of their important strategic role in planning education provision. That will inform their decisions in planning how many schools their area needs, where and how big they should be, what kind of schools would serve their area best, and who the schools should serve.

Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plans. To do that, they willmap what is needed in their area according to demographics, diversity and demand for high standards. They will ensure that there is a sufficient supply of places by letting popular schools expand or federate, closing schools that are poor or failing to improve, and inviting proposals to open new schools in some of the ways that we have discussed. We expect local authorities to work with schools in a spirit of partnership as they manage their schools. The best local authorities already do that, and the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services will extend that throughout the country.

I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend regarding the strategic context for local authorities within which individual closure proposals will be made, and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.

I turn to amendment No. 31, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb) spoke. I understand the difficulties of closure decisions for some parents. Any decision to close a school is often worrying for parents, and the subject of considerable concern and argument. However, as I said when I talked about the factors that need to be considered, transport considerations must already be considered when the final decisions on proposals are made.

If a rural primary school closes, the transport costs for displaced pupils will, in many cases, have to be met by the local authority, which has a duty to provide transport for children who attend their nearest suitable school if it is beyond the statutory walking distance of 2 miles for primary-aged pupils under eight, and3 miles for children aged eight and over. Local authorities also have to make arrangements to transport children who live within walking distance but for whom there is no route to walk in reasonablesafety. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will extend rights to transport to children from low-income groups, including, for this age group, an entitlement to transport where the school is more than 2 miles from the child’s home. Therefore, when a rural primary school closes, parents who live nearby and drive their children to school might gain an entitlement to free travel for their children under the arrangements outlined above.

Given the potential economies of scale of a local authority organising transport instead of parents driving their children to school, the amendment could, by requiring a consideration of overall transport costs, have the perverse effect of shifting the balance of the argument towards closure.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account the provisions of the Bill that could give local authorities the right to charge some categories of parents for school transport? That, in essence, is a cost to the community, albeit not to the local authority. It is a cost to somebody, and it will have to be met, but the clause does not allow that fact to be taken into account.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The provisions that the hon. Gentleman refers to relate to the suggested pathfinder proposals, under which local authorities will be able to develop better school transport for everyone within their area. Although that is an important development, it is not a fundamental change in the charging regime. In fact, the balance is likely to be as I suggested. Although I am sympathetic to the implications for individual parents—and they should of course be borne in mind when making decisions about school closures, particularly of rural primary schools—I am not convinced that the amendment would achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman set out. Indeed, it could potentially have a perverse effect on the decision. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for that clarification. However, the clause remains unsatisfactory inasmuch as it gives specific attention to rural primary schools. It lists a number of the criteria that should apply to rural primary schools but does not list them all because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the question of standards, parental preference and diversity are also factors in closure decisions. However, the criteria that apply to rural primary schools could apply equally to urban primary schools or secondary schools.

A powerful argument can be made for including in the Bill the criteria that apply to all school closures, primary and secondary, rural and urban. It would help the process. It would assist with the plans of local authorities and governing bodies, with the publication of closure notices, and in a public understanding of the reasons for schools closing. Generally, the process would be more efficient as a result. However, in light of my right hon. Friend’s clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 16

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1A) No special school which caters for—

(a) children with moderate learning difficulties, or

(b) children with severe learning difficulties,

shall be discontinued by a local authority without a direction from the Secretary of State.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 255, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1A) Before any special school is closed by direction of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that acceptable alternative provision for the children in that special school has been made.'.

No. 33, in clause 16, page 11, line 43, after ‘governors,', insert—

‘(ca) parents of children attending the school,'.

No. 34, in clause 16, page 12, line 3, at end insert

‘and shall give his reasons for such direction'.

No. 35, in clause 18, page 13, line 14, leave out ‘or discontinuance'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

What a great pleasure it is, Mr. Chope, to serve under your chairmanship. I shall rely on our intimate familiarity to guide us through our proceedings.

The amendments give us the opportunity to return to the subject of special educational needs. Those tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, and those tabled in our names and those of Liberal Democrat Members, are relevant to the capacity of the Secretary of State to alter special needs provision, and to the proper consultation that should take place with parents on his decision to alter such provision. The clause deals with precisely those matters, but it needs to be seen in context. So, I make no apology for re-amplifying our real doubts about the commitment to special schools.

I was lucky enough last night to have dinner at the Athenaeum with a distinguished group of experts in that field, including parents of special needs children, head teachers at mainstream and special needs schools, academics, educational psychologists and others. Over a splendid meal, we had the opportunity to discuss those matters. The conclusion that emerged from our discussions, which were wide-ranging, was that educational need must be the key determinate in matching provision and children. Yet that was not always taken as an a priori assumption.

During discussion on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, Baroness Blackstone said that the

“commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]

The order in which she put those benefits is interesting. Of course, we are concerned about the social, moral and cultural interests of people with learning difficulties, but their educational needs will, at times, be more significant than any cultural concerns that we might have.

It is critical that the effect on the educational potential of individual children is the key factor in assessing the adequacy of special needs provision. We are concerned that this part of the Bill might facilitate the process by which the number of special schools could be further reduced. I do not think that that is the intention, and I do not claim that the Governmentare malevolent in that respect, but without the clear recommitment to special schools, which our amendments would provide, that doubt will remain.

There was some debate about that in earlier discussions, so I thought that it might be useful to have a look at some Government figures, which I did over breakfast—[Hon. Members: “Where was that?”] In a small Italian cafÃ(c) on the junction of Great Peter street and Great Smith street—it serves exemplary scrambled eggs. The Government’s figures show that there were approximately 93,000 children attending special schools in January 1999, but that by January of last year, that number had declined by about 8 per cent. to 85,540. I think that the Government remain committed to a policy of including as many children as possible in mainstream schools. I shall wait to hear what the Minister says about that. That policy has resulted in the closure, since 1997, of 93 special schools. I do not blame the Government alone for that—it was the prevailing orthodox thinking after the Warnock report and the following Act that was passed, of course, under a Conservative Government.

Baroness Warnock, whose report in 1978, as I mentioned, started the bandwagon for inclusion, said recently that the policy had backfired and left “a disastrous legacy”. Of course, the survey, about which we have talked, of teachers and head teachers, suggests that many of them know that the legacy has indeed been disastrous. In that survey, conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, they concluded that as many as one in four children with special needs integrated into the mainstream would have been served better by education in a special school. It is therefore vital that in the Bill we reaffirm our commitment to the continuance of special schools, and that we use this debate as an opportunity to celebrate their work and their excellence.

The Committee will know that one such special school threatened with closure, which might be protected by legislation that reaffirmed the role of schools in the way that I describe, is the Nuffield speech and language unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has been a great champion of that place. The unit was part of the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear hospital and, therefore, of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust. It has been in existence since 1971 and provides intensive teaching and therapy for children aged four to seven withsevere speech and language disorders, for whom there is no provision of comparable quality in mainstream schools. It is recognised as a centre of excellence. Between 1998 and 2003, 41 per cent. of the children leaving the unit returned directly to mainstream education.

My point about that school is that it is evidence of the fluidity that can occur when children spend time in special education and are then better equipped to take advantage of opportunities in the mainstream. We do not have to see the matter as static. It should be a dynamic process in which children’s needs are catered for most appropriately at each stage of their time in education. A child might well start off in a special school and then move to a mainstream school, as those Nuffield children have done—7 per cent. of children return to local language units and 38 per cent. transfer to the Meath school, a specialist school for children with specific speech and language difficulties.

The total cost of running the unit is some £300,000, whereas the expenditure of the trust is in the order of £300 million. The trust gives as the main reasons for its decision to recommend closure the Government’s inclusion policy and the preference of the local education authority for inclusion. The Committeewill understand, therefore, why we have tabled the amendment. Although we accept that the Government are not malevolent, we fear that we are all still suffering from the misassumptions about special educational provision that prevailed following the Warnock report and the legislation to which it gave rise. No such provision for children from four onwards can be found anywhere else. The fact is that the children with the most severe disorders need specialist intensive help, which units such as Nuffield can provide.

The school is critical, partly because the Government are keen to reduce the number of statements and partly because many LEAs, for ideological or financialreasons, are reluctant to issue statements before the age of five, and even when they do so, they are loth to finance out-of-area placements. I would go further: it is not enough simply to defend existing special schools; where we identify good practice, we should look to expand that kind of provision if the need warrants it. I want to see a new generation of special schools if that is what children need and parents want—that is the critical determinant.

That brings me to the other amendments in the group. Parents of children attending a community or foundation special school should be key consulteesin the case of any direction that requires the discontinuance of that school. Amendment No. 33 would, therefore, add them to the list. Furthermore, we ask in amendment No. 34 that the Secretary of State should give reasons for any such directions.

The first purpose of the amendments is to make a bold case for schools that provide excellent educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, and there are few children more disadvantaged than those with stated special educational needs. Units such as the Nuffield speech and language unit deserve the support that the amendment would give them. The second purpose is to ensure that the people most directly affected are properly involved in the process.

I make no apology for speaking to the amendments at some length, because the matter is important and they would add quality to the Bill. They will undoubtedly be accepted by the Minister in precisely that spirit.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Chope.

I shall refer to clause 16(1), to which the Conservatives have proposed amendments. If we are being logical, my hon. Friends and I should opposethe provision. I should like to probe the Minister on the clause, which I imagine would be used only in a most extreme case. I am slightly puzzled—if a school was in such a dire state that the health, safety or welfare of pupils was being affected, why on earth would the local authority not close it down? Do we really have local authorities that are so crass that they would not do that? Is there something extreme that might come up in an Ofsted report that would require the provision? I ask the Minister those questions with a view to supporting the clause if I can be convinced that it is very significant.

I am confused about the Conservatives’ amendments. We keep hearing that they do not like the Government’s policy of closing special schools, but here we have an amendment that actually asks the Secretary of State to intervene. It is slightly strange that they ask for a direction from the Secretary of State when they have argued all along that she has been engineering closures.

I have a further question on amendment No. 255. I recall that, the last time I was upset about the closure by a Conservative Administration of a special school to which some of my constituents went, there was a process whereby an adjudicator was brought in. Does that make the amendment unnecessary? The case was lost, but I recall a number of parts of the process. Will the Minister comment on that?

The amendments to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names are very sensible. If the extreme measure under the clause is taken by the Secretary of State because of health, social and welfare reasons, the parents of the children should be involved and the reasons for the closure should be stated. We support the amendments wholeheartedly, but I have asked questions on the issue because I am not yet entirely sure of the significance of the clause.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

In considering the amendments, we should examine the work that parents have to do to secure provision from a local education authority for a child with special educational needs. As those of us who are parents know, a week is a long time in the life of a child at school, and two or three years is a very long time for a child to have special needs. The age at which most special needs manifest themselves is about seven, and it can take parents two to three years to secure the provision of specialist help that their children need, in a maintained school, a non-maintained school or a special school.

Nowadays most parents who manage to secure the right provision for a child with special needs must go to the special educational needs and disability tribunal. The tribunal is free at the point of access for parents. I am trying to illustrate what a parent must go through to get a child into specialist provision and explain what the consequences would be, where the child would go, and the process that would have to be undergone to secure subsequent provision, should the provision secured for the child then close. Although parents do not have to pay to go to a tribunal, most local authorities nowadays employ a barrister and parents are expected to present professional reports about their child’s needs. We have heard about the cost of the tribunal to a parent.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Are not most authorities keen to settle a tribunal before it takes place? The records prove that. Are not authorities also obliged to offer a free advocacy service to all parents who want to go to a tribunal?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. We are in danger of straying from the theme of the amendments, which is about the discontinuance of special schools, rather than what happens when they continue.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I shall shorten my account, then, and merely say that it takes huge effort by parents to have a child statemented and to have their special needs met, as MPs of all parties know, I am sure. However, there are areas where special needs schools have closed. The Select Committee heard in evidence that Newbury no longer has any special needs schools—it states that all its children will be educated in inclusive programmes in maintained schools. However, the statistics show that that is not true, and most of the children with special needs in Newbury are being sent out of the borough.

Many special schools now take children from far afield. I have no special school in my constituency and children from there attend special schools as far away as Cheltenham; they must board away from home. If there are children with special needs in a school it will not be a simple matter to secure additional provision for them. Not many maintained schools will willingly take on a huge number of children with statements of special needs. It is not correct to assume that on the closure of a school children who have special needs can be placed in alternative education in the same way as children without special needs.

In light of the difficulty for parents in securing specialist provision for their children in maintained or special schools, how does the Minister think parents will cope on the closure of a school when there is no additional provision? How, given that most special schools now have long waiting lists and reduced numbers, would the required provision be supplied?

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

I want to speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 32 and 255. There has for some time been concern about special educational needs—hence the recent Warnock report and the Ofsted and Audit Commission reports. It is widely recognised by those who work in special educational needs that there are significant problems. It is my view that the Government are failing to take a strong strategic lead in the matter. I am not sure now whether they back their 1997 policy of inclusion. Some Ministers have, certainly, suggested that it is now up to local authorities to decide their own framework. Wide variation in quality of and access to provision will continue while that happens.

Amendment No. 32 would provide a belt-and-braces approach so that any future closures could be thoroughly questioned, at least by the Secretary of State and her civil servants. Some special schools can and should be closed, but others are closed in the teeth of local opposition. Amendment No. 255 would ensure that alternative provision was made. Sometimes that has not been thought through when left to LEAs. Those two important amendments would offer parents support in accessing a quality service, which sometimes they do not receive at the moment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It might be worth while my beginning by explaining what clause 16, to which most of the amendments in the group relate, is designed to achieve, as no one seems particularly clear about that. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) at least had the honesty to ask what it is about.

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an LEA to close a maintained special school on a specified date when it is considered that that is inthe interests of the health, safety or welfare of the children. It re-enacts provisions in existing legislation and complements other provisions whereby the Secretary of State can withdraw approval from an independent or non-maintained special school, which would lead to the school’s closure. In other words, the clause ensures that the Secretary of State’s power in this case is equivalent to the Secretary of State’s power in respect of independent or non-maintained schools. It is a reserve power, intended to be used only when pupils are considered to be at risk. The clause provides the power to take emergency action to protect pupils in special schools, some of whom, as hon. Members know, are among the most vulnerable members of our society.

Amendment No. 32 does not relate to the health, safety or welfare of pupils, which is the subject of clause 16. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to authorise, by issuing a direction, the discontinuance of any maintained special school that catered for pupils with moderate or severe learning difficulties. I will go into more detail about how the system works now in relation to other amendments in the group, particularly the amendment to clause 18, but let me say that we believe that the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals made by local authorities and the needs of the local community.

The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) said that the amendment would provide a belt-and-braces approach. That is an interesting approach to decision making in government. Unlike the many people who argue that government should be slimmed down, the hon. Gentleman wants belt-and-braces government. The amendment would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process.

No member of the Committee is unaware of the emotive issues and difficult decisions that surround the closure of some special schools, but we should also acknowledge that there have been other closures on which there was local agreement—for example, where one or more special schools have closed to move to a more modern facility. I do not think that there would be any very good reason why such decisions should be referred to the Secretary of State, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment No. 33 relates to the requirement to consult parents. As I said, clause 16 provides a reserve power for specific circumstances, which are likely to be emergency circumstances. It already allows for consultation of

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

and I think that that provides sufficient safeguards. We expect “such other persons” to include parents ofchildren attending the school, but we should take note that the clause provides the power to take emergency action to protect pupils. We are talking not about a process whereby statutory proposals are published fora school’s closure, but about a situation in whichemergency action may need to take place very quickly and the normal length and scope of consultation may not be appropriate. I hope that hon. Members recognise that increasing the number of specific statutory steps that need to be taken in such exceptional circumstances might act against the welfare of the children and young people being considered.

I turn now to amendment No. 34. The clause requires the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of a direction to a school’s governing body and head teacher. Before the direction is issued, there is consultation with interested parties, and the reasons for considering the direction will be well known. We would clearly expect a letter giving a direction to give the reasons for that direction.

Amendment No. 255 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that acceptable alternative provision had been made for children before a school was closed by direction. The clause specifies that a direction must give a date for discontinuance. One factor to be considered in setting that date will be the alternative placement of the children at the school, but we are clear that it should not be the determining factor. As I suggested, pupils’ welfare must take priority in the grave situation where the Secretary of State is considering closing a whole school because of concerns about the pupils’ health, safety or welfare.

There is, of course, an important safeguard. Children attending a special school will have a statement of special educational needs setting out the provision and placement that apply to them. Local authorities are under a duty to amend a statement if changes are proposed to that provision or placement, and that will involve consulting parents, otherschools and possibly local authorities with which the child might be placed. Local authorities would automatically have to amend the provision in a statement where a school was under threat of closure. I hope that that gives some reassurance on the alternative provision. In the exceptional circumstances in which the reserve power would be used, we would not necessarily want to delay a decision to ensure that alternative provision was in place at that particular moment, but the statementing process is an important way of ensuring that provision is made.

We take the aims of promoting and safeguarding pupils’ welfare extremely seriously. It is important that the Secretary of State has power to act when emergency circumstances arise. That is the correct step to take, and that is what the clause achieves. I suspect that hon. Members will be relieved to know that it has not been necessary to use that power since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 introduced it. However, they will agree that were it necessary to use that power, it would be important to use it not only appropriately, but in a way that safeguarded the children in a school as quickly as possible. For the reasons that I have given, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to clause 16.

Amendment No. 35 relates to clause 18, which is a more general clause about prescribed alterations and in many ways the more appropriate place to discuss the process of alterations to particular schools, although it does not relate to the emergency proposals covered in clause 16. As has always been the case, changes will continue to be made to individual schools—both special and mainstream—in the light of local needs and demands.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to the research that he had done over his breakfast, but perhaps he should have spent slightly longer over his breakfast. The figures that he gave for maintained special schools and the number of pupils are correct, but consideration must be given to the number of pupils in non-maintained special schools and independent special schools, where the number of pupils with statements is increasing. The key point, however, is that although the numbers have decreased, there has also been an overall decrease in the pupil population. In fact, whereas the proportion of children in maintained special schools in 1997 was 1.1 per cent., remaining at that level up to 2003, and in 2005 the figure was 1 per cent. The proportion of children placed in maintained special schools has been stable for the past eight years, which gives the lie to the proposition that there has been a radical change and that a large proportion of children cannot now access and take advantage of those special schools.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should use today as a celebration of the contribution of special schools. I am more than happy to celebrate and praise the contribution that special schools make both to the children with places in them, and increasingly—this is a key element of Government policy—through their work with mainstream schools, sharing that expertise and ensuring that children get the best facilities, support, teaching and provision, whatever school they attend. That is at the heart of what we mean by inclusion: looking at the needs of each child and ensuring that they receive the best provision and support, wherever they are educated.

When it comes to making decisions about the organisation and structure of special needs provision, local authorities and schools themselves are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils in their areas. That is why amendment No. 35 is unnecessary and undesirable. In terms of its intention, it is an example of a centralising amendment. While certain values remain paramount in dealing with children with special needs, those needs and the demography of children with special needs will change over time. Local authorities that reorganise their special educational needs provision quite often do so because they recognise that special schools need to cater for the growing population of children with severe and complex needs, and mainstream schools need to have the capacity to teach children with moderate learning difficulties who in many circumstances would not be appropriately placed in special schools. As I suggested, that close collaboration between special and mainstream schools is also being promoted.

Local authorities are also developing resourced provision within or attached to schools as another way of providing specialist help to pupils who need it and of including them in mainstream activities. That would be prevented by any moratorium or if local authorities could not examine how they organised their provision. That is what some hon. Members opposite want, but it is not what we want, which is a continuum of provision to meet the range of needs.

Of course the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) is right that parents feel passionately about ensuring that their children receive the best provision, which is at the heart of the Government’s approach to developing special educational needs provision. However, let me correct a couple of her other comments—perhaps she would like to listen to this. She said that most parents of children with special educational needs have to go to SENDIST, but that is just wrong. Not only does the number not constitute most parents, but the number of appeals to SENDIST has fallen markedly, by 9 per cent.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Could that be because most parents cannot afford to go to a tribunal?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, it could not. Of course the statementing process is important, but the proportion of statements written within the required 18 weeks now stands at 92 per cent., up from 82 per cent. five years ago. Of course the system is not perfect, but to suggest that the vast majority of parents and children are not receiving important support is to misjudge and misrepresent it in a way that does not help mature debate.

The amendment would remove one of the key flexibilities in the continuum of provision that we want to achieve. Clause 18 is not about the opening or closure of schools, but about the alteration of existing schools and the circumstances in which proposals need to be published. Sometimes in order to alter or establish a certain type of special needs provision, often in new and improved facilities, other provision in unsuitable accommodation needs to close. We do not want to impose from the centre a planning blight on local authorities so that they cannot develop provision to meet changing patterns of need in their areas. How local authorities publish proposals for appropriate provision must be up to them.

It is not for the Government to say, for example, “You’ve got to have five special schools, two pupil referral units, or so many special needs units attached to mainstream schools.” Those are rightly matters for local decision based on local needs. I hope, for the reasons that I have given, that amendment No. 35 will not be pressed.

The provisions that we have made are the right approach, and I hope that hon. Members who have tabled amendments in the group—whether to clause 16, which relates to a reserve power in specific emergency circumstances, or to clause 18—will not press them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has comprehensively assessed the clause and the amendments. I shall deal with each in turn.

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about amendment No. 34, which was that in the case of the closure of a special school in the emergency circumstances that she described, the reasons for such a direction would be given in writing as a matter of course. Furthermore, I accept her advice that those consulted would include all appropriate people, which would by necessity include parents of children attending the school. On that basis, it seems to me to be entirely unreasonable to press either amendment No. 34 or amendment No. 33. I also take her advice that the clause provides a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances andwill, in effect, give life once again to the power in the 1998 Act, which has not been used because such emergencies have not occurred. On that basis, it would be inappropriate to press amendment No. 32.

However, the right hon. Lady made one or two points about alternative provision that were less convincing. I accept that the circumstances in which the clause would be used would necessarily be exceptional. However, it would be odd if acceptable alternative provision for children affected was not a critical part of the process. She said that the statement would be amended if necessary and that proper consideration would have to be given by force of law, because there is a statutory duty to provide an education in line with the statement that would remain regardless of the closure of the school concerned. None the less, it would be useful to accept amendment No. 255 as it is highly desirable in such emergency, albeit rare, circumstances that alternative provision is a central element of what the law expects. The right hon. Lady was less convincing on that topic.

I was pleased that the Minister took up my challenge to celebrate the work of special schools. I am concerned that The Times Educational Supplement survey suggests that 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive enough support to ensure the success of inclusion and that two thirds of teachers have received less than one day’s training on how to teach children with special needs. Those are matters of profound concern.

If we are going to include children in the mainstream—there are many children for whom that is the right course—we must ensure that those who are responsible for educating them are equipped to do so, as the Minister said. I do not in any way deride the good work of schools or the good intentions of the Minister, but I am not sure that the evidence suggests that that is always the case. I want to re-amplify those worries here today. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, I am inclined to press amendment No. 255 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 2

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in schedule 2, page 114, line 16, after ‘paragraph' insert

‘, other than proposals to which paragraph 10 applies,'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 108 to 127.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

These amendments are intended in the main to correct technical drafting flaws in the Bill and in some cases to preserve and clarify its original intention. I will provide the Committee with a brief overview of their effect, dealing first with the purely technical amendments.

Amendments Nos. 108, 112, 119, 121, 122, and 127 are designed to correct and clarify cross-references in the Bill to other legislation, including references to other sections of the Bill and to the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

The other main “sub-group” is amendmentsNos. 110, 111, 113, 120, 123, 124, 125 and 126.They are all designed to clarify at various points in the schedule that the requirement to link proposals for consideration, determination or referral to the adjudicator applies only when those proposals are yet to be determined.

Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 will widen the circumstances in which prescribed bodies such diocesan authorities, promoters of new schools and, in some circumstances, the governors of a school or the Learning and Skills Council may refer an objection to a local authority's decision on proposals to the adjudicator. As the Bill stands, such objections may be referred only when proposals have been rejected, which could mean that there would be no mechanism for appeal if a local authority approved proposals for an independent school to join the maintained sector despite concerns about the impact on community cohesion. The amendments change the wording so that objections may also be referred when proposals have been determined.

We are also allowing the local authority to comment on proposals when they are referred. That was always the original intention of the legislation, as was indicated in the White Paper, which made it clear that providers who were dissatisfied with a local authority decision would be able to appeal to the schools adjudicator. Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 fulfil that commitment fully.

Amendment No. 107 is designed to clarify the intention when a local authority is required torefer proposals to the schools adjudicator. As the Committee will be aware, when proposals are referred, the local authority has no role in determining them. Amendment No. 107 makes it clear that the local authority will not be expected to undertake any consideration of such proposals.

Amendment No. 109 corrects an original intention of the legislation. As the Bill stands, regulations would prescribe the changes that local authorities may make to proposals before they are determined. We do not think it necessary to prescribe such changes, because local authorities must be given the freedom to consider and respond to differing local circumstances and concerns. The amendment therefore removes the reference to prescribed alterations.

Amendment No. 114 removes the requirement on a local authority automatically to refer its own proposals to discontinue a school to the schools adjudicator if objections are received from any party. If this amendment is not made, the net result could be a massive and unacceptable burden on the schools adjudicator, as most proposals would be likely to end up at the adjudicator's door. Our intention was always that proposals should be referred only at the request of the types of organisation that I mentioned earlier—for example, those represented on the school organisation committee. The amendment corrects the Bill to achieve that intention.

Amendment No. 115 provides for regulations to allow that where a local authority refers to the adjudicator its own proposals or those concerning a trust in which it has a minor interest, objections to those proposals may also be referred.

I hope that members of the Committee agree that the amendments are helpful not only in tidying up some of the current drafting in the Bill, but in making our policy intentions clearer in some areas and providing useful additional provision in others.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am delighted that some of the amendments take us back to the vision of the White Paper, which is the driving force behind most of our amendments. However, I have a few points to raise regarding amendments Nos. 109, 114, 117, and 122.

The Minister explained that amendment No. 109 does not correct a drafting error. I assume, therefore, that the phrase “of a prescribed kind” in paragraph 8(4)(c) of the schedule was originally intended to be included, as I would have expected, so that where schools are established under the procedures inclauses 9 or 10—that is, outside a competition—local authorities’ powers to alter proposals would be more limited than with proposals under clause 7, which involves proposals that local authorities have invited. If that is the case, why has the Minister changed her position? Why does she now want to give local authorities more say over proposals for new schools that they might not have had any involvement in initiating, unless the procedure was according toclause 9(1), in which case they would have to seek special permission to initiate from the Secretary of State? A response to that point would be extremely helpful.

Will the Minister confirm that the effect of amendment No. 114 together with amendment No. 117 would be to prevent the objections to school closures of people other than those listed resulting in a referral to the schools adjudicator?

On amendment No. 122, will the Minister explain why paragraph 14 of the schedule will not be included in the amended list in paragraph 18(3)(a)?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

If I may do so with your agreement, Mr. Chope, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendments before making general comments on part 4 of the schedule, rather than speak in the debate on clause stand part.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That seems very fair.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Thank you, Mr. Chope.

I welcome the fact that the Government are giving more freedom to local authorities, as amendmentNo. 109 does. I have some queries about part 4 of the schedule. Have the Government considered the possibility of transferring assets to a trust with a leasehold rather than with a freehold? That would partly deal with the concern of many hon. Members that a trust might damage the value of an asset and prevent a local authority from having any overall strategic management of it. It would ensure that, if any serious alterations to the building were needed, the trust would have to notify the freeholder before making them. It would allow some element of protection.

Will the Minister confirm that playing fields are excluded from being transferred to prevent their sale and their loss to an area?

It is not clear to us why, as set out in paragraph 28(4), the local authority should pay the costs of a transfer to a trust. Will the Minister clarify the intention behind that? When any other asset is sold, the person buying or gaining it would pay the costs. The local authority may incur considerable costs.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall first answer the points madeby the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I will look carefully at what he said on amendment No. 109, but I do not necessarily accept his interpretation of it. It relates to the extent to which a local authority can modify proposals when making a decision on them. The amendment will mean that such modification does not need to be constrained to a prescribed alteration. A local authority will not be able to make radical changes; the intention is that the shape of the original proposal must remain but that there should not be artificial restrictions on the nature of the modifications that a local authority can make.

On amendment No. 114, if the hon. Gentleman was asking me whether it would limit those who could require a local authority to refer to an adjudicator, the answer is yes, as I spelt out in my earlier comments. As originally drafted, the implication of the Bill was that if there were any objection to a proposal it would have to be referred to the adjudicator. That was neither the policy intention nor the current position, and no member of the Committee would think that a proportionate approach. Our proposal is that those who are currently represented on the school organisation committee, for example, would maintain their ability to refer proposals for adjudication.

I am afraid that I slightly lost track of the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will write to him with a response.

The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) referred to part 4 of the schedule. I can perhaps provide her with some reassurance. The guidance that I have issued alongside clause 34—I think that it has been sent out to members of the Committee—spells out in detail the different circumstances of the transfer of assets when a school takes on foundation status, the various protections afforded to both the school and the local authority and the adjudicator’s role in mediating in certain circumstances; for instance, if there is disagreement about the nature of the land to be transferred.

On the point that the hon. Lady made about leasehold, the disadvantage of negotiating potentially 24,000 different leasehold agreements is that it would be time-consuming, burdensome and bureaucratic. We believe that the transfer of freehold, the protections outlined in schedule 4 and the guidance to which I have referred are the most effective ways in which we can ensure what I think she is getting at—the suitable protection of publicly funded land. I think that if she looks at the guidance and the schedule, she will see the sort of protections that we envisage.

Finally, I can reassure the hon. Lady, not on her specific point, but with respect to playing fields, that there is nothing in the legislation or the transfer of assets that would undermine the protection of playing field land put in place by—if my memory serves me right—section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act. Under the Bill before us, that protection will remain in place. With those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support schedule 2.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in schedule 2, page 117, line 42, at end insert—

‘Right of appeal against decisions of the adjudicator

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Hear, hear!

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Gentleman says, “Hear, hear!” about that provision. When we discuss school organisation committees, we will come to a provision that the hon. Gentleman will no doubt regret, also established under that Act.

Under current legislation and this Bill, there is no right of appeal for such decisions. The only recourse for aggrieved parties is the costly and limited judicial review process. A judicial review of a decision by a school adjudicator can cost about £50,000 or £60,000. The Bill before us extends significantly the powers of the school adjudicator, and we believe that natural justice requires that there be an appeal process from those decisions. We have opted for that appeal to be to the Secretary of State, who is, of course, accountable to Parliament and the electorate.

There is a concern that the school adjudicator and his regional representatives are very much part of the education establishment, which is responsible forthe current problems in our education system and under which a quarter of secondary schools are underperforming. There is a concern also that in reality they are not as independent as they were established to be. In their seminal work for Policy Exchange: “More Good School Places”, James O’Shaughnessy and Charlotte Leslie wrote that,

“although the Adjudicator is supposed to be independent, it is unfortunately not always so, as Rose Bugler from the Lowick Primary School in Cumbria explains”.

Cumbria education authority wanted to close the Lowick school. Rose Bugler said:

“The LEA said to us that they had decided early on that there was no need for any new schools in the county. End of story.”

She went on to say:

“We finally got to the Adjudicator, who we thought would be independent. However, the Adjudicator has to take note of what the LEA says and of course that must be the ‘truth’. It was all tied up in political knots.”

O’Shaughnessy and Leslie provide other examples of the adjudicator’s decision making that demonstrate why it is crucial for there to be an appeal process against his or her decisions. They cite the example of Brighton and Hove Montessori school, a not-for-profit independent school. For 12 years, it had been trying to become the first state Montessori school in the United Kingdom. In 2004, the Department for Education and Skills approved its capital funding bid to buy land and to build a voluntary aided school. Because it was a voluntary aided school, the school had to find 10 per cent. of the capital. As O’Shaughnessy and Leslie comment,

“Initially, the local authority, Brighton and Hove City Council, supported their bid but, despite the DFES’s enthusiasm, soon became far less co-operative.”

The Brighton and Hove school organisation committee refused the application for voluntary aided status on five grounds and the school appealed to the schools adjudicator. The grounds for the objection were: the educational standards of the proposed school; the source of the capital funding; the fact that there were surplus places in the area; a lack of parental demand; and the school’s unhappiness with the admission arrangements. To counter those criticisms, the school pointed out that surplus places cannot be used as an argument in rejecting an application by a proposer where there is a strong case based on parental preference and standards. The school had a full waiting list and a 700-name petition calling for it; it had followed the advice of the admissions team at the DFES; and its Ofsted reports were good.

The adjudicator found against the school on the capital funding issue. The DFES guidance prevented him from approving the bid on the condition of the remaining funding being found. Meanwhile, the LEA’s opposition to the school had discouraged the bank, with which the school had been negotiating for the other 10 per cent., from approving the loan. The bank was unwilling to go ahead without a more positive input from the LEA. It became a vicious circle. DFES guidance states that the presumption should be to approve a new bid. The grounds on which the bid was contested were very dubious, and the decision of the adjudicator was predicated on caution and maintaining the status quo. In his conclusion to the case, the adjudicator said:

“It is not...possible to be certain that present qualities” —

the high quality of education provided when the school was in the independent sector—

“would apply to the proposed school. I must if anything err on the side of caution.”

In a statement echoing the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister to this Bill, he said that, with its new facilities, the new maintained school

“might prove attractive to more local families who might indeed find places to be available. If that were to be the case, then the anxieties expressed by the LEA, schools local to the proposed site and other objectors would prove to be well founded.”

The report demonstrates the challenges faced bypromoters in establishing new schools. Where promoters face opposition from existing schools and the LEA, they can find it difficult to proceed. The adjudicator in that case reinforced the erroneous objections. His decision explicitly recognised the success and popularity of the new school, but his comments on the impact that the school would have on existing schools demonstrated a reluctance to challenge the position of those schools.

There was, therefore, a case for an appeal against the decision of the schools adjudicator even before the Bill was published. The new, increased range of decisions to be referred to the adjudicator under the Bill makes the case for an appeal process even more compelling.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s arguments in response to this Conservative amendment, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches instinctively see the amendment as attempting to undermine the independence of the schools adjudicator. Our instinct is to oppose it, but we will listen carefully to the Minister and to what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton says in reply.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we have heard, the amendment would give schools and the proposers of new schools a right of appeal to the Secretary of State on decisions of the adjudicator. The instincts of the hon. Member for Brent, East are right; it is a slightly surprising amendment, given what I thought was a reasonably recurrent theme of Conservative policy—the need to cut back on the power of Government and the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wrongly sees the adjudicator as being a creature of government. He disparagingly dismissed those who carry out that important role as being part of what he called an educational establishment that has failed badly—a sweeping deprecation of large numbers of hard-working people who have achieved some considerable improvements over the past eight years.

Nevertheless, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the eight adjudicators, including Dr. Philip Hunter, the chief adjudicator, all had a wide and diverseexperience of education before being appointed. That is important when making independent decisions about complex educational issues. Three were chief education officers, three were Her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, one was a diocesan director of education and one was a civil servant who now also serves as a parliamentary commissioner. They were appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively, taking account of the case presented by each party, the evidence presented to support that case and any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Adjudicators areindependent of the Secretary of State, and base their decisions on the merits of each case.

As for the merits of the case for the amendment, I am unpersuaded. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would always take decisions on the merits of the cases that came before her, the possibility has to be considered that not all holders of her office would do so. At one time, many changes to schools came to the Secretary of State for a decision. One reason for stopping that and devolving decision making on school organisation to the local level was to ensure that such decisions were taken without national political intervention.

On balance, we think it right that local decisions should be taken locally whenever possible. That is why, as I suggested after the 1997 election, we introduced the school organisation committee, which we will discuss later, that will represent local stake holders; and we are now introducing a new framework, with the local authority as the commissioner and assurer of education provision.

However, we appreciate that in some circumstances there may be a local clash of interests—a school proposed for closure by the local authority may have different ideas, or a school may wish to expand to offer greater choice to parents. There may be circumstances such as outlined by the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the fact that he thought the adjudicator had not made the right decision in those circumstances, where a proposer might make a proposition that the local decision maker turned down.

In such circumstances, we think it right that there should also be an appeal against the decision of the local authority. That is why we have provided the right to appeal to the adjudicator. That right of appeal is the second stage of the process. There will already have been a local determination, with all the consultation and consideration that we have previously discussed in relation to other measures in the Bill. However, there will come a time when appeals must come to an end—a time when enough is enough. An appeal againstthe appeal is, I would argue, unnecessary in such circumstances. Adjudicators are independent, and their decisions are based on the merits of the case.

In extreme circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, a judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision is possible. The system is now, but will be even more so under the Bill, made up of an important process of local decision making and accountability alongside an ability to refer disputed decisions to an independent adjudicator. That is an appropriate balance. Having a further right of appeal, particularly one to the Secretary of State and central Government, goes against theprovisions and direction of the Bill and the efficient operation of school organisation at a local level. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

There is widespread concern outside this place about extra powers being given to the adjudicator, particularly because there is no right to appeal from the adjudicator. Let me pick any page of the Bill: page 115 in schedule 2 contains paragraphs entitled “Duty to refer to adjudicator proposals made by...relevant authority” and “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator in prescribed cases”. On the next page are paragraphs entitled, “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator in pursuance of direction by Secretary of State”, “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator where determination delayed” and “Reference to adjudicator at request of aggrieved person”. I have not even touched on the admissions section of the Bill, in which the adjudicator has a large role.

There should be a right of appeal. That is all that the amendment says, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State cannot bring herself to insert into the Bill, perhaps through a Government amendment, some form of right of appeal from the adjudicator. I very much hope that the Liberals will support us on this, because there might be problems if we do not give this right of appeal—perhaps not in all circumstances, but certainly in some. In light of that, I should like to press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 17

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I beg to move amendment No. 353, in clause 17, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘(2A) Regulations must provide that alterations falling within subsection (2)(b) may be implemented only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 354, in clause 18, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

‘(1A) But proposals for a prescribed alteration involving the acquisition by a foundation or foundation special school of a foundation established otherwise than under SSFA 1998 may be published only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.

New clause 6—Conditions for new foundations—

‘(1) A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either—

(a) at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or

(b) at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.

(2) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(a) may also include one or more nursery schools, primary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.

(3) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(b) may also include one or more nursery schools, secondary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.

(4) A new foundation falling within subsection (1) shall be known as a “community learning trust”.'.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The amendments are paving amendments for new clause 6, which we have tabled to explore further the model that the Government have in mind for trust schools, and to offer a particular model based on collaboration. Elements of our concerns and our reasons for tabling the amendments have been picked up in the guidance and the helpful document that was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. However, there are other elements that we want to probe further, and we would like to place on record why we favour a more collaborative model.

Let me first place the issue in context. As we have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we are not opposed in principle to external partners being involved in education provision. However, we have sought to put on record, both here and elsewhere, details of the safeguards governing the types of organisation that would be involved. We have also said that we would not want an external partner to usurp the direct accountability that parents currently enjoy through the governing body. We will discuss some of those issues shortly when we come to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North. We are also unhappy about giving schools greater freedom on admissions, although we are happy to give them greater financial freedom and would like all schools to have greater freedom in dealing with the curriculum, as academies currently do.

Critically, any model should include collaboration, and that is why we tabled the amendments. On page 4 of the document that was circulated at the end of our morning sitting, the Government make provision for a group of local schools to work with a trust, and that touches on many of the issues that we are raising, but we would like to broaden that provision. It is important that a trust involves collaboration between schools or between schools and colleges or other providers. In that way, the trust will be embedded in the local community, rather than just being part of a national chain, in which case its concerns and objectives might relate more to the national brand and the national profile than to what was good for the local community.

The model that we propose would have the benefit of preventing cherry-picking. It would prevent trusts from coming into an area and picking off the good schools, rather than working to benefit all the schools in the area.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does that mean that the Liberals oppose the very good work of the Mercers’ Company, which has a range of schools, and which would benefit very much from being able to establish further schools under its brand nationwide? The schools in the Mercers’ Company family that I have visited are fantastic and include the Thomas Telford school, which is the best comprehensive school in Britain.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

What I am saying is that we particularly favour a model of collaboration. Certain people—the hon. Gentleman has alluded to one example—have a track record of involvement in education, and that would be a different matter. We are concerned about particular trusts coming into an area, picking off the best schools and moving across boroughs, rather than working in collaboration for the benefit of all schools in the area. Given the focus on league tables and exam results, there is a danger that chains of schools will have an incentive to become elitist and to use their freedom on admissions to exclude difficult or under-achieving pupils.

If trusts are to be involved in several schools, that implies that there will be a much greater commitment to the local area. As outlined in the guidance that the Minister circulated, such trusts could be made up of several partners. The vision that we have laid out would allow organisations other than just schools to be involved in forming partnerships. For example, external partners such as youth services providing child care or youth, social or family support could link with learning providers. There could also be links with FE colleges, as we discussed at considerable length during this morning’s sitting.

The key point about collaboration is that it would ensure that the trust model provided greater diversity in the curriculum and greater choice for young people. The benefits would include the ability to share teaching expertise, which will be vital if we are to work towards providing for Tomlinson or even just the rather limited version of diplomas that are offered in the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The model that the hon. Lady outlinesis interesting. Would she include in it private organisations that might play a role in management or education provision itself?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Another possibility could be work-based learning providers that were private companies. That is precisely the kind of vision that we are trying to draw out. The point is that a trust would be based in a local area, rather than spread throughout the country, with favoured schools being cherry-picked. Our proposal would provide for a model of integrated learning involving further education colleges, work-based learning providers and any other expertise that could be offered in an area. It would allow schools, particularly disadvantaged ones, to overcome, for example, shortages of specialist teachers in subjects such as science, maths and languages.

It is notable that the shortage of specialist teachers occurs particularly in disadvantaged areas. Let usconsider the statistics. Only about 4 per cent. of teachers throughout the country lack specialist status, but in many central London boroughs the figure can be as high as 15 or 16 per cent., so the disparity is huge. It might be interesting to consider our model for those areas.

Such collaborations may happen already. However, we are concerned about the rhetoric behind theBill. Admittedly, we have not heard that rhetoric in Committee, where this Minister is leading on the Bill, but there has been rhetoric from No. 10 about picking off different schools—about schools operating inisolation in a competitive model. Our concern is that there will be a disincentive to the kind of collaborations that can happen already and that some of the good collaborations that have happened in many areas and that are helping to drive up standards will be broken.

Our model would strengthen the collaborations that can already happen, but they would happen in the context of the safeguards that we dealt with in relation to earlier clauses and that we will come to in the next string of amendments.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Let us be clear about what the new clause would do. It states:

“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or...at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.”

This proposal is another example of the position that the Liberal party has adopted on the Bill, which is deep hostility. That position is as mistaken as the position that the Liberal party took on the Iraqi war—a position that Lord Ashdown, its former leader, also believes was a mistake.

The new clause would completely destroy the central tenet of the Bill, which is trust schools. It would confine the establishment of such schools to the situation of a local federation and it would restrict foundations to controlling groups of schools in a local area. It would rule out two possibilities. First, it would rule out the possibility of a national educational organisation trying to set up a nationwide chain of schools, as the hon. Lady admitted. That would rule out companies such as the Mercers’ Company, a City of London guild, which has a fantastic track record in the provision of education in this country. When the hon. Lady is out of Committee and has time to go to the Thomas Telford school, as I did just before the Committee started, she will see an example of how education in this country should be run. That school provides all the vocational education that she and her colleagues have talked about, but it also has very high standards of academic education.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

It is unclear why the hon. Gentleman argues that the proposal would prevent trusts with a national reputation from building a national chain of schools. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brent, East simply says that they should build federations of schools. A federation is at least two schools. There would be nothing to prevent an organisation that wished to build a network nationally from doing so, but it would be building a network of federations rather than individual schools. According to the arguments that the hon. Lady has put—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. That is long enough for an intervention.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

First, the hon. Lady explicitly ruled out such national organisations in her remarks. Secondly, the new clause explicitly says:

“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other”

and so on. A particular company may well not have two schools, or may not want to have two schools, within six miles of each other. The schools may be spread nationally—throughout the country. However many it had then, it would fall foul of the amendment. That would prevent the establishment of such branding-type organisations, although they would be an effective way to inject innovation and high standards into the education system. That is a basic element of the Bill, which is why it will be effective when it reaches the statute book.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will my hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that it is perverse to suggest that the Mercersor the Leathersellers—another guild involved in education—could be competent and proper people to establish two schools but not one? Perhaps my hon. Friend will explore why people say it. Might it be a slightly disingenuous policy on the part of the Liberal Democrats and others?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had not mentioned: there is a requirement in the new clause for two schools, which would rule out foundation status for individual schools. That would be a huge disappointment. It would also rule out the possibility of individual schools acquiring a bespoke trust design to meet their specific needs. The amendments would hinder the main objective of the Bill, which is to raise the quality of education available to children.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the thrust of the amendment is to promote collaboration rather than competition? Cannot collaboration raise standards effectively?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am in favour of collaboration, and other provisions in the Bill encourage it. We debated earlier a clause imported from previous legislation that is all about federations of schools—clause 11. However, I understood from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the new clause specifically rules out the Mercers’ Company approach to education, which is, I think, a basic principle of the Bill. I think that that will be very successful when it is up and running in the years ahead. I rest my case there, and urge the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment; if they do not, I urge hon. Members to vote against the new clause.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I find some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments a little extraordinary. His tangential remarks about the Iraq war were more to be expected from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings; perhaps some influence is being exerted. We are clear that the amendments and new clause are setting a challenge to us all. We consider that there is not sufficient collaboration at this stage and that competition will prevent collaboration. We also feel that the foundation idea does not involve enough in the way of local connection. That is what we are trying to explore. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Part of our reason for tabling the amendments and new clause relates to the academies that we have discussed already. Academies are supposed to replace failing schools. The Government insist that the sponsors involved in academies are philanthropic. However, the Committee has agreed, from the evidence of the handful that are up and running so far, that admissions and exclusion policies are being used to weed out the more difficult, ill-disciplined and hard-to-teach children.

With the educational climate as it is, focusing on exam results, league tables, Ofsted reports and nationwide comparisons, it is natural that those who run schools will focus on improving their standing in those areas on which they are publicly judged. The key point is that, by contrast to what applies to academies, trust sponsors are not even obliged to sponsor a failing or coasting school. Where is the incentive to get involved with a school that is failing? For those reasons we believe that there should be collaboration, and in the community learning trust model, with groups of schools, the problem is avoided.

At the moment, we rely on the good will of those setting up foundations. Surely it is better to have some safeguards to protect against such cherry-picking. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:

“The Bill will help us to raise standards in our schools, especially the under-performing schools in our most challenging communities.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2006; Vol. 443,c. 1474.]

That is unlikely to happen if foundations are able to cherry-pick the best schools with which to work. That would merely solidify a two-tier system, with foundation schools at the top and LEA community schools at the bottom.

A further potential problem is one that we have seen with academies, which is that an LEA has a vested interest not in a particular school but in promoting the achievements of all schools in its area, whereas a trust, even one set up in a poorly performing school, may be tempted to improve its results at the expense of other schools in the area by cherry-picking pupils.

Why are we so afraid of federation and collaboration? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, sharing teaching expertise wouldhelp failing schools. We could also share school management. In my constituency, the excellently performing school Prince Henry’s grammar school, a comprehensive school, has lent its head teacher to a famous school in Bradford, yet the school’s leadership remains excellent. Both schools have therefore benefited. There is a shortage of head teachers, so why not use that model of collaboration?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for that sort of sharing. Both he and the hon. Member for Brent, East made some good points about extending that to other agencies, other providers and others with an interest in education. However, I do not understand why that would exclude support for a single school. As my hon. Friend said, some who want to get involved with education at the moment want to get involved with a specific school, but that is not necessarily a principle for collaboration.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. I think that is long enough.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but more than one institution has to be involved or it cannot be a federation. It could be a primary and a secondary school, or a secondary school and a further education college. There are different ways of doing it, but that is a necessary principle.

I turn to a subject that I know interests the hon. Gentleman—special educational needs provision. Not all schools can afford or even find sufficient SEN support. Again, why cannot schools work together? We accept that collaboration happens now without the need for formal relationships. We believe that formal relationships via a community learning trust would ensure that trust schools could not opt out of existing informal arrangements, which would guarantee such relationships where they currently do not yet exist.

Finally, I turn to governors. It is a question of accountability. I am sorry, Mr. Chope, but that subject comes under the next group of amendments.

I am surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We suggest an approach that involves collaboration, that enshrines local connection and that has far more local accountability. Those are the principles that the Liberal Democrats are trying to bring to the Bill.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I shall try to be brief. I challenge the notion suggested by the Liberal Democrats that collaboration is necessarily prevented by schools running in an independent fashion. We should remember that further education institutions are already independent, and the Liberal Democrats have never once suggested that FE institutions are not capable of working in collaboration with local schools. Indeed, they say that it already happens. Collaboration can be just as effective with a group of schools working independently as it is in the local authority community model that we are using at the moment.

Indeed, the model that we should have in mind when discussing this clause is that of a strategic framework developed by a local authority, the commissioner of local provision. Within that collaborative strategic framework, we need to have schools working with outside partners to develop expertise, to innovate and, perhaps most importantly—it is certainly the most important point for me—engaging employers in the work of our schools.

It has taken us a long time to get to grips withthat difficulty. Nationally, we have businesses thatdesperately want to engage with the education system and schools that say, “We want employers to take more of an interest in our work. We need our young people to be engaged with employers and to have meaningful work experience that develops career pathways through to employment.” However, neither of the sectors has ever quite managed to achieve its ambition. Trust schools are perhaps the means by which real collaboration between employers and schools can develop.

In Sheffield, we already have a model similar to that. We have a collaborative framework that tries to engage employers directly with schools by taking employers’ representatives on to governing bodies. However, that has not proved to be enough, so we need to go a stage further. A strategic framework, if it is properly managed and if the political will is there, can also cover special educational needs, looked-after children and exclusion and behavioural issues. There is no reason to believe that charitable trusts will be opposed to ensuring thatproblems relating to behaviour and exclusion are equally shared around a local authority area. If the political will is there—and commissioners who have to ensure thatit is there are knitted into the strategic framework—there is no reason for it not to work.

We need to broaden the idea of what a trust can be. Everybody is imagining that the trusts will be restricted to private enterprise and to McDonald’s-type outfits. The way to denigrate a model is to apply the lowest common denominator. Let us just think more imaginatively and creatively.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that broadening the concept of trusts is precisely what we seek to do with this new clause and amendments. Does she not accept that?

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

All I see is an attempt to denigrate trusts and the possibility of their working in a collaborative manner. In my city we have Sheffield Theatres, a charitable trust, which could work well with our performing arts specialist schools. That could do effective work for children in our city. We also have a sports trust, which runs some of the best international sporting facilities in the country and most of our leisure centres. There could be very exciting opportunities for employment, sports science and the development of expertise among our young people if that trust were to work with our sports specialist schools.

More than anything else, we need an engineering trust in Sheffield. Our city desperately needs engineering skills for the future. It was built on engineering and I am confident that most parents and other citizens would welcome an engineering trust.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

This might not be connected to an engineering trust, but does my hon. Friend see the scope for a co-operative school to be established following models that exist under co-operatives and social enterprises?

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I would not rule out any possibility in terms of forming charitable trusts so long as it fell within the framework of our guidance. We have to be creative.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I will now move to a conclusion. I think that I have made the case for viewing the trust model in a perhaps more creative and imaginative way than has been recognised by the Liberal Democrats. I shall finish by making another point about special educational needs, because the trust model should apply equally to special schools.

The possibility of bringing innovation and best practice into the system is more relevant to the special needs population and to special needs education than any other. We need to personalise learning for children with special needs as much as we can. That area of practice needs innovation. So many charities are working in the field of special educational needs that it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to imagine charitable trusts that are set up to exploit and use the expertise that is available out there in the special needs sector.

I do not want to tie particular charities down to an arrangement that I have not even discussed with them, but if we think things through, the National Autistic Society, for instance, could engage with our schools to use their expertise successfully. The society is in touch with parents and the professionals, so let us think through what we can do with the model. It offers a way forward that will help to personalise learning for children and expand the opportunities available to them, including their career opportunities in the long term.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith). She has injected precisely what we need in this Committee, which is a bit of inspiration, creativity and excitement about what the proposals in the Bill and the next stage of reform could mean. I thank her for that.

The combined effect of amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 would be to provide that the governing body of an existing foundation or foundation special school could publish or implement proposals to acquire a trust only if it met certain conditions on involving other schools in the trust. Specifically, all proposals by an existing foundation or foundation school to acquire a trust under the Bill would have to contain either at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other or two primary schools within six miles of each other.

New clause 6 would allow other organisations to be partners in a trust. Although I recognise that the list in the new clause is not exhaustive or prescriptive, there are nevertheless a number of obvious omissions, such as parent and community groups, businesses and the interesting examples that my hon. Friend identified as potential partners. The hon. Member for Brent, East has made it clear that her intention with amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 is to probe—I hope that it is only to probe—the extent to which trusts would support collaborations. My criticism is of the narrow view and the constraining effect on the ability of trusts to contribute to schools and standards in the way that we would want them to.

The proposals relating to collaboration are unnecessary. A wide range of collaborations between different types of schools are already flourishing, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Schools are already collaborating effectively to deliver a broad 14-to-19 curriculum. We have promoted collaboration through, among other things, the excellence in cities programme. Soft federations are developing in local areas. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) rightly said, there are some very effective head teachers working with other schools to drive up standards—not just in his constituency, but throughout the country, and quite often supported through some of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust’s projects—and, of course, academies and trusts will be encouraged to collaborate, and support and challenge each other, in the same way as are schools.

I do not think that any Member has argued against the potential benefits that a wide range of collaboration can bring. The amendments, and the approach behind them, are fundamentally wrong. It is not undesirable for a number of schools, primary or secondary, to work together in a trust. Far from it; that could be an excellent model. We have suggested previously, as an example of good practice, that a charitable incorporated trust could provide the necessary long-term relationship and framework to allow a network of schools to collaborate in order to help to raise standards and share best practice.

In case the hon. Member for Brent, East comes back at me and says, “Well, you have just identified a whole range of ways in which schools are already working collaboratively,” the problem with trusts is that too often those collaborations are based on ad hoc arrangements. Sometimes heroic individuals have helped to form that collaboration, and when they move on they take with them that expertise. One of the big contributions that the trust model could make would be to enable a more permanent route through.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to, and I think that I did too in an earlier part of the Committee stage, a presentation in Downing street from a group of headteachers who are working already in successful schools, but helping also to drive up standards in schools performing less well. They suggested that that is why federation could be an important way of raising standards for children, and an example of how trusts might be of great benefit.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The right hon. Lady is making a persuasive case for why we need a diverse approach to a diverse range of needs. She said that it would be useful, sometimes, to use trust schools to make permanent the best features of collaboration, but will she accept that sometimes there is a need for a particular counter-dynamic and so collaboration would be right sometimes, but less relevant or pertinent later on? The flexibility that she described works both ways.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Trusts might well be an important way in which to bring permanence to collaborations, and enable us to bring in external partners for support.

We are not arguing, however, that they would be the only way in which schools could collaborate. Trust schools might well be engaged in other local collaborations—perhaps a 14-to-19 collaboration that was not part of a trust arrangement. So developing a trust arrangement, even in collaboration with other schools, would not limit their ability to work in partnership with other schools, perhaps locally or with other networks of which a school might be part.

The trouble with the amendments is that not only would they require certain types of partnerships between schools in all cases involving a trust, but they would prevent a number of potentially positive collaborations. For example, isolated rural secondary schools that might be more than six miles from the nearest other secondary school would be denied the opportunity of working together in a trust. They would rule out also the possibility of trusts supporting a network or partnership of schools at opposite ends of the country using perhaps IT links to share good practice; and the option also of a trust involving one primary and one secondary school. Headteachers in some areas are thinking about what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole described as vertical federations. We could envisage the possibility of vertical trusts, but that would be ruled out by the amendments.

Furthermore, valuable as can be the possibility of having another school as an external partner in a trust, it would not be the most appropriate model for all trusts. I do not think that it should be for central Government to try to second guess or pre-empt local decisions. Dare I say to the hon. Member for Brent, East, who has been making that case in relation to other amendments, that the decision on what kind of trust would be most appropriate to the individuals of each school is one that is best taken locally by the governing body of that school? Of course withinthe decision-making process there will be local accountability, which we have set out in considerably more detail in the statutory guidance to decision makers that I made available to the Committee this morning. The matter is best taken in a way that does not assume that one size fits all, and that fulfils our desire to ensure that all children can access an education tailored specifically to them.

The rationale behind trusts is to allow schools to raise standards by strengthening collaboration and drawing on the expertise and energy of their partners to support strategic leadership. They will be backed by an organisation that shares their aspirations for their pupils, knows their community, can support their continuing improvement and provides them with governors. There will not be a single model for ensuring that that happens; schools need to be able to choose with whom to work and how, in order to support the needs and aspirations of their pupils and local communities.

Different bodies will of course bring different perspectives, experience and skills to support certain aspects of a school’s mission. We have spelled out in the other document that I have made available, “What trust schools could offer”, quite a few scenarios showing types of partnerships that could benefit schools. Without being exhaustive, I shall give a few examples.

There could be a partnership, as we have heard, between a successful school and a weaker school, offering opportunities to both parties to enhance leadership skills. A trust could be formed by higher education institutions and universities, using their particular expertise to help schools better to prepare young people for advanced study, to provide important progression routes to or help schools to tap into subject specialisms in the institutions.

A group of schools spread throughout the country could work with a single trust and incorporate a business or charitable foundation, or follow examples such as the Mercers’ Company or others that hon. Members have identified. A national network of schools could provide expertise in developing specialist subjects in the curriculum. Employers could play a role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough rightly said, in the ways that she identified in her examples and by talking locally about the contribution of theatres and sports trusts.

A trust could be established by businesses and local partners to support schools across a community, for example in a regeneration area, to bring in links with regeneration work and create new opportunities for children to help to meet their individual needs.

All of those possibilities are examples of collaboration, for which the hon. Member for Brent, East has argued but which would be ruled out by the tightly constrained way in which her amendment is written. There may be many circumstances in which it would be best for more than one school to have a shared trust, but not all schools will find it necessary or appropriate to work in a trust with others. For example, Southend-on-Sea borough council is working in partnership with Prospects college, a vocational training provider, to establish in Southend a trust school with leading-edge vocational specialism. It is an exciting initiative, bringing together vocational provision on one site. It links only to one school, but it is precisely the sort of contribution to vocational provision, in a school that has had a difficult time, that I would have thought would be welcomed by the hon. Lady. Her amendment would rule it out.

Of course I take seriously the concern that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West identified as cherry picking. We are completely clear that the benefits of trust status must be used to drive improvement and provide support and capacity for the schools and children that most need it. That is why the schools commissioner will play a key role in ensuring that schools in disadvantaged areas are able to benefit from trusts; in encouraging potential trusts to focus their interest on weaker schools and those in disadvantaged areas that are in the greatest need of support; and in encouraging schools in disadvantaged areas to think about how a trust could not only be beneficial to the school and its pupils but bring about wider changes and gains for the local community. As I have said, for schools wishing to work with other schools, trusts will be one option that we hope they will consider, but there will continue to be other options.

I understand that these were probing amendments, and I take the hon. Lady’s assurance that she can see the benefits that can come from trust status and from the external support and drive that we believe it will bring. I hope that she recognises that her amendments would limit that innovation and creativity and will, therefore, withdraw them.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

We tabled the amendments and new clause 6 to probe what the Government meant by their trust model and how committed they were to a model of collaboration, rather than a highly competitive model. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarifications and I accept her point that the amendment has been drafted so tightly that it excludes some of the things that we particularly wanted to include. However, its intention was to generate debate and to get on record the commitment that the Government have to a collaborative model, and many of the Minister’s comments were helpful.

I am not entirely satisfied that there is not still rather contradictory rhetoric coming from different parts of Government about a collaborative versus a competitive model for education. We remain rather concerned about rhetoric surrounding independence and whether this may be taken to be a disincentive to collaboration. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance and I take seriously the technical criticisms that she made about our amendment. Therefore, we will go away to consider whether we wish to bring forward some of our points in a different format on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 17, page 12, line 30, leave out paragraphs (c)and (d).

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 101, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

‘(g) any change involving an increase in the number of pupils that may be admitted to the school or an enlargement of the premises in any case in which, in the opinion of the local education authority concerned, such change would, to any material extent, prevent that authority, or the governing body of any other school maintained by that authority, from performing and carrying out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment.'.

No. 339, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

‘(g) any change of the admissions criteria of the school, unless by agreement with the governors of that school.'.

No. 102, in clause 19, page 14, line 14, at end insert—

‘(m) prohibiting approval of any alteration involving the expansion of a school in any case in which such expansion may be considered detrimental to the opportunities available to the local education authority or to the governing body of a maintained school in its area to satisfy obligations imposed by this or any other enactment.'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

The amendment deals with the capacity of an existing foundation school to change its status to a community school. It would delete the text in clause 17 that prevents that from happening. That would have been entirely logical and rational if the Bill reflected the unadulterated, pure spirit of the original White Paper, which prevented local authorities from opening new community schools, meaning that foundation schools would not be able to transfer their status to become community schools.

However, the situation is different now. The Government have, in my view, listened carefully and sensiblyto those who argued that there was a case for local authorities to open and build new community schools, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has set out carefully the criteria by which local authorities would be able to do that. She has also outlined conditions that would go further than that, which would require local authorities not to hold competitions for certain new schools. Now, given that local authorities have been giventhe capacity to open new community schools, we are accepting implicitly that the community school is avalid model, which can deliver as effectively as other schools the higher standards that we all seek, and it is contradictory, therefore, to deny certain foundation schools the right to become community schools.

Realistically, I do not think that many schools with foundation status would choose that option. However, the possibility must exist. Certain circumstances in some parts of the country might lead foundation schools to welcome the option: for example, where a foundation school was struggling; where the governors were demoralised or inadequate, or both; where the management and leadership had not delivered the right vision for the school, had not succeeded in driving up standards and did not have the immediate prospect of attracting more pupils; and where the foundation school was located in a high-performing local authority. I have said before that I am slightly sceptical of the argument that there is a direct relationship between the quality of an individual school and the quality of its local authority. However, in those circumstances, it would certainly be logical for the foundation school and governing body to have the right to apply for community status.

Amendment No. 101 takes us back to the implications of the expansion of individual schools. I do not want to go through the arguments that were made when we discussed a previous group of amendments. This amendment would simply mean that any proposal to expand the numbers in an individual school must be set within the context of the impact on the local authority and on neighbouring schools. Amendment No. 102 deals with the same issue in a subsequent clause.

We have demonstrated how the future expansion of one individual school cannot be seen in isolation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave us an interesting anecdote about the attempts of the Montessori school in Brighton to expand. His view would be different, but I think that we have to accept that the decision was probably the result of a lengthy period of local consultation and the culmination of the considered view of all other schools in the area, as reflected by the local authority, that there would be damaging consequences if that school were allowed to expand.

We have to take account of the instability that can be injected into the system if one school exercises an automatic right to increase its numbers. Of course, the local taxpayer faces wider costs if that has a damaging effect on neighbouring schools. The Government have already accepted that such decisions cannot be taken in isolation. I welcome the commitment in the further education White Paper, to which my hon. Friendthe Under-Secretary referred this morning, to the presumption of expansion in favour of sixth-form colleges to counterbalance the presumption of expansion of sixth forms in schools, as well as the opening of new sixth forms in schools. I am not sure what happens when we have two simultaneous presumptions in favour of mutually contradictory objectives, but that is a matter that the Government will have to resolve as the policy progresses.

What would happen in the case of a single-sex school that was hugely popular and wished to increase its numbers? Is it not obviously the case that if that school increased its numbers, it would have a direct, distorting effect on the balance of the sexes in at least one neighbouring school and probably more? That seems to me the most obvious example of where plans to expand should be set within the wider context. That is why amendment No. 101 makes it clear that expansion plans should not be permitted if they would prevent other schools from carrying out their duties.

Finally, I want to refer to the question of those schools that select wholly or partly by ability. The Government have said explicitly on previous occasions that schools that select wholly by ability will not be able to expand. My recollection of the debate on Second Reading is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that schools that select partly by ability will not now be able to expand. First, where in the Bill is that restriction made clear? Secondly, for those schools that select partly by ability, does the embargo on future expansion apply to the total numbers admitted to the school or to the percentage of those admitted who are selected by ability?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

With the exception of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), this group of amendments is yet another backdoor attempt to thwart some of the Bill’s main principles. In moving amendment No. 188, the hon. Member for Bury, North claimed that it was the logical conclusion of the concessions that were made on enabling local authorities to propose a community school. He wants to take that concession one stage further, which should be a lesson to the Minister, because if she gives people an inch, they will want to take a mile.

Leaving paragraphs (c) and (d) out of the list of alterations that may not be made to a school would simply make it possible for a voluntary foundation or voluntary school to go back to being a community school. Given that the overwhelming majority of schools are community schools, that would be a retrograde step. There are 10,961 community primary schools and 2,193 community secondary schools, but there are only 3,754 voluntary aided primary schools and 559 voluntary aided secondary schools. Overall, community schools represent 63 per cent. of the total. If we want to create a more diverse range of schools, the last thing we should be doing is creating more of the schools that already dominate.

The Government were right to create a one-way, Yale-lock system for the adoption of foundation status. Subject to all the safeguards in clause 23 about removing a foundation, we support the Government’s policy in that regard and therefore oppose amendment No. 188.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

If 50 parents submitted a request for a foundation school to revert to being a community school would the hon. Gentleman not wish to support their request?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

No, because the purpose of the Bill, and the direction in which the Government seek to move education policy—a direction with which we agree—is to create a more diverse range of schools. Allowing more community schools to be established would contradict a direction of travel that will lead to the higher standards and higher quality of education that we all want in our schools.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 would prevent a school from admitting more pupils or expanding its premises if, in the opinion of the local education authority, that would prevent other schools in the area from performing their existing functions and duties. Again, the amendments would prevent or limit the expansion of good schools. They would undo the measures in the Bill to sweep away the bureaucratic and entrenched interests that have until now been highly successful in preventing good schools from expanding. They would not so much reintroduce a surplus places rule as reintroduce school organisation committees, or at least the effects that SOCs had in terms of atrophying the system.

It is important that we do all that we can to make it easier, not more difficult, for good schools to expand if they wish to do so. We have a shortage of places for pupils at good schools, and instead of endlessly debating how we allocate those places, we should all be working out how to increase the number of good schools and the number of places at them. That is why I am so astonished that anyone should table amendments to make that objective more difficult. The Conservative party wants more good schools and more places at good schools. We will therefore oppose amendments Nos. 101 and 102 if they are pressed to a vote.

On the point about whether changes that are made to one school will impact on others, it would be helpful if the Minister could clear up an issue that has emerged from our reading of the draft guidance to decision makers, which was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 3 states that one factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to acquire a trust should be

“Concerns that the Trust will have a negative impact on school standards”.

On page 8, under a heading relating to the factors that local authorities need to consider when deciding whether to refer a proposal for a trust to the adjudicator, the guidance similarly states that one factor will be

“Concern that the Trust will have a negative impact on standards.”

However, under the next heading, which relates to the factors that the school’s adjudicator or the school governing body needs to consider when deciding whether to acquire a trust, the guidance states that one factor will be whether the trust

“will contribute to raising standards at the school”.

The question, therefore, is whether the first two phrases that I quoted refer to standards at the school acquiring a trust or whether they need to reflect the possibility that the acquisition of a trust in that school will impact on standards in other schools. I had not thought that they meant that until I saw the wording on the bottom of page 8, which specifically refers to standards at the school. Some clarification from the Minister on this point would be helpful.

I believe that the decision by one particular school to acquire a trust should have no impact on standards at other schools. If it makes a school better or increases standards, that is very welcome and is the whole objective of these measures. If by raising standards the school becomes more popular, that again is the objective. There is an underlying current of opinion among some Labour rebels—there are indications of this among the Liberals too—that the problem with trying to create schools with higher standards by, for example, acquiring a trust is that it creates a two-tier system and that because a two-tier system must be wrong, we should not attempt the reform.

We already have a two-tier system in the state sector. There is a wide gap between the two tiers: there are the excellent and good schools on the one hand and the underperforming and coasting schools on the other. The reforms in the Bill will help to narrow that gap by raising standards, and the trust school element of the reforms is crucial to that.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 101 and 102. These are probing amendments to try to test whether those proposing a trust would consider the likely impact of the trust, particularly if it would expand, on neighbouring schools. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for sending round the guidance for decision makers who are proposing trusts. It is enormously helpful. We can see from the guidance that the impact not only on neighbouring schools but on other bodies that are likely to be affected by the trust is something that those proposing trusts must consider.

Does the Minister agree that in many instances—I can give examples from my constituency—schools are likely to pursue trust status with partners with whom they have already developed a relationship? For example, where there is a centre for vocational excellence it is likely that the school will build on those partnerships. The guidance is very helpful in that regard and should allay some of the concerns that people have about trusts.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I want to speak very briefly in favour of amendment No. 188. As the hon. Member for Bury, North said, it does not appear to be logical, given the other concessions that the Government have made, for them to continue to constrain schools so that they cannot reverse their foundation status if they sowish. As the hon. Gentleman said, there may be circumstances in which parents are very unhappy with the way in which the school is being governed and about the management of the school. They may wish to revert to community status. It does not seem logical for those schools then not to be able to do so.

Will the Minister tell us how the proposals in clause 23 apply here? I know that they come later in the Bill but they are relevant to this amendment. I hope that she will use the opportunity to discuss those proposals here. I am very sympathetic towards the intention behind amendments Nos. 101 and 102. There is a need to balance the effects of excessive expansion of a particular school on those in the surrounding area. We know that if school rolls begin to fall, particularly if they begin to fall dramatically, there is a financial impact on those schools. The school can then spiral into decline and that may have dire consequences for schools that may otherwise be popular and good schools. It leaves the students at those schools in a difficult position. We support amendment No. 188 and are very sympathetic towards amendments Nos. 101 and 102.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North when he moves an amendment. As we were walking down the Committee corridor to the Division earlier, I said that he and I were the two outriders in the Committee. I like to think that he is a man of principle who has a certain vision. I must admit that my vision is slightly different from his. No doubt that plays into the hands of the Minister because she can say that it shows that she has it right: she represents the middle way or the third way. Was it not Aneurin Bevan who said that he who walks in the middle of the road sometimes gets knocked over?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

That is the Liberals.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Well the Liberals on this Committee are not in the middle of the road, they are driving on the left.

The hon. Member for Bury, North will forgive me if I do not support his amendment, even though I can understand the logic of what he is trying to achieve throughout the proceedings on this Bill. He believes—I hope that I am not doing him a disservice—in democratic control of the nation’s schools, which he thinks is best vested in democratically elected local authorities. That is a perfectly logical point of view. Sadly, that model has not worked.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman says that. As we were walking together, precisely at the moment when we reached the Lobby, I was about to explain to him exactly what I did believe, which is not quite what he says I believe. Perhaps that is a discussion for another occasion.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

You know, this is a real page-turner, is it not, Mr. Chope? We are now desperate to know the end of the conversation. It is not for me to say what the hon. Gentleman believes in, but I can say what I believe in. My vision is of maintained schools becoming independent charitable trusts—all of them. Therefore, I cannot support any amendment that seems to make it easier for those schools that have more independence, namely voluntary aided schools and foundation schools, to become community schools. Anyway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, given that63 per cent. of schools are already community schools, there is no point in any more schools becoming community schools because—this is where I support the Minister—we want to create choice and diversity.

Amendment No. 339 relates to subsection (4). It gives the Secretary of State power to make alterations and, as I said in similar circumstances in an earlier debate, I fully support the exceptions that are listed under the heading

“None of the following alterations may be made to a maintained school—”

However, there is an omission from the list of categories. Why is it that, apparently, the Secretaryof State can make alterations to the admissions criteria of a school? Why are those crucial admissions criteria not listed? Is it just an oversight, or is there a hidden agenda?

My amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from ordering any change to the admissions criteria of a school unless the governing body of that school agreed to it. Why is that important? Unless the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will have the power—the Minister can deny this when she rises; that is why these debates are useful—to order a school to impose a certain catchment area; to apply a test of parental commitment; or to cease to apply a test of ability for admissions, as is done for grammar schools. We already know that the Minister does not want the existing 164 or 165 grammar schools to expand. Could there be—I am sure that the Minister will deny this, in which case my amendment will have served some purpose—some power now vested in the Secretary of State that allows her to interfere in the tests of ability that apply in the few remaining grammar schools?

It is well known that while the Conservative party recognises that there is unlikely to be any great expansion of grammar schools, we are certainly not opposed to the existing ones. They are extremely popular and provide a test of excellence.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is right, of course, to celebrate the excellent work done in grammar schools, including those in his and my constituencies. However, he may have hit on an even more ingenious point than he supposes, because presumably a future Secretary of State, at some indeterminate point in time, could, by the same means, encourage schools that do not at present do so to select by academic ability. If the power to remove that capacity exists, the power to impose it must logically exist. All members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Bury, North, can therefore support the amendments with alacrity.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

If I were the hon. Member for Bury, North I should be extremely worried about that. Could there be a hidden agenda to work in the opposite way? There is something curious, is there not, about the list in subsection (4)? It seems quite comprehensive—for instance, given what I said earlier, I am very pleased about paragraph (a) under which no change

“in the religious character of the school”

may be made; I believe that schools should be able to preserve their ethos. However, just as important to many parents—perhaps more important than religious character if we are considering all schools—are the admissions criteria. Those have been at the heart of political debate for half a century, so we need to know why there is no mention of admissions criteria in the Minister’s list.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is worth remembering that clause 17 deals with a range of prescribed alterations and subsequent clauses deal with the processes for proposing alterations. We have had a broad discussion about the possible range of the prescribed alterations. I shall discuss the reason for not including admissions in the clause towards the end of my remarks.

There is a certain amount of truth in the accusation by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that when we agreed that, in the case of new schools, there might be an argument for a community school in some circumstances, we opened the door slightly to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North for amendment No. 188. I disagree with my hon. Friend that the logic of our position on new schools implies the logic of his amendment.

We have, of course, established arrangements to deal with the circumstances of new schools. We think that those are the right arrangements and that the decision about entry into the competition should be for the Secretary of State. The amendment, however, does something rather different. It would make it possible to change the category of an existing foundation or voluntary school, which it was planned would continue in operation, to that of a community school.

We have, I think, made it pretty clear, and I have certainly made it clear in debating the relevant provisions, that our vision and policy is for the local authority to enhance its new role as a commissioner, rather than a direct supplier, of education services, and for the school increasingly to enhance its role with the support of external partners and the bringing in of similar capacity; the impetus that comes from the self-determination of a foundation or voluntary aided school is likely to help it to focus on improvements that need to be made for its pupils and in its work in with the community. That has been the objective of the Bill and the reform.

Interestingly, my hon. Friend used the example of a failing school. He talked, I think, about demoralised governors, and suggested that as a possible justification for changing from foundation or, presumably, voluntary aided status to that of a community school. I think that if a foundation or voluntary aided school is in such a state that it needs greatly increased local authority control, a change of category is unlikely to be an adequate or appropriate solution. If the failure is very extreme, as we will discuss later in the Bill, a better solution might be for the school to close and to make a completely fresh start. Although there might be an option for it to be a community school, it does not necessarily follow that a community school would be the best solution. A competition might be just what was needed to bring in a range of possible approaches that would increase dynamism and a sense of possibility in the school.

In the case of the high-performing local authority to which my hon. Friend referred, as the Bill makes clear, it is able to work in that school improvement role with all schools, regardless of their category. A school would not need to change from foundation status to community status in order to benefit from a high-performing local authority that put an emphasis on standards, which drove improvement through the way in which it operated.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

It is clear from the draft guidance which my hon. Friend circulated this morning that in the case of a trust school, that is, a foundation school with a foundation, that collapses completely, the assets and the functioning of the school will revert automatically to the local authority. If we accept that the local authority should take over responsibility fora school that faces complete collapse, is it not inconsistent that the local authority should not have a role in the case of a school whose governing body is trying to prevent complete collapse by asking to be taken back into the local authority?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The position with respect to assets is that if the relationship with the trust were broken the assets would revert to the governing body of the foundation school. Those assets would revert to the local authority only in the case of complete closure.

My hon. Friend is conflating two separate issues: the correct protection in the long run of public assets, as spelt out in the arrangements with respect to a trust school, and the various approaches that could be taken to a school that was failing or was challenged. In those circumstances, a decision by the governing body to change its status is not the appropriate way to deal with failure or its lack of morale. With the support of the school’s commissioner, looking to a trust that might be able to support and reinvigorate the leadership and governance of the school is more likely to be an effective way forward for the school.

I do not want to labour the point further. We envisage a new framework for schools and local authorities in which the local authority is the champion of parents and assures the quality of provision rather than being the direct supplier. We propose a more dynamic system of self-governing schools with the confidence to take charge of their own development, and the amendment runs contrary to it. That is why I oppose the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Does the Minister accept that there may be other circumstances in addition to those outlined by the hon. Member for Bury, North where the school may be failing? There may be other circumstances in which parents are unhappy with the ethos or direction of the school without it necessarily failing and they may wish to change that ethos by bringing it back under the remit of the local authority. Are those not valid concerns, which they should be allowed to pursue?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

In those circumstances, if the parents were unhappy with the school’s trust partner, there are the proposals in clause 23 that enable the removal of that trust. We have identified a range of ways in the Bill to give parents a stronger voice in what happens within schools, including a duty on the governing body to respond to parents. I do not believe that the change to community status would assuage parents’ concerns in the sorts of circumstances that are under discussion, and this would certainly run counter to the new role we envisage for local authorities.

Turning to amendments Nos. 101 and 102 on expansion, we are determined to transform the school system so that it responds better to parents’ needs and aspirations. We want every parent to feel confident that the system is delivering for their child, and that they can choose a place at an excellent school that is more dynamic, with weak schools replaced quickly by new ones, with coasting schools pushed to improve, and with the best schools able to spread their influence and success throughout the system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her letter to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, we are also aware of concerns about how the expansion of individual schools fits in with the strategic role of the local authority. We believe that schools that are popular with local parents and that wish to expand should normally be able to do so. That is why there is currently a presumption in statutory guidance that proposals for the expansion of successful and popular schools should be improved.

What is new in the Bill are the decision-making powers reverting to the local authority, as opposedto the school organisation committee. School organisation committees will be abolished, and their powers will be transferred to the local authority. Guidance to local authorities will make it clear that there should be no arbitrary obstacles preventing good school expansion. However, school expansion will not be a free-for-all; it will be for local authorities to make decisions on whether a school’s proposal to expand should be approved. In reaching any decision, the local authority—or the adjudicator, if it is referred—will consider the impact on overall standards in an area. The school may appeal to the adjudicator, who will consider the individual merits of the case on the basis of statutory guidance.

Let me now respond to the point of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. My view on the guidance is clear; notwithstanding what I have said in respect of expansion—that the local authority may want to consider that, and it is the role of the local authority to address standards throughout an area—the governing body, which is the decision maker in respect of determining whether to take on a trust, will want to make that decision on the basis of the impact on standards within a particular school. That is the clear intention in this guidance, which is for decision makers.

Let me now return to expansion. Expansion will not be the answer for every good school. Reasons such as the size of the school, the nature of the site or parental wishes may mean that expansion is not the right option. That is why we accept that schools could spread their expertise in a different way. They could form joint ventures, or federate with other local schools to share best practice, to pool resources or to offer pupils and staff a wider range of opportunities.

Before I move away from expansion, let me cover the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about wholly selective and partially selective schools. We will make clear in guidance to decision makers the route through which expansion proposals are represented; that is not a legislative route. The presumption should be that there will not be an expansion of schools that are wholly selective. Because we have been clear that we do not want new selection by ability, for schools that are partially selective expansion would be limited to expansion of non-selective places. That would lead to a reduction in the proportion of selective places in a school, if the number of places expanded.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Does that not provide an interesting precedent for the policy towards wholly selective schools, by allowing such schools to expand, but only on condition that they expand with a non-selective intake?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is an interesting challenge. That would involve a complete change to their admissions arrangements which would take us considerably further beyond simply proposals in respect to expansion. In legislation as well as guidance to decision makers,they are clearly in a different category of school. A distinction is made in law between schools that are wholly selective—the guidance is clear that they should not expand—and schools that are partially selective.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would be grateful if the Minister helped me with the definition of “expansion”. Reorganisation might take place in my area, with the age of transfer decreasing from 12 to 11. By definition of the grammar school system, more pupils will be in the selective system after the change in the age of transfer. Is that covered by her statement that there will be no more selection?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is a very interesting point. Perhaps I could get back to the hon. Lady about that. I can say, though, that the other driver for expansion—access to the capital pot that we have made available to fund the expansion of popular and successful schools—will not be available to selective schools or for selective places in partially selective schools. The two routes for determining expansion, which are guidance to decision makers and funding, are clear in those circumstances.

My worry about the amendments is that, although I hope I have given hon. Members some reassurance, I would not want a situation in which a school expansion that made sense could effectively be prevented by a local authority. Of course it is important that local authorities consider the wider implications, but schools should not be held back artificially and the choice of parents restricted.

As commissioners of educational services, local authorities will need to act as the champions of pupils and parents to promote choice and diversity with respect, as we have discussed, to earlier provisions in the Bill, and they will have an important planning role. That will inform their decisions when planning how many schools their local area needs, where and how big those schools should be, what schools would serve the area best and whom they should serve.

Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plan. They will map what is needed in their area, considering demographics and the balance of provision with respect to gender. That might address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised. If I remember correctly—I will write to the Committee to correct myself if necessary—sex discrimination legislation now requires that during the planning process, local authorities ensure equal or relatively equal access to single-sex schools. That would have to be part of the strategic planning in the circumstances that my hon. Friend spelled out. Although I have disagreed with him on those circumstances, I hope that I have been sufficiently persuasive for him to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to the other outrider on the Committee and speak to amendment No. 339 on admissions. Clause 17, to which the amendments apply, provides for regulations to set out the changes to maintained schools, requiring the publication of statutory proposals called prescribed alterations in the legislation. The clause does not deal in any way with schools admissions, because those changes do not fall under the category of prescribed alterations, or the regime for dealing with them to which theclause relates. That is because a school’s admissions arrangements can be altered under three differentprocesses.

The first process is the normal annual consultation and determination for school admissions as set out in section 89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Admission authorities consult on their arrangements, determining them in the year prior to which they are to apply and including any changes that they may decide upon. In the case of foundation and voluntary aided schools, the governing body is the admissions authority; for community and voluntary controlled schools, it is the local authority.

The second way in which a school’s admissions arrangements can be changed is under the adjudication regime. Following consultation, the statutory consultees—broadly speaking, other schools in the area, the local authority, the admissions forum and, in certain circumstances, parents—can object to a school’s admission arrangements and the adjudicator will then reach a binding decision on the objection. We are also extending the adjudicator’s power to consider a school’s admissions arrangements in their entirety on submission of an objection, and for that decision to be binding for two years, rather than for one year as at present.

Those are the routes through which changes to admissions procedures can be made. I am aware, not least from other amendments that he has tabled, that the hon. Member for Gainsborough would rather that only schools themselves had the power to change admissions arrangements. However, it is clear from a minority of persistent cases that some schools seek to set admissions arrangements that are in the interests of the school itself rather than the interests of local children. It is important to put a strong adjudication process in place to ensure that all schools adopt fair admissions arrangements that increase choice for local parents.

Requiring changes to be agreed with the school’s governing body, as the amendment does, would regrettably not ensure in every case that the interests of parents and children were upheld.

Finally, regulations made under the Bill will set out procedures under which admissions arrangements can be modified to bring them into line with the admissions code as part of the approval process for statutory proposals to enlarge schools or to establish new ones.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is quite a complicated reply, but am I right in saying that no Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions criteria?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is right. No Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions arrangements, because it relates to prescribed alterations and admissions arrangements do not come under that category. I shall quit while I am ahead, and invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North to withdraw the amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her detailed reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

‘(g) a reduction in the statutory proportion of elected parent governors on a schools governing body.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Amendment No. 218, in clause 20, page 14, line 34, leave out

‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.

Amendment No. 219, in clause 20, page 14, line 37, leave out

‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.

Amendment No. 220, in clause 20, page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 221, in clause 20, page 15, line 5, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 6.

Amendment No. 222, in clause 20, page 15, line 10, leave out from ‘foundation' to ‘and' in line 11.

Amendment No. 223, in clause 20, page 15, line 14, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 15.

New clause 17—Foundation schools: independence of governing bodies from foundations—

‘The instrument of government for a foundation or foundation special school established pursuant to proposals made under section 7 may not provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors nor may any alteration be made pursuant to proposals published under section 18 to the instrument of government of any foundation or foundation special school so as to provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors.'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

In the same way that the first of the previous set of amendments dealt with some inconsistencies that I thought were present in the policy towards community schools, this group of amendments deals with a similar set of inconsistencies in the attitude to parental involvement and influence. It is those issues that I wish to tease out.

Amendment No. 187 calls for a block on reducing the proportion of elected parent governors on school governing bodies. Amendments Nos. 218 to 223 would prevent a majority of the governing body from being given to one set of governors. New clause 17 would do the same, but in a slightly different form.

It is now nine minutes past 7 o'clock, and the Whip has indicated that we have to continue to complete consideration of clause 18. I spent some time on the previous amendment, so I shall be brief.

Had the original White Paper, the Government’s argument in favour of it and the Bill when finally published not put such emphasis on the importance of parent power, the amendments might not have been necessary. However, if we are to be consistent and if we are saying that the new system will be far more driven by parents than the current system, and that parents’ voices will be heard and given more attention, it seems illogical to squeeze them out of school governing bodies.

For 30 years, the governing bodies of most schools in the United Kingdom, although not all—I accept that the majority of the governing body of some schools is allocated to one set of individuals, or one group—have operated on the basis of a partnership between the representatives of parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community. Nobody is unaware of the difficulties of continuing to enthuse people to take part in their school governing body. It is sometimes extremely difficult to encourage parents to play a full role, but the partnership model seems to work well. It has wide support and it ensures an adequate line of accountability from the school and the local authority, and also between the school and the wider body of parents.

It seems illogical, therefore, that it will be possible to reduce the proportion of parents on a governing body and hand it over to a foundation, in the case of a governing body deciding to go down the trust school route. If the Government are insisting on that approach and on the importance of the foundation having the majority on the governing body, we need more compelling arguments than have yet been put and evidence that schools that already have a foundation providing the majority on the governing body have automatically been able to deliver higher standards. Where is the evidence of a direct relationship between that composition of a governing body and higher performance?

In that spirit and with those few arguments, I support the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment No. 187 would prohibit a reduction in the proportion of elected parent governors on a school governing body. As members of the Committee know, the proportion of governorsof varying categories—whether parent, staff, LEA, community or foundation—is governed by the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003. According to paragraph 7.4 of the regulatory impact assessment, trust school governing bodies will have the same model as voluntary aided schools. The size of the governing body is determined by the instrument of government but must be no fewer than nine and no more than 20 governors, excluding sponsor governors or additional foundation governors.

The regulations also state that one third of governors of foundation schools shall be parent governors, but, according to the regulatory impact assessment, trust schools for which the trust appoints the majority of governors will have fewer elected parent governors than trust schools for which the trust appoints a minority of governors. The reason—this is an important quote—is because

“it is not feasible to provide for both (a) the Trust to appoint a majority of governors, and (b) the governing body to comprise one third elected parents (plus other categories of governors) without the governing body becoming unmanageably large.”

That can be demonstrated by a simple numerical example. Let us suppose that the instrument of government for a trust school provides for the bare minimum of LEA and staff governors—just one and two respectively. The trust then must determine the composition of the governing body in accordance with regulations that state that the number of foundation governors must outnumber the other governors by two. If the amendment was accepted, one third of the governors would have to be elected.

Therefore, if one does simultaneous equations, the minimum number of governors needed to satisfy the requirement would be one LEA governor, two staff governors and—if parent governors are to represent one third of the total number of governors and foundation governors are to outnumber the other governors by two—eight parent and 13 foundation governors. One plus two plus eight plus 13 equals 24. Twenty-four governors would be unwieldy, and the number is four more than the maximum in the regulations.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s maths, but I am afraid that the matter is even more unwieldy than that, because he has left out of his equation staff governors and, I think, community governors. When they are included, the number becomes even larger than 24.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I thought that I had included both those categories, but we can debate the maths later. Either way, it is an unwieldy number. With a governing body numbering fewer than either my 24 or the number that the Minister comes up with, it is mathematically impossible for the trust to have a majority of two and for one third of the governors to be parents.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

This is something of a circular argument. Surely the simple solution if we want to give priority to parent governors on the governing body is not to have a majority of governors appointed by the trust.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That goes to the root of the Bill. If we do not allow foundations to have a majority of governors, a lot of trusts will not be established. Perhaps that is the purpose of the amendment and the reason why the hon. Lady supports the amendment, if indeed she is. The effect of amendment No. 187 would be to create unwieldy trusts.

Amendment Nos. 218 to 223 would remove the right of a foundation to appoint the majority of the governing body, which would drive a coach and horses through the whole objective behind trust schools, which is to achieve diversity in the ethos and management of schools. It would also severely limit the number of charitable trusts that would come forward to set up trust schools.

Finally—I am aware of the late hour—I ask the Minister to confirm one or two things in the draft guidance that she circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 8 of the draft guidance, on page 2, says:

“The Government does, however, wish to ensure that a number of safeguards around Trusts are put in place. All Trusts will be charitable and will have to have specified charitable objects around the advancement of education.”

That is a good thing to have in the guidance. Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to remove education as a charitable objective? To do so would make the whole guidance meaningless. Education should continue to be one of the tenets that make up charitable objectives in the Charities Acts.

The Minister cites two statutory instruments in paragraph 8, both of which are dated 2007. When are they likely to be published in draft?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, which go to the heart of accountability. We believe that governing bodies should be representative of parents and the local community. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton implied that we cannot have trusts without giving them majority control of governing bodies, but I do not see why that should necessarily be the case. We would never argue that the majority of the governing body of a community school should be LEA representatives. Instead, we would argue that a substantial proportion of governors should be parent governors and other representatives of the community. I do not see why that case should not be made for trust schools and new foundation schools.

The argument that there would be an unwieldy number on the governing body is entirely circular. Surely, of all the people to whom a school should be accountable, the most important are parents whose children attend that school. The provisions for parent councils are a mere sop; they do not give them the real accountability for decision making that we want the governing body to have. We hope that the hon. Member for Bury, North will press the amendment to a vote. If he chooses not to, we will oppose its withdrawal.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There has been some interesting discussion on the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North focused his concern on the role and engagement of parents. I will come back to how we will ensure that that is maintained.

The hon. Members for Brent, East and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have come at the issue from different directions, but both focused on the implications of the amendments, which is to prevent the charitable foundation of a trust school from appointing the majority of governors. The hon. Lady argued that that is her intention: it is what she wants to happen, but that is a fundamental problem with the amendments. We believe that appointing the majority of governors is one way in which a charitable foundation can strengthen the leadership and governance of a school. We want to extend to all schools the freedom to shape their own destiny that has helped voluntary and foundation schools to succeed.

My hon. Friend accepted the fact that voluntary aided schools currently have a majority of their governors appointed by a charitable foundation. Such schools are doing well. He did not accept that point, but asked me to provide evidence of the impact of that process. We have already provided evidence to the Education and Skills Committee that they are doing particularly well, including in the most disadvantaged areas. In voluntary aided schools where more than 20 per cent. of pupils are on free school meals, 47.6 per cent. achieve five or more A* to C GCSEs, rather than 40.6 per cent. in other schools. Such cases represent one piece of evidence that could support the argument that the impact of the external charitable organisation having a majority on the governing body has helped improve quality.

The important point is that we are not arguing that any school has to take on a trust, nor are we arguing that having taken on a trust, or by considering taking on a trust, any school must allow a trust to make up a majority of the governing body. We are arguing that there may be many circumstances in which that is the most appropriate way to ensure the most effective delivery of the support for leadership and governance in the school and the contribution that the trust can make to that governance, which is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve in the trust proposals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister will accept that once she argued precisely that. The White Paper says:

“At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools. We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to require a Trust.”

When and why did she change her mind?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have not changed my mind. I am making a distinction between compulsion and flexibility and enabling. The legislation is all about allowing schools to move in the direction that we believe to be the most effective, which is spelled out in the White Paper. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues wanted to promote a compulsory approach to trust schools, but by building on the arguments about school autonomy that have previously been so important to Opposition Members, we are providing schools with that decision-making ability. We argue that where a school believes that the needs of pupils will be better met by the additional drive and enthusiasm that the appointment of the majority of a school’s governors a trust can bring, we should not deprive pupils of that opportunity.

We have repeatedly made it clear that no school will be forced to acquire a trust or to allow the trust to appoint a majority of its governors. The legislation is enabling rather than prescriptive in this regard because we believe that such decisions are best made locally, in accordance with local circumstances and the particular needs of each school. It will be for the governing body of a school to decide whether to acquire a foundation and whether that foundation should appoint the majority of governors. That will happen in accordance with the statutory guidance that I have made available to the Committee today, which will place the process in an important context of local accountability and the transparency of the proposals. The process will make clear the criteria that the decision makers—in this case, the governing body—should bear in mind when making that particular decision.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked a couple of questions about the guidance. I can reassure him that one of the reasons for choosing the advancement of education is that it is a charitable object and will remain so. His second question concerned the regulations mentioned in the guidance. That is a reference to sets of regulations that I have already distributed to the Committee. They are the illustrative regulations relating to clauses 17 to 22 and to clause 31. We are determined to ensure that that governing bodies have the choice of allowing their trusts to appoint the minority or majority of governors if they believe that that is right for their school.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised an important point on trust school models that also relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Brent, East. That model retains the stakeholder model of governance that has been at the heart of governance of maintained schools. It is part of the reason why conflict between a majority of foundation governors and other governors arises, because we are clear that there should continue to be elected parent representatives and local authority representation, and that there should continue to be community and staff representation, even in circumstances in which the foundation has a majority on the governing body.

Whether there is a majority or a minority, parents will continue to play an important role, both as members of the governing body—whether elected, or appointed by the trust—and on parent councils. We need to recognise, however, that it is not always that easy to get parents to stand for election to governing bodies in the numbers that we want, so we need to have a wide range of ways to engage parents and hear their voices—not just in trust schools but in schools more widely.

Parents will continue to constitute one third of the governing body in a trust school, as in all maintained schools. If a trust appoints the majority of governors we shall require trust schools to establish a parent council with an advisory and consultative role. The governing body will also have a duty to consult the parent council on the conduct of the school. So we are protecting the interests of parents in trust schools—arguably we are actually broadening parents’ ability to have an impact, because parent councils in particular will provide an important forum for parents to contribute to their own child’s education and to contribute in improving the school system. The evidence suggests that they are a more accessible way to involve parents in decisions about the school because they are more informal and involve less commitment, and can involve more parents than the governing body.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Does the Minister not recognise that there is a difference between the onus to consult parents and a vote on a governing body?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Of course there is, but does the hon. Lady accept that two or three elected parent governors, important though they might be, should not be the beginning and the end of parental representation and engagement in our schools? My point is that we need a range of ways for parents to be engaged, and our proposals on trust schools will provide more opportunity for parents to have an impact while maintaining important roles on the governing body.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

It sounds as though there is a trade-off between the parents’ council and the number of parent governors. Personally, I am very supportive of parent councils, but I do not like trade-offs whereby we have fewer elected parent governors. Why can we not have both?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Let me go back to first principles. Let me first remind hon. Members that a third of governing bodies must be composed of parents, regardless of the status of the school. I explained to the hon. Lady why it is not possible to have both a majority of foundation governors on a governing body and at the same time have all of the one third as elected parent governors. To some extent the hon. Lady is right, but we are increasing parents’ ability to engage in schools where the foundation is able to appoint a majority of the governing body.

I have made the arguments as to why there will be cases when the trust, having the majority of the governing body, will be crucial in helping to drive the governance of the school. Alongside that, we are ensuring that the realistic ability of parents to have a voice and to contribute to the school is protectedand, in many cases, enhanced. Of course, parental engagement is one issue that governing bodies will consider when deciding whether to become a trust school. Governing bodies must have the flexibility to make those choices in light of local circumstances.

As we have discussed previously and will no doubt discuss again, we have built in safeguards in respect of trust acquisition and of trusts appointing a majority of the governors. For the first time, we are providing in legislation for a governing body to be able to remove a trust or to move from a trust appointing a majority of the governors to a trust appointing a minority of the governors if there is dissatisfaction with how the trust is performing.

The provisions in the Bill are well balanced. They provide the right level of flexibility for schools to take the right decisions about the best model for them. The necessary safeguards are built in, including a mechanism for removing a trust or its ability to appoint a majority of the governing body if the governing body feels that that is best. I therefore hope, not least because my voice is becoming a little weak, that my hon. Friends will agree not to press the amendments, which would be unnecessarily restrictive.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I shall make two points in reply. First, underlying the debate is the anxiety that some people would have about why the trust needed a majority on the governing body. By and large, governing bodies have operated on the basis of a degree of consensus. Those with particular views about the direction of a school or about the staffing policy in a school have been forced to persuade a majority of the governors to agree to the policy. The fear is that, with a built-in majority, there will be no need to persuade; there will be a need simply to assert and vote. I am sure that the Minister would accept that that concern is legitimate.

My other point is that, as the Bill is written, the outgoing governing body would decide, first, whether the trust option was to be pursued and, secondly, if the trust option were pursued, whether the trust should have a majority or a minority on the new governing body. In one respect, the outgoing governing body, which presumably by definition has failed to give leadership to the school, is the group of people least well qualified to decide what the future composition of the governing body should be. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. If there is to be the majority option for the trust, a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. Perhaps at the point of decision, both about trust status and about the trust having a majority on the new governing body, the wider group of parents should be involved. However, I leave that for the Minister to consider.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It might be useful at this point to remind my hon. Friend that, as we spell out in the guidance, either the decision for the acquisition of a trust or the decision to allow a trust to take a majority of the governing body could be referred to the adjudicator by the local authority on the basis that we set out in the guidance.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I understand that, but the adjudicator is going to be a very busy man with all the references that he will have to take. It would be far better for the issue to be resolved by consensus at school level, within the existing parent body and perhaps with the consultation of others, than to force yet another decision right up the chain of command to the adjudicator. However, given that it is 19.34—very late—I do not want to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.