Education and Inspections Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 April 2006.

Standing Committee E

Clause 18

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 340, in clause 18, page 13, line 2, leave out ‘maintained' and insert ‘community'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 384, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, after ‘authority', insert

‘or it is a proposal that all the maintained schools administered by that local education authority should become foundation schools,'.

No. 341, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (b).

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Good morning, Mr. Chope. I hope that you are rested after the exciting events of yesterday and that we can now get back to work on this important Bill.

The clause deals with the publication of proposals to make the alterations to schools provided for under clause 17, which we debated on Tuesday. Clause 18 requires a local education authority to publish its proposals in a prescribed manner, but permits it to do so for any maintained school. It allows the LEA to make alterations not only for community schools, which is fair enough—after all, community schools are run by LEAs—but for voluntary or foundation schools. With the amendment, I seek to find out what might happen.

I believe that a local education authority should be able to publish proposals only for community schools, and not for voluntary or foundation schools. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she does not envisage LEAs muscling in to make alterations to voluntary or foundation schools. I cannot believe that that is her intention, but it would be useful to hear her views on the matter. For instance, if the governing body of a voluntary or foundation school requires or does not require the enlargement of its premises, or if the governing body wants to add 16 to 18-year-olds to the school’s admissions, or if the school already has a sixth form and does want to lose it, the decisions on all such changes and similarly vital matters should rest with the governing body of the school. Because an overwhelming proportion of schools—as much as63 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said—are community schools I see no merit in LEAs, which have quite enough work to do with their own schools, trying to make alterations to others.

The amendments would limit LEAs’ scope to order a change to community schools only. According to my reading of the clause—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—unless the amendments are accepted the LEA could cut off the sixth form of a voluntary school, order a voluntary school to stop providing for children with special needs, or order such a school to start making such provision. I cannot believe that that is the Minister’s intention. There is no point in voluntary or foundation schools having governing bodies if, in practice, such vital decisions are taken out of their hands.

I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 384, which deals with an important point. We support the concept of foundation schools: we hope they are successful and that we have more of them. I wish the Minister well in that endeavour. Unfortunately, the concept is nothing like the policy that the Prime Minister declared in the White Paper. His policy, which bears repetition because we share it, that all maintained schools should be “independent state schools”. That is my vision also. I believe that there are still far too many apron strings tying foundation schools to local authority diktats. Even more apron strings tie them to diktats from the Department for Education and Skills. None the less, foundation schools are a step in the right direction—one on which we can build when we take power.

It follows that if a local authority, perhaps a rather progressive one, can see the benefit to children’s education of having all the maintained schools in its area given the independence offered by foundation status, it should be free to make a proposal under clause 9 that all its schools should become foundation schools. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who reminded me that Kent, for example, ensured that all its schools were grant maintained—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

That is wrong.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Well, if it is wrong, I bow to local knowledge, but certainly a very large number of schools in Kent were grant maintained.

Jonathan Shawindicated dissent.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only repeat the information that was given to me only last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. It is probably very likely that that authority had success in persuading schools to become grant maintained. What the hon. Gentleman says does not defeat the point that I was making. I was only trying to adduce an example to show that a local authority may well want all its schools to become foundation schools. The Bill should provide for that to happen, which is why I tabled amendment No. 384.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend made very worthwhile points in moving his amendment—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

And a wrong one.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a speaking part, he must rise to his feet.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Thank you, Mr. Chope. My hon. Friend’s amendments reflect the Government vision originally set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper states:

“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”

The amendments therefore reflect the Government’s intention.

I shall talk about the clause more generally, if I may, and make a short stand part contribution to the debate. The document entitled “A Short Guide to the Education and Inspections Bill 2006” states on page 4:

“Local authorities will also have extended powers (under clause 18) to propose the enlargement of the premises, the addition or discontinuance of SEN provision or the addition of a sixth form to any foundation, foundation special or voluntary school.”

That is set out in clause 18(2)(b). It would be helpful if the Minister explained why she believes that it is necessary to give those extra powers to local authorities in relation to foundation schools and voluntary schools. The powers are benign, but apart from the power to propose discontinuing SEN provision—we dealt with that issue through an amendment to an earlier clause—the powers relate to expansion and creation. I note that there are no powers to force foundation or voluntary schools to take extra pupils, only powers to expand premises. However, it would be helpful to know why the Minister believes that the powers are needed.

Subsection (2) is about alterations to schools that local authorities can propose. As one would expect, they have more powers in relation to community schools than in relation to foundation schools. The details of the powers are set out in the draft regulations circulated by the Minister. Regulation 5(3) of the draft School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006 states:

“In the case of voluntary, foundation or foundation special schools, a local education authority may only propose one or more of the alterations set out in section 18(2)(b)(i)-(iii).”

However, it then states in square brackets and in italics:

“We intend eventually to set those out in more detail in a new part of schedule 4”.

My concern is not that the regulations circulated for guidance purposes only are not complete. That is perfectly understandable. My concern is whether the Government intend to insert into schedule 4 to the regulations details that give local authorities more power—for example, to expand premises—than they have over community schools, which are already dealt with in part 1 of schedule 4. Can the Minister provide reassurance that there is no such intention?

While we are talking about the regulations relating to clause 18, will the Minister explain why the governing body of a foundation or community school or a community special school does not have the power to expand its premises under part 3 of schedule 2 tothe regulations? Similarly, under schedule 4, a local education authority appears not to be able to publish proposals to enlarge the premises of community special schools, although it can propose an expansion in the number of pupils at such schools. That seems to be rather an odd difference.

Finally, paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the regulations lists a series of changes of category that a foundation or voluntary school can propose, including changing from a community school to a voluntary school. That does not make sense, because the provision does not relate to community schools; it relates to foundation schools. How can a foundation school move from being a community school to a voluntary school? Is that simply a drafting error or is it an issue on which we need to expand further?

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

I want to make a few brief comments. Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the general thrust of the amendments. We consider the local authority to be the body with the strategic view and, as such, it should be the one to publish proposals. We might not agree with those proposals, but if the Government’s vision is truly that the local education authority should have a strengthened commissioning role, it is essential that the publication of proposals be in the local authority’s hands.

On clause 18(4), and following logically from the arguments that we made on clause 17, we want the possibility of a return to community school status, as well.

Clause 18(2) merits discussion and explanation. I have difficulty with the idea that the local authority is always bad. It might not always be good, but it is not always bad. A really good local authority, in playing its strategic role, is there to help out even grant-maintained schools—as happened in my local area when things went pear-shaped—because it operates on behalf of the whole community. Problems occur in all types of school, and when the chips are down it is usually the local authority that has the expertise to help.

The Minister is aware that I have a tricky case in my constituency, in which replacement buildings have not been provided following a fire that happened more than six years ago. The school has now become a foundation school. Will she say whether there is or should be a process to deal with the rare circumstances of an out-and-out conflict between a school and a local authority? Unlike the Conservatives, I do not envisage such circumstances arising frequently, but I think that they can occur rarely. Perhaps we should tease out whether we need a regulation to cover exceptional circumstances.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we have heard, amendments Nos. 340 and 341 are designed to prevent a local authority from making proposals for alterations to foundation and voluntary schools. However, our proposals for some expanded abilities for local authorities are made in the context that we have discussed under earlier clauses—a new framework for school organisation, involving, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly recognises, a significant new strategic role for the local authority as the commissioner of provision and the champion of parents. That is the rationale for the proposals in this clause.

Under current legislation, although a local authority can propose the closure of any maintained school, it cannot make other sorts of proposal in respect of voluntary schools and can propose only the expansion of foundation schools. We think that in order to discharge its responsibilities properly, a local authority should be able to propose alterations relating to expansion and to special educational needs and sixth-from provision in respect of all maintained schools in its area.

I cannot provide all the reassurances that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seeks, but I can reassure him about the removal of a sixth form—an issue that he raised. The changes that a local authority can make are limited to the addition to a school of a sixth form. It could not publish proposals to remove a sixth form from a foundation or voluntary school.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked whether the section in italics in the illustrative regulations implied that we wanted to go further in schedule 4. I can reassure him that have no intention of going further than what is spelled out in those illustrative regulations.

Clause 18(2)(b) will ensure that a local authority can propose changes that extend choice for parents and that the necessary provision is available in the area. It is precisely because we envisage that more schools will be self-governing foundation or voluntary aided schools that we need to reconsider local authorities’ powersso that they can operate their strategic role appropriately—not running schools or making day-to-day decisions, but being responsible, as champions of pupils and parents in their area, for ensuring and extending parent choice.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that local authorities will not have a hands-on role in voluntary aided schools? I think that that is what sheis trying to say. If local authorities are to be commissioners rather than providers of services, what sort of decisions or initiatives does she envisage that they might make in respect of voluntary aided schools?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was just spelling that out. As the clause makes clear, the role of commissioner implies that authorities will be able to publish proposals for particular provision that is necessary to deliver choice for parents and pupils. That is why we are proposing that local authorities, particularly those with many foundation schools, should be able to propose, for example, the addition of a sixth form—not its removal, as I assured the hon. Gentleman—or of an SEN unit to work alongside schools in the area to reassure people that there is sufficient specialist SEN provision. Those are the sorts of proposal that the clause covers.

The provisions will not allow a local authority to impose such changes. As clause 19 and the illustrative regulations make clear, the local authority will have to consult interested parties, including the school, and publish its proposals, giving an opportunity for objections or comments. If a foundation of voluntary school does not agree with the proposal, clause 21(5) provides that the school’s governing body or trustees can require that those proposals be referred to the adjudicator.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s intervention. Will she explain why subsection (2)(b)(ii) gives local authorities the power to discontinue SEN provision in a school? I understand why they might want the power to establish it, but why the power to discontinue? That is the only negative and destructive power in the clause, and I am slightly concerned about it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we were discussing the other day when we talked about the local authorities’ role of ensuring sufficient and appropriate provision, it might be appropriate to reorganise SEN provision in an area and to close one unit in order to make provision elsewhere. As the hon. Gentleman said, only in those circumstances will a local authority be able to open and close such provision.

Our proposals strike a reasonable balance between allowing the authority to propose changes in order to improve the supply of school places, and providing for the schools themselves to ensure that decisions are taken by the adjudicator if there is a disagreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough feels sufficiently reassured that the balance is reasonable and will therefore withdraw the amendment.

In amendment No. 384 the hon. Gentleman argues that local authorities should be able to propose that all their schools become foundation schools, which would give the local authority a significant power. At the same time, however, he argues that we ought to limit the powers that we give to local authorities. I think that he intended the proposal to apply only to community schools, but as drafted it would include voluntary schools—faith schools, for example. I do not think that the governing bodies of voluntary schools would welcome local authorities having the power to turn them all into foundation schools against their will.

More importantly, the principled argument that we have made throughout is that the decision on whether to change status from a community school to a foundation school, or whether to acquire a trust, should be taken in the first instance by the governing bodies of the schools themselves. Such a change is not something that could be imposed by a local authority on all its schools. I hate to tar the hon. Gentleman with this charge, but he is making a very centralising proposition. I know that he would not want that, so I hope that he will not press that amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am happy to withdraw the amendment, because I am reassured by the Minister’s assurance that there is no question of a local authority being able to step in to remove a sixth form, which is where I suspect there would probably be most controversy. I take her point about amendment No. 384. I wanted to probe the Government’s thinking, but clearly I do not want to give local authorities the power to interfere with the status of voluntary aided schools. In fact, that amendment would not be a centralising measure as such, because the local authority would be surrendering its power if all the schools in an area became foundation schools. However, I take her point.

We shall try to accept the right hon. Lady’s assurance that the clause is not a centralising measure, because that would be unfortunate. I am prepared to accept her word that it is benign, particularly in relation to foundation schools, and that it is designed only to allow local authorities to make suggestions for SEN provision, for example. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 19

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 19, page 14, line 17, at end insert—

‘(3A) Where regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)—

(a) confer functions on a local education authority, or

(b) enable a local education authority or the Secretary of State to require proposals to be referred to the adjudicator,

the local education authority (or the Secretary of State where applicable) must exercise its functions and rights with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.

(3B) Where proposals are referred to the adjudicator under provisions made by virtue of subsection (2), the adjudicator shall make his decision with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 207, in clause 30, page 21, line 18, at end insert—

‘ “self-governing”, in relation to a maintained school, means any of the following schools in England—

(a) a foundation or voluntary school;

(b) a foundation special school; and

(c) an Academy.'.

New clause 15—Duty to encourage schools to acquire a trust or foundation—

‘A local education authority shall ensure that their functions under this Part are exercised with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.'.

New clause 13—Maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts—

‘(1) All maintained schools shall become independent charitable trusts.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations to give effect to subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide for the trusts established in pursuance of subsection (1) to be funded on the same basis as grant-maintained schools established under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988.'.

New clause 19—Maintained schools to become grant-maintained schools—

‘(1) All maintained schools shall become grant-maintained schools within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988.

(2) Local education authorities shall cease to play any part in the allocation of school funding.

(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations to give effect to subsections (1) and (2).'.

No. 201, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end insert—

‘(aa) regulations under section [Maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts], or'.

No. 237, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end insert—

‘(aa) regulations under section [Maintained schools to become grant-maintained schools], or'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. Seeing you in the Chair reminds me of the Queen’s eightieth birthday—you share all her dignity, but not her age.

The clause relates to the procedures by which prescribed alterations to schools published under clause 18 are made. The amendment would require that, where the regulations under subsections (1) and (2) confer functions on local authorities or allow them or the Secretary of State to refer proposals to the adjudicator, they will exercise those functions

“with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.”

In our previous sitting, the Minister said, rightly, that some would like to place an obligation on local authorities for all schools in their area to become self-governing. She said that every school should instead be encouraged to do so. I said that the Prime Minister and the Minister once took the view that all schools should be encouraged to adopt the new freedoms and independence in question. I quoted the White Paper, which 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 acquire a Trust.”

I then put it to the Minister that she might have changed her mind and bowed to pressure from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is a formidable figure. He and others made a powerfulcase that the spirit of the White Paper, with its encouragement of all schools to acquire a trust, would not necessarily be efficacious. He thought that it would be better for some schools not to follow the route set out in the White Paper.

I tabled the amendments with the intention of reinforcing the Minister’s position and injecting a little more steel into her backbone, so that she can see off the challenges from the hon. Gentleman and others. He is the acceptable face of the rebels—the tame rebel—but there are others who will be altogether harder to see off and more intransigent in their determination to frustrate the intentions behind the White Paper and the Bill. We want to help the Minister, as we have throughout the Bill’s progress. The amendments would make the proposals in the White Paper a reality by making it easier for schools to follow the route it envisaged.

The amendments would also ensure that the adjudicator would make decisions on prescribed alterations to schools with a view to their becoming self-governing. A “self-governing” school is defined in amendment No. 207 as a foundation or voluntary school, a foundation special school or an academy. New clause 15 would take further the duty to work with a view to schools becoming self-governing by applying it to all functions of the local education authority under part 2 of the Bill.

The amendments go to the very heart of the Bill. Do we envisage a future in which all schools will be self-governing? In our previous sitting, the Minister confirmed that she still believes it right to encourage that. Replying to my intervention, she said:

“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.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 April 2006; c. 442.]

She clearly wants all schools to become self-governing. She envisages not the future that the hon. Member for Bury, North wants, but one in which all schools take on the new freedoms available to them, to the benefit of the children who attend them.

We are all in this business to try to deliver the best education possible for as many children as possible, to build on good practice and to create effective schools. We should make it clear through the debate on the amendments that that is where we all want to be. Is it the destination to which we are all travelling? It certainly is not where other Members of the governing party who are not on the Committee want us to go. We will not ask why, as that would be indiscreet and, perhaps, impolite—[Interruption.] Well, they are here in the form of the Liberal Democrats, who speak for them on this Committee, and who will doubtless make their comments about the amendments in due course.

Those people have a perfectly reasonable point to make. They take a different view on education, the nature of school government and, I guess, the White Paper. That is fair enough; let us have that debate, but let us be clear where the Government stand on it. I want to be sure that they have not bowed, that there is absolute certainty about their intentions, and that they remain true to the spirit of the White Paper and of Lord Adonis, who has been a powerful figure in education for the Government. More than that, he has been a powerful exponent of many of the virtues in the White Paper that are given force in the Bill, and which we support.

I recommend to the Committee a book by Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard, called “A Class Act”. It talks about the myth of Britain’s classless society and goes into education matters in some detail, including the subject of grammar schools, which we will no doubt discuss later in our considerations. Lord Adonis is a powerful advocate of grammar schools as a way to enable greater social mobility. However, let us not digress. Indeed, I am sure that you will not allow me to do so, Mr. Chope.

Let us consider the background to the amendments. In a letter to no less a person than the Chairman of the Select Committee—the man who saved John Clare’s cottage for the nation; I do not make light of that—the Secretary of State wrote:

“Enabling schools to benefit from a trust is at the heart of our proposals.”

She went on to say that the amendments would create a duty to encourage all schools to become self-governing. In his monthly press conference, on 11 October, the Prime Minister said:

“By the end of this third term,”—

linguistically he is not at his best here—

“I want every school that wants to be able to be”

one to become

“an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards.”

In the introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister says:

“Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools. It will be for schools to decide whether they wish to acquire a Trust—similar to those that support Academies—or become a self-governing foundation school. But it will be easy for them to do so, without unnecessary bureaucratic interference. And they will do so in a system of fair admissions, fair funding and clear accountability.”

The principle of trust schools is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. It was what drove the White Paper, and is at the core of the Bill. 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 acquire a Trust.”

That is precisely what we say in these amendments. We have become committed to the principles of the White Paper because we think that they are right. What works is what matters. That degree of self-government, in which schools have proper control of their affairs, and the greater diversity and choice that it will produce will be beneficial. It will produce an education system that delivers more for more children.

We want to align ourselves with the Schools Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister inasmuch as they agree with that vision. We could be churlish and say that we got there first, but we are all in the same place, so let us be nothing less than generous about that. On that basis, it would be almost inconceivable for the Minister to reject the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They give life to the principles that I have outlined and repeat the pledges that the Prime Minister and others made in the White Paper.

By the time the Select Committee considered the matter, however, the Government had begun to backtrack. As I said, they were subject to pressure. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chope, that parliamentary arithmetic had a part to play in that. The Government did not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for Schools to provide the principled opposition that they did; they thought that the Opposition might deceive them and not support the Bill. As we know, however, Mr. Chope, that is not the kind of Opposition that the Conservatives represent. We are absolutely principled in our determination to do our best for the children of this country and we would never let petty squabbles, short-term gains and a miserable pyrrhic victory obscure that vision. We were therefore there to back the Government. But, uncertain, they felt that they had to bend in the direction of those with a rather less clear view of the virtues of the White Paper and everything that it can do.

The Select Committee report said:

“The Secretary of State has told us that there will be no incentives offered, or pressure exerted, to encourage schools to become Trust schools. The decision to become a Trust will be for individual schools. We welcome these assurances. That being the case, the Schools Commissioner is likely to perform a much less executive role in relation to Trust schools than the White Paper suggests.”

That view was not, however, shared by the whole Select Committee. A minority report welcoming trust schools was submitted by some of its members, who are also on this Committee. I pay tribute to their work on the Select Committee and to their courage in producing a minority report. The report said:

“We support the development of Trust schools, with their greater autonomy and the external support that a trust would bring. This autonomy should include full ownership of assets. Independence must mean full independence if it is to have impact and real value. We believe that as the Trust is a new category of school it should be a duty to promote it. We also believe that the Government should leave open the option of a requirement for schools to become Trusts or independent of the local authority in some form.”

The minority report, the White Paper and the Opposition are clear: we want to encourage all schools to become trust schools, although I say no more than encourage. Contrary to what the Minister quite naughtily suggested at our previous sitting, this isnot about the difference between obligation and encouragement, and we should not oblige schools to do things that are not in their interests and which their governors and the local community do not want. This is about how actively we encourage schools—that is the real difference between us. The White Paper was clear about that, but the Bill is less so; the Prime Minister and Lord Adonis were clear about it, but Ministers are now rather less so. I appreciate that Ministers are in a difficult position, but I want to be helpful and guide them in the direction in which I know they want to travel.

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

I should like to tease out exactly what encouragement means. Does it mean thatthe Conservative party would give favourable consideration to bids for grants if it was in government? As we have suggested, schools have been encouraged to take the academy route. Would trust foundations be encouraged in the same fashion?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The critical determinant is what is best for the local school and the children who attend it, and that would apply whether or not it was a trust school. There should not be a policy of discriminating in favour of a type of school that did not meet the interests of local parents and children. I do not think that the Minister or the Opposition would want to go down that road. We should not in any way propose that there should be favourable treatment outside of the criteria of what is best for the local community, the children and the school. I am rooted to that principle.

It seems to me that the issue is the vision in particular localities. If it becomes the view in a locality that such an aim is desirable, much would be done to encourage it. If, however, it is absolutely clear in some localities that people do not want that to happen, it will not happen or will, at least, be difficult to achieve. We have indicated throughout our proceedings—I will not go over them, as that would be tedious—points at which the local authority could obstruct, obscure, obfuscate or deter.

It is our worry that some local authorities will not seize the initiative and welcome the Bill with open arms but, indeed, will do their best to frustrate it and the Government’s ambitions. We need a balance, but I am sure that the balance lies in encouraging schools to go down the trust school route because we believe that that would be beneficial.

Are the Government willing to back their own instincts? Do they want to move to a freer education market? Is the White Paper a bluff, appealing over the heads of Labour MPs to middle-class voters without offering real change, or will the Government be frightened into making concessions because of opposition from their own MPs? We believe that the Government should have the courage of their convictions. It is important that the Bill should become law in a form that is likely to bring about the original objectives. That is why we have tabled the amendments.

The amendments make the position crystal clear. In amendment No. 206 we suggest that we effectively encourage local authorities to deliver the vision described in the White Paper, which I have reinforced in this short debate. Our additions to clause 19 would enable us to achieve what the Government hope and want to achieve. New clause 15 goes a little further, as I have said, but it is in much the same vein.

I hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I do not think that there is any doubt that they should. It would be a healthy sign that the Committee is coming to terms with the consensus that has developed, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has spoken about before. It would also, I think, reaffirm the Government’s position and make it clear whether they will be absolutely certain about where they want to go.

The Minister has an opportunity to see off her critics. It is an important chance to reassure parents, communities, teachers and governors outside this place, who will be hanging on her every word and waiting to see what she will do about our amendments. If she were to accept them, any doubt about commitment and intent could be dispelled. I hope that the amendments will be accepted in that spirit and I am delighted to move them in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am happy to speak to new clause 13, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), and new clause 19, which provide the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate.

I am proud of what the Conservative Government achieved in their 18 years—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I have hardly started, but of course I will give way.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Will there will be any role at all for a local education authority if his proposals are accepted?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

No role at all, is the simple answer tothat simple question. [Interruption.] I missed that sedentary comment from the Minister, but I am sure it was very revealing.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It was something about barking.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The Minister should be aware what the Prime Minister himself said, which bears repeating, again and again, that eventually he wanted all maintained schools to be “independent state schools”. What did he mean by that? I take it to refer to schools that are still funded completely by the state, that is, the taxpayer—we all accept that—and which therefore are free, but otherwise manage their own affairs, free from overruling or overriding by the local authority or the Department for Education and Skills, or both. Those schools would be as free as the independent schools are in all respects: the organisation of the school, future policies, curriculum and examinations, staffing levels, salary levels—always within the money allocated—disciplinary procedures, budgetary procedures and outside-school-hours provision. They would have all that freedom as in independent schools, within the requirements laid down by the Charity Commission and subject to Ofsted inspection.

That is presumably what the Prime Minister wants, and I am sorry if the Minister thinks that he is barking. That is the Prime Minister’s dream. It is also, I suspect, the dream of many people who work in the maintained sector—the teachers who run the schools, and who are desperately anxious to be able to get on with their own jobs. They are the experts. They want to be free from the Department’s interference, free from endless structural changes and free from endless diktats on the curriculum. They just want to get on with the job of teaching and running their own schools.

If schools were given that freedom it would be the single greatest impetus not just to diversity in the maintained sector but to an increase in standards, and it would transform education in this country. I very much hope that when there is a Conservative Government again we will move towards giving maximum freedom to all schools in the maintained sector.

Under my proposals maintained schools would effectively become independent schools, although they would be funded by the state and would be entirely free at the point of delivery in every respect. They would be subject to the constraints of the Charity Commission, Ofsted and a firm of auditors. All I ask is that all state schools be treated similarly. State schools do not need local and national politicians interfering in them; they do not need us, in this room, to tell them what they should do or how they should teach. We do not do that in many other aspects of our national life, in which people get on with running complex organisations,and do so extremely well. No one doubts, I think, that the independent sector works perfectly well. That comment may, of course, prompt someone to jump up and say, “It is not surprising, because they are better funded than maintained schools,” but it is not just a question of funding. It is a question of freedom and diversity. That is what the independent sector provides and that is the vision that I have for the maintained sector.

Teachers are professional people and highly trained, whether in independent or state schools. Let us start to treat them as professionals. I noticed that a Labour Member of Parliament appeared on “Newsnight” yesterday and said that we should not worry about the reception given to the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, because it is spring, it happened at the seaside, and Ministers are always barracked at NUT conferences, nurses conferences and so on. Why do those health and education service professionals feel so aggrieved? It is because of the endless changes imposed on them. They simply want to get on with their job. They are professional people and I believe that we can trust them.

None of this apparently barking policy is new: it has been implemented before. A Conservative Government introduced grant-maintained schools. That term means simply that those schools were maintained by the state through an annual grant, whose size depended on the number and ages of the children in the school. It was a fairly simple and easy-to-understand system, in which the money followed the pupil. It is immaterial whether we once again use the term “grant-maintained”. I used that term in new clause 19 because there is a precedent for it and it worked in many areas. However, we need not use it in future; we could call them anything. We could call them foundation schools or trust schools, but the essence of my proposal is that they should have freedom and independence equivalent to that of grant-maintained schools—that is the vital point—and that, effectively, all schools should therefore have those freedoms.

I believe that the grant-maintained schools that the Conservatives set up proved conclusively the great benefits to be gained, both for standards and for the effective use of money, through such freedom and independence. I know that grant-maintained schools are controversial and it is claimed that they received beneficial funding in comparison with other schools. We could solve that problem by making all schools effectively grant-maintained schools. Then they would all be funded on the same basis.

I propose that the time has come for all state schools in England and, I hope, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to become the equivalent of grant-maintained schools. We could of course have a period of preparation for those schools, of two or three years or whatever we liked, under this Bill or a future Bill. However, eventually all primary and secondary state schools would automatically be self-managing, equivalent to the old grant-maintained system.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is the hon. Gentleman announcing policy this morning? Is he saying that a future Conservative Government would force all schools to become trust schools and that he would introduce selection?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

No. I am not in a position to announce policy. I am only a Back Bencher. One of the advantages of being a Back Bencher is that one is entitled to put before the House ideas that may be novel but may eventually become policy—who knows? I am in the happy position of being about to celebrate my 24th year in the House, and 22 years of that time have been spent on the Back Benches. No doubt one reason I spent so many years on those Benches is that I keep producing these novel ideas, but that has not held me back so far, and I shall go on doing it. [Interruption.] I missed that comment, but I am sure that it was flattering.

We could also organise matters, as we did previously, so that the schools would automatically be given charitable status. It would not be necessary for every one to apply separately to the charity commissioners. For instance, the schools would be so-called exempt charities. Grant-maintained schools had that status, which also applies to Oxbridge colleges. They must submit audited accounts, as a company does, to a funding agency. At their height, grant-maintained schools represented one fifth of the state secondary sector and some 500 to 600 primary schools. They ranged in size from a primary school with 19 pupils to Great Barr in Birmingham, which had 2,500 pupils until the abolition of grant-maintained schools under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This has happened before and could happen again.

The Education Reform Act 1988 made provision for ballots. Its provisions and those of the Education Act 1993 were consolidated in the Education Act 1996, which laid down the following procedure, under which a school might become grant-maintained. Each year, the governing bodies of schools were obliged to consider whether to hold a ballot of parents on whether to seek GM status, unless a ballot had been held in the previous school year. They were required to ballot parents if a written request to do so had been received from the parents of at least 20 per cent. of the pupils registered at the school and no ballot had been held in the previous 12 months. A second ballot of parents had to be held if less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote did so, and the results of the second ballot were final.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment could invalidate a ballot and order a further one if irregularities were detected. If a simple majority of parents voted in favour of becoming grant-maintained, the governing body had to publish proposals for the acquisition of GM status within four months of the ballot, and those had to be approved by the Secretary of State. Once a school’s proposals were accepted, a new governing body was incorporated, and took over the running of the school from the previous one on a specified date.

It has all been done before—there were provisions for it—so we can work out how it might be done in future. However, we have to develop a procedure by which the overwhelming majority of schools acquire that status. No doubt the Minister will claim that this is a centralising measure, and that we are trying to impose one vision on all schools. Far from it; the opposite is the case. Because schools would, effectively, be able to teach whatever curriculum they wanted and employ whatever staff they wanted—hire, fire, select and deselect—there would be enormous diversity. We would not need to have all this debate about grammar schools or non-grammar schools. Some schools would be selective and some would not.

The response to my argument is always that that is wrong; schools would want to cherry-pick and so on. However, every school would eventually find its own level. I can never understand those who oppose independence in schools. They imagine that there will suddenly be an enormous, revolutionary change.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

No, I want to finish this important point. Most people who run schools are fairly conservative. They do not want rapid change. One of their reasons for not liking what has gone on in the past 30 or40 years is that they believe that changes have been imposed on them. If we had the courage of our convictions, and allowed schools to do what they wanted, change would be slow and incremental and head teachers would gradually respond to what parents wanted locally. Most schools would stay very much as they are; most comprehensive schools, for instance, would remain comprehensive. It is true that they would want to respond to parents, and many parents want a traditional type of education. Others do not necessarily want that. Some people want faith schools; others do not. Some want uniforms; others do not. Some want traditional education; others want progressive education. Change would be slow.

If only this Committee had the courage to stop interfering and to let the professionals get on with it, there would not be chaos or an enormous revolution in our schools, there would be gradual, incremental change for the better and schools would be able to respond to what parents wanted.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I am curious to know what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that all schools would find their own level.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I meant that schools respond to the situation in which they find themselves—to what parents want, and to what they can and should do. That is what life is about, and surely it is what we all do. We provide a service, whether in the public or the private sector, and, depending on our skill or professionalism, people choose whether to use it. Parents are in that situation.

Once schools were free to manage, it would become apparent to parents which school they should send their children to. I agree that most would usually want to send their child to the nearest school. There would not be a revolutionary change. The education system of the early 1950s would not suddenly be replicated, and hundreds of new grammar schools would not freeze out the existing comprehensive schools. Some comprehensive schools might, it is true, want to select more pupils on the basis of ability, but not all would do so, and I do not think that comprehensive schools would suddenly become grammar schools. Others may disagree with my view, but we should at least have the courage of our convictions and allow people the freedom that they surely deserve.

If my amendments were accepted, it would follow that the education departments of county councils, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities, which we refer to as local education authorities, would no longer be needed. Even the Department for Education and Skills would have a lot less to do. The independent state schools would be funded according to a precise, easily understood formula, and their funding would be paid to them, probably termly, by a funding agency set up precisely for that purpose. That agency would in turn be paid directly by the Treasury.

With a simple and sensible funding formula, little bureaucracy would be needed. As to the Department, I am sorry that there are officials present, as I am sure that they do a worthwhile job, but I guess that they could be equally well employed elsewhere in Whitehall, because the role of the Department would be very small indeed. Perhaps only about 100 people would be needed altogether to be involved in policy.

My new clauses and various amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me all point in the same direction. It is time for the education system to come of age. It is time to let schools off the hook of excessive bureaucracy and regulations. It is time we really had—not eventually, but now—independent state schools.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Well, I am sure that the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be delighted to hear his views about the role of the local authority. I can hear the printing press whirring now, as leaflets containing his quoted remarks are prepared for the local elections. His vision for education would remove any tier of local accountability and any local priority-setting role. It would prevent any kind of flexible funding involving different Departments, which makes possible the joint funding of work that can contribute to projects such as “Every Child Matters”. Needless to say, the Liberal Democrats oppose the amendments and new clauses.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) make it clear yet again that the Conservatives believe community schools to be inferior to other schools. However, they have not proved that, and we have rehearsed the arguments many times in previous sittings, so I shall not cover them again. We shall oppose the amendments.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings commented on the make-up of the Committee—which, on the Labour Benches, is made up of splendid and committed individuals. At least 10 of the Labour Members who voted against the Bill were given the opportunity to serve on the Committee, and refused. I could characterise the Opposition amendments as being of the “We are from the Conservative party and we are here to help you” type. That is not a phrase that would ring convincingly in anyone’s ears. One clear thread of intention runs through all the amendments—the desire to impose a particular form of governance on all schools. That desire manifests itself in slightly different ways, but it is fundamentally the imposition of one model in a context in which we have consistently argued that the way forward is for schools, governing bodies and communities to have autonomy in decision making.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the right hon. Lady explain what is meant in paragraph 2.5 on page 25 of the White Paper, which says:

“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust”?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We will, for example, appoint a schools commissioner who will provide support and advice to schools that want to go down that particular route, who will work with those who might want to provide that sort of external support for schools, and who will help with the documentation. That is precisely the sort of practical encouragement and support that I want there to be, but that is fundamentally different from imposing a particular model.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The right hon. Lady must be clear: the White Paper says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton reminded her:

“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing”—

not some, not a half or a quarter, but all. That is my hon. Friend’s point, and the Minister failed to answer it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Well, no, actually; the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was asking me what “encourage” meant, and I explained. We are clear that self-government is an option for all primary and secondary schools; support and advice will be available for any that choose to take that route.

The most extreme of the amendments are those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. As he spelled out in his apocalyptic vision, his amendments would effectively require all schools to become grant-maintained and to be outside the local authority framework. I have to say that I think there is no place for those amendments, or for that approach, either in the Bill or in the Government’s attitude to education.

Secondly, there is a group of amendments that do not go to the same lengths as those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but that nevertheless seek to fetter the actions of a whole range of actors in the field of school organisation by requiring them to exercise their functions with regard to a particular view. I have some sympathy with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I cannot agree with him on the inflexibility that the amendments would introduce in all circumstances.

To take the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough first, they would, as I suggested, effectively herald a return to an even more extreme version of grant-maintained status for schools, as they would require the Secretary of State to make, by affirmative procedure, regulations requiring all maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts. The amendments would not leave that decision in the hands of the individual governing body, and that was not the case even for the failed GM policy. That goes against everything that our schools White Paper stands for: putting parents and the needs of their children at the heart of the school system; ensuring greater diversity of provision, not central direction; and tailoring education to the needs of individual children.

Crucially, the whole system must be set in a framework of local accountability and determination. We want to ensure that all children are treated fairly under that framework, which must be designed to combat social disadvantage, not perpetuate it. None of my hon. Friends believes in a school system—or a society—where people “find their level”. We believe in a system that promotes opportunities for everybody and ensures that every child is able to fulfil their potential, as was set out in clause 1. We do not accept the status quo—the hon. Gentleman seems to imply that he does—in which where one gets to in life depends on where one starts. That is a fundamental difference in the values that inform our decision making.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

What proportion of the education budget is siphoned off by the DFES and local authorities before it reaches pupils?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

With respect to local authorities, a considerably larger proportion is delegated to schools than was in 1997, because of how we have reformed the funding regime.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

But does the Minister agree that part of the reserved portion of the budget that local authorities hold is often for very important projects, such as preventing exclusions, and providing cross-borough music facilities, special schools and transport arrangements? It is spent on all sorts of things that other schools may benefit from.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree with the hon. Lady that those are carefully defined functions that it is appropriate for local authorities to carry out.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

If I were to say that the DFES and LEAs siphoned off up to 40 per cent. of the total education budget before it reached pupils, would the Minister recognise that figure? If not, will she tell us her figure?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is not a figure that I recognise. Delegation from local authorities to schools has increased from about 77 per cent. in 1997 to well over 85 per cent., if not over 90 per cent., now.

What are the other significant differences between the hon. Gentleman’s proposition and that in the Bill? First, he proposes a once-and-for-all shift to what is, in effect, grant-maintained school status. We have made it clear that there may need to be flexibility in the form of a mechanism allowing schools to change their status and consider whether trust status continues to provide what they want. We have therefore built into the Bill provisions to allow a governing body to remove a trust if there are concerns about its performance. Once again, we have flexibility and decision making for a governing body versus an irreversible and inflexible model.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made it completely clear that, under his model, all schools should be able to return to a system of selection. As I have identified on numerous occasions, that is the absolute antithesis of his argument that parents should be able to choose the schools that are appropriate for them. Under that system, schools would choose pupils, not the other way round.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged perfectly openly that, under his proposals, GM status is part of a deliberate attempt to break up the local family of schools by encouraging them to opt out of local authorities; indeed, it would completely destroy the education function of local authorities. As we know, GM schools were directly funded and given additional capital and recurrent funding, in contrast to other schools. Indeed, they were given about the only capital funding that was around at the time—talk about a bribe.

The hon. Gentleman talked almost in passing about the national funding agency that would need to be formed. There was a funding agency to direct funding to grant-maintained schools under the previous regime. It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that setting up a large national bureaucracy to fund every school in the country would not provide more jobs for DFES officials. That proposition goes against everything for which the Opposition have argued, particularly at the last election. It would lead to a large new national bureaucracy—that is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.

The Government are clear that trust schools will remain within the local authority-maintained sector and be funded by the local authority on the same basis as other schools. As we have repeatedly made clear, no school will be forced to acquire a trust, although the option to do so will be available to all schools. It will be for each individual school to make that decision according to its specific needs and local circumstances. Our Bill and our approach are permissive and enabling, unlike the prescriptive approach taken by Opposition Members.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not sure how the Minister can describe encouragement as prescriptive. Our amendments are wedded to the principles in the White Paper. What sort of future does she envisage? Does she, like the White Paper, envisage all schools following the proposed path? Will half of schools do that, or a quarter?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

In fact, I was just coming to what I might call the mainstream Opposition amendments. I have to say that I feel marginally warmer towards them than I do towards those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. An interesting tussle is going on over Conservative policy, and it will be interesting to see what emerges at the end of the process. Will Conservative Members flip in one direction or flop in another during that policy formation process? I suspect that their leader will wait to hear what other people have to say to him before he makes up his mind.

Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 and new clause 15 are not damaging in the same way as are those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but they are unnecessary. They attempt to force a particular model on to local education authorities, the schools adjudicator and the Secretary of State, and effectively to second guess a school’s decision.

I can appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments, which, to a certain extent, is consistent with the objectives that we have spelt out and that the hon. Gentleman highlighted today. In our view, however, the way in which they seek to impose those models in all circumstances would work contrary to the policy of giving schools the freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to develop in order to meet the needs of pupils, parents and the wider community.

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

Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of the total education funding held back by central Government is higher than that which might be retained for the local authorities’ functions that we have just described?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I will not confirm those figures. The hon. Lady is right; I have made that argument, particularly in relation to local government. This Government, however, have put in the hands of schools and governing bodies more resources and powers to enable them to make the decisions that matter for their pupils and communities.

Our proposals will provide freedom and fairness for all schools, and sharp accountability for results. We do not want to fetter their autonomy and interfere with their procedural rules. That is why the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, which seek to impose directly a particular model, and the more mainstream proposals from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which would require bodies other than the governing body to attempt to second guess, and—I must say—in some cases, frustrate the wishes of an individual school, go against the spirit of the Bill and the White Paper. That is why I shall resist them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I invited the right hon. Lady to affirm her support for the principle of trust schools and to repeat the assurances given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State when they introduced the White Paper anticipating this legislation. I did that with amendments that say simply that encouragement to that end should be part of the Bill. I do not regard encouragement as prescriptive or dogmatic, but as entirely in the spirit that underpinned the Bill’s intentions. I am surprised therefore that she has not embraced the amendments with the enthusiasm that I anticipated.

The Minister is right: there is a difference of nuance between the opinions of Committee members, for which we make no apology. The Conservative party is an open-minded, plural party. We are an Opposition in the process of developing our ideas on this subject, and it is absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough should have the opportunity to express another view—a different model. We are pleased that he is serving alongside us on this Committee and proud of his contribution here and to the House. It would be healthy to explore the key points that he made about the virtues of giving schools freedom and the benefit that that brings to teachers and governors.

Teachers and head teachers are among the most creative people in our society and the more we constrain them, the less we get from them. My hon. Friend is right about that. Successive Governments have probably taken too little account of that creativity, and the constant changes to and imposition of targets, regulations and schemes have done teachers no favours. I want their creativity to flower for the benefit of our children, and I want a Conservative Government who recognise that and who re-elevate the role of educators and enable them to exercise the kind of freedoms described by my hon. Friend.

The amendments, however, are moderate. Indeed, one might say that they are framed in a way in which the Government would find irresistible. Well, resist them they have; they are so fearful of their critics on the left of the Labour party and of those even further to the left in the Liberal Democrats, that they are timid about their own ambitions. We are not timid about those ambitions, but proud and certain about what we want to achieve for the benefit of our country’s children.

Let me be clear: the only reason why we support these kinds of measures and the freedoms that lie at the heart of the Bill, about which we have spoken today, is because they will be beneficial. They will deliver a better education for our children. For that reason and because the issue is so important, I intend to press amendment No. 206 to a Division to test the Committee and the Government’s resolve and toshow where the Conservative party—a principled Opposition, defending the interests of the children of this country—stands.

Clause 20

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 20, page 15, line 18, after ‘by', insert

‘a two-thirds majority vote of'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 155, in clause 20, page 15, line 18, at end insert

‘and, in the case of secondary schools, following consultation with any relevant feeder primary schools.'.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The amendments relate to the process of becoming a trust school. During earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Bury, North questioned whetherthe outgoing governing body would always be best placed to make a decision if its school had failed in its duty. Although I have sympathy with his views, Ishall not attempt to deal with them in discussingthe amendments; I shall take it as read that the Government intend that such bodies should make the decision, and merely try to strengthen the majority required.

A two-thirds majority is known as a super-majority. For many businesses, a super-majority is common practice when the board of directors is asked to consider any major constitutional change. In fact, when a board of directors is asked to deal with any special resolutions, such as changing the company’s name, a 75 per cent. majority is normally required; a two-thirds majority is probably rather lenient for the case that I am discussing.

The change proposed is serious; it is not as if people would be voting for a new coffee machine in the staff lounge. A simple majority would not do for business and it should not do for schools. All the community will need to have confidence in any decisions and merely arguing for a majority of those present on the governing body, rather than a two-thirds majority of the whole governing body, does not seem adequate. Such a majority would not be used in the charity or business sectors.

Amendment No. 155 is intended to ensure that schools consult their feeder schools prior to taking any vote, not afterwards. I am sure that Committee members will agree that feeder schools have a vested interest in any decision taken by the schools that they feed. They have a right to be consulted and for their views to be taken into account by the governing body when it makes a decision.

Mr. Hayesrose—

Standing Committee E

Clause 20

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 155, in clause 20, page 15, line 18, at end insert

‘and, in the case of secondary schools, following consultation with any relevant feeder primary schools.'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was about to start speaking when we had our break for Education and Skills questions, which we all enjoyed. I imagine that the Under-Secretary has just returned from researching the answer to the question that I asked him, because he wants to reply to me in writing in more detail.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) would make it more difficult for a school’s governing body to determine its own foundation proposals. That would contradict the principle behind the Bill. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument. She spoke of consistency: the way in which things are organised in other bodies and the desire to apply similar practice to the Bill. She believes in her case, which has some merit, but she must know that in practice the amendments would make it more difficult to realise the Bill’s aim.

Why should a proposal require a two-thirds majority? We do not make such stipulations in respect of other important matters. How would it be, for example, if we suggested that a two-thirds majority were needed for a vote on the euro? I have not heard the Liberals call for that. What if we had suggested that a two-thirds majority was required in respect of the devolution proposals passed by the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and I were new Members? We did not hear the Liberal Democrats make that case either. I think that the amendment is a cover for the intention that I am sure lies deep in the breast of the Liberal Democrats to see the proposals in the Bill falter, if not fail. The tradition in this country, as you know, Mr. Cook, is for votes to be carried by a majority. It should be up to schools’ governing bodies to determine their own procedures.

Why is it necessary to stipulate in the Bill that before making proposals secondary schools need to consult feeder primary schools? I qualify my remarks by saying that of course I understand that if a school acquires a trust it will have an impact on the wider community. I do not underestimate the significance of that, but there is a danger that such a consultation process might once again delay and frustrate, or even deter or prevent a school from going down the road that is the purpose of the Bill.

It is right that we press and probe the Government on these matters and I imagine that that is the purpose of the amendments, but I am not confident that such consultation would not be less helpful than it was justified. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friends, should the Liberals press the amendments to a vote, to resist them.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As both hon. Members who have spoken on the amendments have accepted, both amendments would insert new requirements into the process of a school acquiring a trust, and arguably make it harder for a school to acquire a trust. I understand that the hon. Member for Brent, East in seeking reassurance through at least one of the amendments, and I hope to be able to provide that. However, in respect of the proposed requirement for a two-thirds majority, we have made it clear that although the option of acquiring a trust will be available to all schools, no school will be forced to acquire a trust. We believe that that decision should be for the individual school, which is why in the Bill we have taken the permissive and enabling approach that we discussed this morning.

Acquiring a trust should be a reasonably straightforward process. It is for the governing body of each school to decide whether it wants to publish proposals to acquire a trust, and it should normally be for the governing body to decide the proposals. I have provided for the Committee the guidance that will spell out the process of consultation and local accountability that we would expect to be gone through. That will ensure that there is scrutiny of and accountability for the proposals. In the end, however, the most important safeguard of the appropriateness of trusts will be the common sense of parents and other stakeholders in the local community, as well as the governing body.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I hope that the Minister will deal with the question whether to require a two-thirds majority rather than a straight majority. Does she not feel that a 51—49 per cent. split in a vote on a governing body could lead to a lack of confidence in a new trust? That would not be a strong basis for setting up a new type of school.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not want to be pedantic, but for there to be a 51-49 per cent. split on a governing body, it would have to have 100 members, and obviously that will not be the case. As for the two-thirds majority for which the hon. Member for Brent, East has argued, we do not believe, for reasons similar to those suggested by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that it would be right to require a governing body to act by a two-thirds majority when deciding on trust acquisition proposals.

It will be worth while to set the issue in the context of other decisions that we expect governors to make. Such decisions would normally be taken by a simple majority of governors present—in fact, at present there is no decision that we expect them to take by two-thirds majority. We are introducing one such decision through the Bill, and we will examine the specific rationale for that when we discuss the relevant clauses, but requiring a two-thirds majority when deciding on trust acquisition proposals would set a much higher threshold than is required for other decisions. Given the considerable safeguards in the process, the local accountability provisions, and the ability of the local authority to refer proposals tothe adjudicator in certain circumstances, a simple majority is appropriate.

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Brent, East more on amendment No. 155, which would require the governing body of a secondary school wishing to acquire a trust or to allow a trust to appoint a majority of its governors to consult any relevant feeder primary schools. Of course we would expect the governing body to consult a range of local partners, and we have set out certain minimum consultation requirements in the draft School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations, which are among those that we have made available to the Committee. The list in those draft regulations of those who must be consulted includes

“any school in the area likely to be affected by the proposal.”

I think that that covers the category suggested in amendment No. 155. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady that the requirement, which I agree is important, is already covered and that she will not press the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record that the regulations that she mentioned cover the matter raised in amendment No. 155. That is helpful and reassuring. I am, however, sorry that the Government have not accepted our suggestion in amendment No. 154, which would bring schools’ governing bodies into line with businesses and most other organisations, which require a majority of at least two thirds, if not three quarters, when making a major change to their constitution or articles.

I recognise the Minister’s point that a 51-49 per cent. vote is unlikely, but there will be occasions on which a chairman’s casting vote could make the difference. That would be most unwise. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but we will consider the matter and whether we wish to table new amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 20, page 15, line 19, and leave out from beginning to ‘and’ in line 20.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 21, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (1).

No. 38, in clause 21, page 15, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am delighted to propose these amendments, which would narrow the opportunities for local authority meddling, thereby increasing the real power given to school governing bodies, as opposed to secondary authority under the primary power of LEAs. Let us not forget that that is what got us all so excited about the White Paper and the Bill in the first place. There was real excitement in the House and more widely that a new horizon could be seen, a path had been set, a way to the future had been made clear.

No real power is invested in governing bodies if they can be undermined by LEAs. Throughout our deliberations, members of the Committee with different perspectives on the matter have pressed the notion that governing bodies should have such real authority. In October, the Prime Minister said:

“By the end of this third term, I want every school that wants to be able to be an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards.”

This is not the first time that the Prime Minister’s words have rung through this Committee. They were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). His views and those of the Prime Minister are not a million miles apart these days: they have moved closer together in the years that they have both been in the House. In September, the Prime Minister said

“The logic of changing to the specialist schools, of starting city academies, of giving greater freedom to schools in who they hire, what they pay, how they run their school day, is very clear.”

Memorably, he went on to say:

“It is to escape the straitjacket of the traditional comprehensive school and embrace the idea of genuinely independent non-fee paying state schools.”

So, independence is the key to the Bill, and the amendments focus on precisely that.

Lest we forget what true independence means, it means freedom from the control or influence of others. We do not have time for a philosophical debate, and I am sure that you would not allow it, Mr. Cook, but perhaps a little philosophy might be entered into our future considerations, so that we can discuss the nature of autonomy and freedom; conservatism and liberalism. However, I shall draw my remarks closer to the amendment, as you would expect me to.

How do subsections (1) and (2) of clause 21, which provide that regulations under clause 19 must allow the local authority to refer proposals to the adjudicator in certain circumstances, square with the promise of independence? The official Opposition are worried about the role of adjudicators. We do not say that there is no role for them, but we are worried that their role might well act to the detriment of the core purpose of the Bill.

We welcome the guidance, which states that the local authority may refer proposals to the adjudicator only on the grounds of inadequate consultation by the governing body, failure by the governing body to have regard to responses to consultation when publishing its proposals, or concerns that the trust will have a negative impact on school standards. Of course it is important that there are checks, balances and safeguards to ensure that the principle that has run through our considerations—that we must drive up standards in schools for the benefit of our children—is paramount.

The Minister might choose to answer certain questions on the guidance and regulations. What does “standards” mean in that context? Does it apply to standards in the school, or in the area more generally? Those questions relate to some degree to the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who articulated the important view that to see a school in isolation, outside the context of its community, the effect that it might have on the community and the education of children in it, would, in his judgment, be a cause for some concern.

What evidence will the adjudicator need that a trust will have a negative impact on standards before he intervenes? If that is not defined clearly, the adjudicator’s role might be notional or extremely intrusive. Neither we on one side of the argument, nor the hon. Gentleman, who is perhaps on the other—I do not wish to state his opinion for him—can be clear about that if the regulations and guidance remain as vague as they are. I hope that the Minister can reassure us both, and if she can achieve that simultaneous reassurance, she will have become an even more accomplished Minister than I know her to be.

Ominously, page 8 of the guidance states:

“The local authority may have concerns of its own about the proposals or act in response to representation from parents or other stakeholders.”

Of course, we recognise that parental involvement is critical, and if parents express profound concerns it would be perfectly proper to consider them, but the term “other stakeholders” opens up a very wide field of vision indeed. It not unreasonable to say that it could refer to all sorts of people, not all of whom might have the best interests of the school at heart because they might have their own, vested interest. Is the guidance saying that one objection, on any grounds, would be enough for referral to the adjudicator, even though those objections might be spurious or vexatious?

Page 9 of the guidance says that

“The decision of the governing body or Schools Adjudicator is expected to be final.”

It goes on to say that if a Secretary of State were to investigate whether a governing body had acted unreasonably, she would not be able to substitute her decision for that of the governing body. Once again, the measures represent a great increase in the power of the adjudicator, from whom there is no appeal apart from the long and expensive process of judicial review, which in many circumstances would be beyond the reach of a group of parents or other concerned people.

We do not accept that the adjudicator is better able to make a decision than the governing body. Given that we are defending the role and significance of the governing body in the process, I hope that those Members who have articulated their own concerns about the pivotal role of governors—Liberal Democrat Members and other Committee members—will see fit to support the amendments.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I am slightly bemused by the amendments. On Tuesday, the Conservatives tabled a series of amendments that tried to add in another tier of appeal, yet in the present amendments they are trying to remove the first tier of appeal. That seems slightly inconsistent, unless one believes that there should never be any tier of appeal—no means to ensure that due process occurs. That is what we are discussing—making sure that there is a body to which organisations can appeal if due process has not been followed. Surely the Conservatives recognise that, if due process has not been followed, there should be some means to prevent acquisition of the foundation and a move to trust status. One cannot have a system in which that can be railroaded through at all costs, regardless of any safeguards.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I take the hon. Lady’s point. I suppose that we would be more comfortable if we felt that the guidance had made clearer the grounds on which an appeal might succeed or flounder. However, because the guidance is of the type that I described, with its references to global standards and the effect on the wider community, and because there may be uncertainty over where the process might lead, we are worried that an appeal might be a vexatious process rather than a reflection of genuine concerns.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Those are matters on which the Minister can reply. At the heart of our concerns about the amendments is our belief that the adjudicator has a role to play—that of an independent source for people to approach when they wish to appeal or are concerned about the process. We do not want that part of the system to be removed, so we shall oppose the amendments.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we have heard, the amendments would remove what we believe is an important safeguard in the process of a school acquiring a trust, which is the ability to refer such proposals to the schools adjudicator in certain quite closely prescribed circumstances. We are confident that many governing bodies, local communities, parents, neighbouring schools and local authorities will see the considerable benefits that trust status can bring to schools across the country. The fact that we have already seen considerable interest in considering that route is evidence of that.

However, it is right that we should put in place a proper and reasonable process to allow local accountability and scrutiny and in some cases—I hope that they will be exceptional—for the local authority, as the local democratically elected body, to refer such proposals to the adjudicator. That is an important safeguard, which will enable an impartial and experienced third party to determine the proposals on the basis of what I think are clear criteria. If the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings looks at paragraph 14, “Criteria for approval” by the decision maker, which in those circumstances will be the adjudicator, he will see that we are clear—indeed, fulsome—about what is involved in making that decision. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. The criteria detail the sort of evidence, the legal criteria and the impact on standards that we would expect the adjudicator to bear in mind when determining those proposals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The question is how one might project a view of the impact on standards. Given that, at that point, the school does not have the status that it would have if it acquired a trust, only a prediction of the effect that that might have on standards in other schools in the area is possible. In making a judgment on that sort of prediction about that projected status and its projected effect, it would be hard for the adjudicator to sort out what is real from what is imaginary, would it not?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, frankly I do not agree. We make clear on page 11 of the guidance notes the sort of factors that would constitute evidence of the contribution that a trust would make to standards. If I read out the six bullet points—I shall not—hon. Members would see that the criteria for the evidence that the adjudicator will be able to use to confirm whether that trust will contribute to raising standards are reasonably, clear and broad.

Subsection (5)(a), which amendment No. 36 would delete, makes the necessary provisions for the governing body to determine trust acquisition proposals, subject to regulations made under clause 21(1), which amendment No. 37 would delete, to enable the local authority to refer those proposals to the adjudicator. Clause 21(1) requires that any regulations on the determination of trust acquisition proposals by the governing body should include powers for the local authority to refer the proposals to the adjudicator. In turn, clause 21(2), which would be deleted by amendment No. 38, defines the types of school organisation change to which the regulations made under clause 21(1) must refer. It is clear that the effect of the amendments would be to remove that possibility.

In defending the process through which a local authority would have to go in order to refer the proposals, I refer the Committee to the draft illustrative School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations as well as to the guidance. They make clear the grounds on which a local authority would be able to refer the proposals to the adjudicator. The first two grounds are inadequate consultation—a governing body failing to meet the requirements set out in regulations or to have regard to guidance on consultation—and a failure to have regard to responses to a consultation. The hon. Member for Brent, East was right to argue that, if a consultation has been inadequate, there should be an opportunity to refer the proposal. That is why those criteria are in the regulations.

The third criterion is the concern that a trust would have a negative impact on standards. I have outlined the guidance in which we spell out the evidence that will be used by the decision maker to determine whether that would be the case. We are confident that the impact of taking on a trust will be to help to drive improvement in standards, but if that fundamental rationale for the policy was questioned, it could be the basis of a referral to the adjudicator.

The three criteria in the regulations build on the commitments that we gave in the White Paper. They are not intended to be restrictive or to allow local authorities to block proposals to acquire a trust for no good reason. They are an important back-stop and safeguard for parent power, local autonomy and ensuring that the raising of standards is at the heart of every proposal for a trust. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will not press his amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not sure that the right hon. Lady has entirely satisfied me and my hon. Friends. There could be a series of vexatious complaints and objections to proposals by those who seek to block or delay them. However, I hear what she says about the guidance. As a result of this debate, I hope that she might see fit to review the guidance if my prediction of vexatious attempts to block progress is realised. She has the right to do so, and in the interests of making the Bill work I am sure that she will want to. I hope that, on that basis, we can move forward in the spirit of consensus that has imbued our discussions and thinking thus far.

Because the Opposition are ever anxious to be helpful and keen to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 21

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in clause 21, page 15, line 42, leave out subsection (4).

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 343, in clause 21, page 16, line 4, at end insert—

‘(d) any other religious body or foundation relevant to the school in question.'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment would delete subsection (4) of the clause, which allows for a diocesan board of education, a local Roman Catholic bishop or—for education for children aged 14 or over, the Learning and Skills Council—to appeal to the adjudicator against decisions taken by the governing body of a school or the local authority.

It is unclear why such a power of appeal to the adjudicator is needed, because a diocesan board is unlikely to want to appeal against decisions taken by the governing body of one of its own schools. It will have its own internal mechanisms for exercising control over Church of England schools, and the same will apply to a Catholic bishop’s control over Catholic schools. The subsection is about giving a voice to the bodies specified, who sat, among others, on the school organisation committees that clause 27 will abolish.

Paragraph 5.18 of the regulatory impact assessment makes that point when it states:

“Other members of School Organisation Committees may feel that their voice has been reduced, but regulations associated with the Bill will provide for them to be able to refer proposals to the Schools Adjudicator to decide in specified circumstances.”

It is unclear why the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Learning and Skills Council are being given the right of appeal to the adjudicator merely because they are losing their voice on the school organisation committees. Many other bodies on those committees are losing their voice but do not get that right of appeal. Furthermore, the governing bodies of Church of England schools, Catholic schools and, indeed, all foundation and voluntary schools will get a right of appeal under clause 21(5) if the local authorities are making a decision in respect of them. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those points and clarified the position.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman has spelt out, amendment No. 78 would prevent local dioceses and the Learning and Skills Council from appealing to the adjudicator about decisions on proposals for changes to schools. The hon. Gentleman is right. In the light of the new strategic role of the local authority as the commissioner of education services in the area, the Bill proposes abolishing the school organisation committee and making the local authority the decision maker in the first instance.

We recognise, however, the continuing role and importance of local stakeholders in education in the area. We have made it clear in discussion with the Churches that our intention is that they will continue to have the power that they had as members of the school organisation committees to ensure that proposals go to the adjudicator for decision if they have concerns. In a moment, I shall give examples of where that might be the case. Similarly, the Learning and Skills Council has a legitimate interest in 16-to-19 provision in the area and should be able to ensure that a second look is taken at proposals that affect that age group.

As the hon. Gentleman says, all schools will be able to propose to expand or change their category, and foundation and voluntary schools, including trust schools, will be able to propose any changes to the school that require statutory proposals. It is right, and it may well be welcomed by, for example, the diocese that represents the schools if they are voluntary aided, that that happens. However, we should not forget that one thing that a local authority might be able to do in its decision-making role is to reject proposals from schools, and that the powers of the diocese to refer proposals to the adjudicator could be helpful in ensuring that the matter is considered afresh where concerns are shared.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be concerned that it would be possible for the diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to refer decisions such as that of acquiring trust status. In fact, as the clause spells out and we have just discussed, that would be a possibility for the local authority, but not for the other organisations that we are talking about. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there may be circumstances in which, notwithstanding the importance of the local authority’s decision-making role and the ability of foundation and voluntary aided schools to make the proposals, it is appropriate for the diocese or the Learning and Skills Council to want the adjudicator to take a second look at those decisions.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s explanation because of course they would not want decisions taken by their own schools to be referred to the adjudicator. The Minister referred to decisions being turned down by the local authority. That is covered, as far as I can see, by subsection (5), which says that after the initial determination by the authority, the governing body or the trustees of the school can refer the decision to the adjudicator. Does that not cover that point or have I misunderstood the subsection?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that the provision indeed gives that capacity to such bodies. However, given the role that they have had on school organisation committees to date, it is reasonable that we also enable that role to continue for dioceses and for learning and skills councils. It is certainly something that the churches have requested we ensure as we proceed with the new regime, in which the local authority is the decision maker.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is it not the purpose of clause 27, to which we shall come shortly, to abolish the school organisation committees, and is it not the case that clause 21 puts back some of the elements of those committees, with all of their associated problems?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I do not believe that that is the case. We shall discuss why we are potentially abolishing school organisation committees when we get to clause 27. In any case, school organisation committees also have a range of other functions in addition to their function as a route for referral to the adjudicator. One of those functions is to give a voice to the Learning and Skills Council with respect to 16 to 19-year-olds, and to the dioceses with respect to school organisation changes that had an impact on their schools or on local education provision.

To clarify the point about subsection (5) on which the hon. Gentleman questioned me earlier, that subsection relates only to local authority proposals, and would not enable a referral when proposals had not originated from a local authority. I hope thatthe hon. Gentleman is persuaded and reassured on the basis of those explanations and will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am not entirely reassured. I think that there issome diplomacy going on—an attempt to reinsert measures that weare trying to get rid of by way of clause 27. Given that we have airedthe issues, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I want to commenton the clause, because it seems quite elitist. The Church of Englandand the Roman Catholic Church will have recourse to the adjudicator thatwill not be afforded to other groups. The first Hindu school to beestablished in the UK has already been mentioned, and there aresome—though admittedly not many—Methodist, Jewish, Muslimand other voluntary aided schools at the moment. It is strange that thechurches I mentioned will have the powers afforded to them by theclause, but that the other groups willnot.

Many hon. Membersin the Committee have ethnic groups in their constituencies. Hackney,South and Shoreditch, Leeds North-West, Wakefield and Bury, North mayall have schools such as Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or other faith schoolsbeing established. One of the beauties of the Bill is that many faithgroups will be able to establish their own faith schools. Why shouldthey not have the same access to the adjudicator that the Church ofEngland and Roman Catholic schools will have? Is that not slightlyunfair?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I think that the hon. Lady makes a good point,and I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s answer. We shouldmake sure that the Bill provides a means for other faith groups to maketheir voices heard on decisions that affect the localarea.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

To conclude, my point is to ask what provisionwill be made for other faith groups and schools to have the sameredress to the adjudicator that the Church of England and RomanCatholic bodies willhave.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point in herremarks on the clause stand part motion, which I suspect reiteratedsome of the arguments concerning amendment No. 343. As I have arguedpreviously, the suggestion that we would include both Church of Englandand Roman Catholic local dioceses, not least because of theirlong-standing role on the school organisation committee, does not meanthat other schools and other faiths should be disadvantaged, and infact they are not. As we have already discussed under subsection (5),both the governing bodies and the trustees of foundation and voluntaryschools will be able to ensure that proposals in respect of theirschool made by the local authority are decided by the adjudicator. Ihope that I can also reassure the hon. Lady that we make it clear inthe regulations that other faith organisations also need to beconsulted.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

If that is the case, why can they not be named inthe same clause as the other bodies? Why can they not be groupedtogether so that it looks as though it isequitable?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is appropriate and usual for those who should beconsulted and have a particular role in the process to be listed andnamed in regulations. We would have pretty long lists in the Bill ifall the organisations in some of the circumstances we talked about nowwere included. Secondly, the hon. Lady herself has argued that we arein a dynamic system. New organisations are coming into the system. Itis much easier to add new organisations to regulations than it is toinclude them in theBill.

Clause23

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 345, in page 18, line1, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 18 andadd—

‘(2) A foundation mayonly be removed from a foundation school with the agreement of thatfoundation, and a reduction in the number of foundation governors mayonly be made with the approval of the present foundation governors andthefoundation.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing amendments: No. 39, in page 18, line 7, after‘governors', insert

‘, whichshall not be less than 50 percent,'.

No.40, in clause 24, page 18, line 24, at end insert—

‘(1A) No regulations may be madeunder this section to refer any of the decisions, other than matters inrelation to section 25, to theadjudicator.'.

No.389, in clause 25, page 19, line 34, leave out from ‘section' toend of line 35 and insert

‘shallrequire the governing body to pay to the foundation or trustees of thefoundation such sum representing the expenditure incurred as may beagreed between the foundation and the governingbody.'.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Clause 23 contains powers to remove thefoundation altogether from a foundation school and/or to reduce thenumber of foundation governors, such that they would no longer be themajority. If a Secretary of State really wants independent schools andfor City livery companies, corporations and charities to sponsorfoundations, she cannot be given the power to override the foundationand the foundation governors if she wants to change the school. Shecannot have her cake and eat it. If she wants sponsors to come forwardwith finance and to become charitable trusts to take on schools, whydoes she need thatpower?

Why would theSecretary of State want to override the governors and change the statusof a school? What situation does she envisage that could bring aboutsuch a situation? Once they have been made independent and the governors arelooking after the school, is that not what we want them to do? Do notwe want them to be independent and self governing? Does the Secretaryof State really want the power to take that away? How would itencourage schools to take on the foundation status if she had thatoverridingpower?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause deals with the rules and regulations thatwould apply in circumstances where a foundation school with afoundation wishes to remove that foundation. It deals withcircumstances where a foundation school with a foundation, and whichprovided for the majority of the governors to be foundation governors,wanted to change those provisions so that the foundation no longerprovided the majority of the governors.

There are two ways in whichsuch propositions can be initiated. The first is for the governing bodyof the foundation school to pass a motion to that effect in accordancewith its rules of procedure. That is the provision in subsection (2).The draft regulations circulated by the Minister add a furthersafeguard. Regulation 3 says that such a decision taken by thegoverning body will have to be reaffirmed by the governing body at asubsequent meeting, which must not be less than 28 days after theinitial meeting. That is an important cooling-off period for a decisionthat is important for a school and its future. We agree with thatapproach.

The second wayin which a proposal can be initiated is for a smaller group ofgovernors, referred to in clause 23(3) as a “prescribedproportion”, to require the governing body to publish itsproposals for the removal of a foundation or a reduction in the numberof foundation governors that would put them in the minority. Regulation4(2) says that the prescribed proportion should be one third. If wecould amend that regulation, we would. Instead, amendment No. 39 wouldamend subsection (3) to make the prescribed proportion of governors 50per cent. Although there is a safeguard provision that the procedurescan be used only once every seven years, giving a one-third minority ofgovernors such an important power could entrench conflict and encouragethe politically and ideologically driven to involve themselves in aschool only for the purpose of such votes. Changing the requirement tohalf of the governors would minimise thatrisk.

Amendment No.389 relates to the compensation to be paid by a governing body to afoundation when it is removed from a school and has incurred capitalexpenditure on land being used by the school. It would make therequirement to compensate the foundation a compulsory element of anyregulations made under clause 25. It would also ensure that anycompensation received must be agreed by the foundation. The Bill statesthat regulationsmay

“require thegoverning body to pay any part of the value of the transferred land tothe foundation.”

Thedraft School Organisation (Removal of Foundation and Reduction inNumber of Foundation Governors) (England) Regulations use the same wording as our amendment.I am not sure which came first, but I suspect that it was the draftregulations. Theystate:

“Wherethe foundation has incurred capital expenditure in relation to thetransferred land or other lands, the proceeds of which were used toenhance the value of the transferred land, the governing body shall payto the trustees such sum representing the expenditure incurred as maybe agreed between the foundation and the governingbody.”

We can see noreason why that requirement should not be put into the Billitself.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I assume that my hon. Friend’s intent is notsimply to deliver justice and make the system fair, but to avoid thedisincentive that might occur if people felt that they would notproperly be reimbursed for any investment that they havemade.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has taken the nextparagraph from my notes. He is right; the amendment would prevent therisk of such injustice from occurring. It would place an additionalsafeguard on the rights of foundations who see their control of aschool removed. The better the safeguards, the more likely it is thatgroups and individuals will want to set up a foundation and contributecapital assets for the benefit ofeducation.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

It is important that I reiterate the point that Imade earlier when discussing the right to move back to being acommunity school. A governing body must surely have the ability todecide its future. That might include getting rid of a foundation, butif a governing body contains a majority of governors appointed by thetrust, it seems extremely unlikely that they would ever vote to removethe foundation.

If wewere to accept the amendments there would be a situation of almostcomplete self-interest in a governing body. There would never be adecision to move away from an existing foundation. I assume that thatis why a one-third vote is required rather than a majority. As wediscussed in earlier sittings, I would rather there were not cases inwhich a majority of governors had been appointed directly by the trust.I would then support a majority vote, as the Conservatives haveproposed, but in the current situation I cannot possibly support whatthe Conservatives have advocated.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The intention behind amendments Nos. 39 and 40, asspelt out by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton,appears to be to place restrictions on the ability of a governing bodyto remove a trust. The hon. Member for Brent, East was right that thismay be because his amendments do not recognise the two potentialdifferent scenarios under which the removal of a trust might beconsidered. I hope that I will be able to reassure the hon. Gentlemanthat we are providing for circumstances both where a trust has amajority of the governing body, and where it doesnot.

I should like tostart with amendment No. 345 proposed by the hon. Member forMid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). I should like to reassure her aboutthe intentions of the clause. She referred to the Secretary of State wanting to make a decision to remove a trust. There is nothingin clause 23 or in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State the powerin the circumstances she described to remove a trust. The clause setsup a process through which the governing body itself is able to come toa decision about removing a trust. Her amendment would prevent agoverning body from removing a foundation without thefoundation’s approval, by providing that the approval of thefoundation governors, as well as of the foundation itself, is requiredbefore there is a reduction in the number of foundationgovernors.

The impactof that would go against what the hon. Lady argued. It would representa shift in power from the school’s governing body to the trustitself. We have always said that decisions about a school, including onthe acquisition and, where necessary, the removal of a trust, rightlyrest with the governing body, but that there should be an importantsafeguard of allowing the governing body to remove the trust in theevent of concerns about its performance. It would be unlikely in thosecircumstances that the trust itself would agree to its removal.Therefore, insisting that it had to agree would effectively prevent thegoverning body from being able to make thatdecision.

Of course itis right that the trust should be consulted if the governing body weremaking that sort of decision. The regulations under clause 24 make itclear that there is a requirement for the governing body to consult thetrust when it is considering removing its relationship with the trust.I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that this is not about theSecretary of State’s power, but about a reasonable ability forthe governing body of a school to be able to make a decision about itsfuture relationship with thetrust.

Amendment No.39, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton outlined,refers to the circumstances in which a third of governors would be ableto publish proposals for the removal of the trust. The difficulty withthis amendment is that it would introduce two conflicting provisionsabout the mechanism for removing a trust or moving from a trustappointing a majority of the governors to a trust appointing a minorityof the governors. As I suggested, our proposals are designed to dealwith two different scenarios: one where the trust appoints the majorityof the governing body and one where it does not. Under our proposals,the majority of the governing body can already publish proposals at anytime for the removal of a trust or for the trust to cease to appoint amajority of the governing body. That is provided for in subsection (2),which the hon. Gentleman’s amendment does not seek tochange.

At firstglance, however, it would appear that amendment No. 39 simplyreplicates that power for the majority of the governing body to publishproposals. It relates to subsection (3) of the clause, a subsectionthat covers the second scenario. The hon. Gentleman proposes that thecondition that the prescribed proportion should not be less than 50 percent. of the governors is inserted into the provisions that apply inthose circumstances where the trust has appointed a majority of thegovernors. The intention underlying the subsection is that it should bepossible for a minority of the governing body—the hon. Gentlemanis right that in regulations we have said that that should be a third—to require the governing body to publish proposals forthe removal of a trust, or to move from a situation in which the trustappoints a majority of the governors to one in which it appoints aminority. That is precisely because, as the hon. Member for Brent, Eastcorrectly said, when a trust appoints a majority of the governing body,it is unlikely that a majority of the governing body would vote for thetrust’sremoval.

There is justas much need for safeguards in such cases as there is when a trustappoints only a minority of governors, and amendment No. 30 wouldremove the safeguards. As I said, we propose that one third of thegovernors should be able to require the governing body to publishproposals for the removal of the trust under clause 23(3). Unlesstwo-thirds of the governors then vote to keep the trust, it will beremoved That is one situation in which a two-thirds vote isappropriate, because of the specific circumstances that apply in thatsituation.

Thetimescales to which the hon. Gentleman referred are relevant in that wehave placed conditions on the ability of a minority of governors totrigger the removal of a trust or move from the trust appointing amajority of the governors to the trust appointing only a minority. Theycan do that only after a trust has been in place for seven years and noless than seven years after any previous proposal forremoval.

The amendmentwould make those provisions unworkable. Effectively, it would producetwo separate circumstances in which a majority of the governing bodycould publish proposals, and it raises questions as to whether themajority would then be able to publish proposals at any time, andwhether the majority would have to abide by the conditions and timeconstraints in subsection (4), which are intended for particularcircumstances in which a minority publishes proposals because the trusthas a majority on the governing body. I hope, therefore, that the hon.Gentleman will be reassured by my outline of the two differentscenarios with which the two approaches are meant to deal, and willfeel able to withdraw amendment No.39.

The effect ofamendment No. 40, which refers to procedures in clause 24 for removinga trust or removing the right of a trust to appoint a majority ofgovernors under clause 23, is that it would not be possible to resortto the adjudicator in such circumstances. The provisions, however, areintended to deal with a practical and important matter arising when atrust is removed, which is the question of what happens to theschool’s land and assets, and what happens to any capitalexpenditure that may have been incurred in relation tothem.

When a trustholds publicly funded land, the land will transfer to the governingbody if the trust is removed. Land may not be transferred, however,when it was originally provided by the trust, rather than by the localauthority or the governing body. When land that forms part of schoolpremises transfers to the governing body, but the trust has previouslyincurred capital expenditure on the land, the governing body may berequired to pay compensation to the trust. Conversely, when land thatforms part of the trust premises is not transferred to the governingbody because it was originally provided by the trust, but the governingbody or local authority has incurred expenditure on the land, the trust may be required to pay compensationto the governing body or localauthority.

Clause 25deals with such questions of land and compensation in more detail.Those are important question to get right, particularly in relation tothe difficult circumstances that would apply when a decision on suchmatters was being made. Normally, however, we would expect questionsabout compensation to be resolved between the governing body and thetrustees. If they cannot agree, clause 25(5) provides for regulationsto enable such questions to be referred to the schools adjudicator fordetermination. The power of the schools adjudicator is relevant also inthe context of clause 24, as subsection (3) allows the governing bodyto ask the schools adjudicator provisionally to determine questionsrelating to compensation before the governing body decides on theproposal to remove the trust. In considering that decision a governingbody might well want its implications to be made clear, in the matterof compensation to be paid to, or received from, the trust.

With those points inmind, we may see that amendment No. 40 would not alter anything. Itwould not, and indeed should not, prevent regulations made under clause24 from enabling a governing body to seek from the schools adjudicatora provisional determination about compensation before it made adecision about removing a trust. It is difficult to understand therationale for the amendment, or what it would achieve, but I hope thatI have provided some background to the matter, and persuaded the hon.Gentleman not to pressit.

I think thatthe hon. Gentleman spoke rather more to amendment No. 389, which alsorelates to those questions of compensation. It would remove theprovision under which regulations under clause25

“may authorise orrequire the governing body to pay any part of the value of thetransferred land to thefoundation”

and replaceit with a provision under which regulations would require the governingbody to pay relevant sums to the foundation or trustees.

My concern about the amendmentis not, as I have said, that I do not think there will be importantcircumstances in which the adjudicator may rule that compensationshould be paid by the governing body to the trust; it is more that theamendment treats questions of compensation payable by the trust to thegoverning body differently from questions of compensation payable bythe governing body to the trust. As I have outlined, there may becircumstances in which compensation could pass in either direction, butthe amendment, and the hon. Gentleman’s comments, seem to relateonly to circumstances in which compensation would be payable to thetrust.

If under theclause the Secretary of State had to make regulations requiring thegoverning body to pay compensation to a trust as agreed between thetrust and the governing body, the trust having incurred capitalexpenditure on land to be transferred to the governing body on theremoval of the trust, the provisions for such cases would be stricter than those for cases inwhich the trust needed to pay compensation to the governing body. I amsure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend that there should be anyinequality between the two sets of circumstances, but that would be theeffect of the amendment.

What we propose is clear,consistent and equitable. Our draft regulations already deal with theintentions behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, and I urge himand other hon. Members not to press theiramendments.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady’s comments on my amendment, and I fully understand that the purpose of the one-third rule is to enable a minority of governors, where the majority of the governing body is controlled by the trust, to initiate the process of removing the trust. The problem with giving a minority such powers, as I said in speaking to the amendment, is that it creates the potential for conflict. As the right hon. Lady knows, there is deep ideological division in this country, in certain sections of society, about education and the way in which it functions. It would be unfortunate if the structure of the governing bodies almost invited such political debate and involvement in the governing body of a school.

I am aware of instances from the time, in the 1960s, when grammar schools were abolished of people getting involved with schools simply with a view to removing their grammar school status, and never being seen again once comprehensive status had been introduced. It is to avoid activity of that kind that I consider it important to remove the one-third element. However, the point has been made, and I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The issue has been highlighted and is on the record.

As to the compensation issue, I am delighted that we agree that fair compensation needs to be paid to foundations that have supplied assets. I take the Minister’s technical point that because the amendment would remove the requirement to make regulations, it would therefore remove from the regulations all the other provisions that are important and safeguard the making of payments.

The Minister might take my point that statutory instruments can be amended easily, especially on a negative resolution. A charity putting vast sums into a school, such as are involved when land and buildings are given, would feel more reassured if those assets were protected in primary legislation that could not so easily be amended. It would also have much greater notice of any amendment and would therefore feel more confident in contributing assets. The issue has been aired effectively and the Minister has been full and frank in her response, so I do not intend to press the amendment.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Minister’s reply has been detailed, and I am reassured and educated by it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 27

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This clause is very welcome because it abolishes school organisation committees. Those committees were established by this Government in section 24 of their first education Act, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which stated:

“Each local education authority in England shall establish a school organisation committee for their area.”

The regulations that accompanied the section stated that those committees must consist of between one and seven members of the local education authority; between one and seven nominated by the diocesan board of education for the Church of England; between one and seven nominated by the local Roman Catholic Bishop; between one and seven appointed by the Learning and Skills Council; at least one member each of a governing body of a primary school, a secondary school, a special school, a middle school, a maintained nursery school and each category of school attended by at least 5 per cent. of the area’s pupils; and up to seven governors representing the interests of the community.

During the Committee stage of that Bill, Estelle Morris, as she was before she became Baroness Morris and a Labour rebel, in her capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Employment, as the DFES was then called—[Interruption.] Indeed, much has changed in eight and a half years. She said:

“The Government's underlying philosophy is that one of the unacceptable aspects of the present system is that many decisions about local school plans closures, expansions and so on are taken centrally in Westminster by the Secretary of State. At present, about 300 proposals a year are determined centrally...Therefore, our underlying principle is that it is better if such decisions are taken at local level.”

She continued:

“When we move on from that starting point...we have the challenge of ensuring that all the bodies responsible for providing education locally feel that their interests are guarded by the new structure. That is why we are introducing a school organisation committee and an adjudicator.”

When probed by Opposition Members, she said:

“To some extent, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Members of the school organisation committee will have a vested interest in making the system work, as well as defending their own interest within the committee.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998; c. 367.]

If the proof of the pudding was to be in the eating, I guess that the clause reveals the Government’s judgment that it tasted rather bad.

The school organisation committees have been a serious impediment to reform in education, particularly important structural reform. In their important research paper for Policy Exchange, James O’Shaughnessy and Charlotte Leslie state on page 23:

“The SOC is made up of bodies that represent operators of schools within a given area. There is usually no representation on these bodies of parents groups, despite the exhortations of central government that their wishes are paramount. The threat to existing providers of new entrants into the system is clear—they might attract pupils away from their own schools, thereby representing a loss of income to those schools.”

There is within the SOC system an inherent contradiction and a built-in block against useful proposals and against anything, including school closures, that might alarm existing vested interests within a school area. The types of people who are appointed to the SOCs all seem to relate to the existing school provision within an area, so it is inevitable that they will want to maintain the status quo. This is therefore a very welcome clause. It confirms—I hate to say it—some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend in 1998. Nevertheless, better that one sinner repenteth, so we will support the clause this afternoon.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the effect of clause 27 is to abolish local school organisation committees, which were established under the 1998 Act to ensure that decisions on changes to schools were taken at a local level, whenever possible. As the hon. Gentleman said, they included representatives of the local authority, local church diocese, schools and the learning and skills council. I should like to place on record my gratitude for the good work of members of school organisation committees over the last six years.

As I suggested, that change and the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Morris that the hon. Gentleman quoted were in the context of a change from national to local decision making. We have to remember that under the last Conservative Government it was Ministers who took decisions about local school organisation issues when objections were referred to them. What was right about the School Standards and Framework Act was the way it shifted that decision making from a national ministerial decision to one made at a local level by local stakeholders.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that we are now moving to the next stage of reform. We are in a new era. I do not want to rehearse in detail some of our arguments and discussions about the new role for local authorities and their new powers and responsibilities, but I can say that the Bill introduces a new relationship between the partners in education, in which local authorities are the commissioners and quality assurers of provision, rather than the direct providers.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to a certain extent that, notwithstanding their important and good work, school organisation committees tend to be made up of providers in the local authority area. As the responsibility of local authorities changes and, as we envisage it, moves further towards them being the representative and champion of pupils and parents in an area, it is appropriate that the decision making should move from that school organisation committee to the local authority. The local authority will put the interests not of providers but of parents and pupils at the heart of decisions that it makes about local schools.

Other measures in the clause deal with other elements of the job of school organisation committees which are no longer vested in them. There is no longer a requirement for a school organisation plan to be agreed by the school organisation committee, though of course planning will continue within the local authority, particularly in the context of the children and young people’s plan. That aspect of the SOCs’ work no longer exists.

As hon. Members are aware, and as we have discussed in relation to other clauses in this part of the Bill, there is provision to safeguard local stakeholders’ interests. We have made sure that dioceses and learning and skills councils can ensure that proposals about which they have concerns are referred to the adjudicator. That seems to me to be an appropriate way for stakeholders to be represented.

To return to the fundamental reason behind the arrangements, let me say that they are about ensuring a continuing, balanced, consideration of proposals within the context of a Bill that moves us to a more diverse and dynamic system—a system that new providers and supporters of education can enter. New schools can be established, and trusts can come in to help support existing schools. With that framework, we think that the school organisation committees, which represent the status quo, are no longer necessary. The provisions for decision making in part 2 of the Bill will result in a more appropriate, more democratic and less bureaucratic system, while maintaining the necessary protections.

Schedule 3

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 279, in schedule 3, page 124, line 35, leave out from ‘investigation)' to end of line 36 and insert ‘in subsection (5)—

(a) omit paragraph (a) (which relates to school organisation committees), and

(b) in paragraph (c), for “that Act” substitute “the School Standards and Framework Act 1998”.'

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 128, 280, 129 to 141, 104, 105 and 142 to 148.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. There is some talk of extending the hours of our sittings, Mr. Cook. In order to continue our discussions in a more agreeable way, there may be some advantage in us offering sojourn to places of refreshment if we are going to continue late into the night. You and Mr. Chope may wish to consider that and give us the opportunity to choose whether we go to Fortnum’s, the Savoy or somewhere else, where we can continue our discussions more convivially. That may be something you want to consider when you have had a chance to discuss it with other Committee members.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

That is an interesting point of order, Mr. Hayes, if you are offering to be the host. I see that the Minister has taken some advice from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. We appear now to be racing through the clauses, which is welcome. However, looking ahead, I realise that later this afternoon we shall probably reach the clauses relating to admissions. The Government promised to circulate the draft code relating to that at some point, but have not done so. Will you encourage the Government to do that, so that we may consider the code when we get to the relevant point?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I am sure that the ministerial team will have heard that point and will take it to heart and do their utmost to deliver in a timely fashion.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I reassure Committee members that the code to which the hon. Lady referred is at the moment winging its way to them. With respect to the point of order made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, given that he raised it, it should probably be me who treats him to tea at the Savoy or anywhere else he might like.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. Do I understand that in that case it would be high tea?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

High tea for a high Tory.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Indeed, and it would be extremely well deserved.

The amendments are consequential to the new arrangements for small organisation mechanisms proposed in part 2 of the Bill. I assure hon. Members that they are technical. They do not contain much policy meat for Committee members to get their teeth into; they simply dot the i’s and cross the t’s to ensure that previous legislation is updated as necessary. Therefore, I do not propose to take up too much of the Committee’s time by going through the minutiae of the entire group, because we have discussed the policies during debate on the relevant clauses.

The new framework has been developed to take account of local authorities’ strategic role and to secure the creation of a more diverse and dynamic system. The existing legislation needs to be amended to take account of the new provisions for the establishment, closure or alteration of schools.

Most of the provisions will apply to England only. Therefore, references to changes to school organisation in Wales, for example, should continue to use existing provisions. Amendment No. 128 will update the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 to say that consent from the board is required for prescribed alterations to a school in England when they are made under the new provisions in the Bill. For schools in Wales, however, consent will continue to be required for changes made under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

Amendment No. 131 makes a similar distinction between different arrangements in England and Wales in a section of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and amendment No. 129 is a straightforward update of the Education Act 1996. Sections of that Act relating to the power to accept property on trust for educational purposes will reflect that community schools will now be established under the new arrangements in the Bill; however, we have amended it as well so that if a local authority receives a gift of property, the same provisions will apply for the establishment of a community, special or nursery school.

Amendments Nos. 134 and 138 to 141 will make similar updating amendments to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 so that it refers to the new provisions to make alterations to schools rather than the previous provisions. Amendment No. 135 will amend provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that set out an authority’s duty to maintain certain schools. The duty will be subject to any statutory provisions authorising the discontinuance of any such school. Currently, the duty is subject to a school’s authorisation for transfer to another authority or discontinuation under the School Standards and Framework Act provision.

Amendment No. 137 is essentially a tidying amendment that will remove redundant legislation from the School Standards and Framework Act, which originally allowed for the establishment of school organisation committees and adjudicators in Wales. No such committees or adjudicators have been established, as in Wales such decisions are referred to the relevant Minister. Now that we are removing school organisation committees in England, it seems sensible to repeal that part of the 1998 Act. Amendment No. 279 is another consequential amendment, this time to the Local Government Act 1974 to remove references to school organisation committees.

Finally, amendments Nos. 142 to 148 all make minor technical changes to the school organisation repeal set out in schedule 18 of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 130, 132, 133, 136, 280, 104 and 105 are purely technical amendments to correct the current drafting of the Bill. Having been given a flavour of the amendments, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support them.

‘Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (No. 2)

Clause 29

Clause 31

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 359, in clause 31, page 21, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) Local authorities or persons appointed by local authorities may not be members of a foundation and may not be foundation governors.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 256, in clause 31, page 21, line 43, leave out ‘20' and insert ‘10'.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The idea of foundation schools is to create schools maintained by the state, but to exercise within that system the freedom to manage and teach. Regrettably, the Secretary of State sometimes falls short of that objective in the Bill. She is still attempting to micromanage all schools, even foundation schools.

Subsection (3) permits local authorities, or persons appointed by them, to be part of a foundation, even though subsection (2) says that the foundation must be a body corporate and a charity. The amendment would delete subsection (3) and replace it with the instruction that local authorities cannot be on foundations for foundation schools. If they were, it would make a nonsense of the scheme.

It is no secret that I and, I suppose, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, are outriders. We are opposed to all LEAs. The other day, the Minister laughed at me when I cited the example of Essex LEA, but I meant Essex. It does not matter to me what political colour a local education authority is. I do not approve of local education authorities being involved, especially as the essence of the Bill is the freedom of new schools, be they trust schools, foundation schools, grant-maintained schools or whatever one wishes to call them. LEAs restrict freedom and good management, and we do not want them to have any part in the running of a foundation, a trust or a grant-maintained school.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Our amendment No. 256 suggests changing from 20 to 10 the percentage of voting rights on a foundation allowed to persons appointed by local authorities. The reason is plain: for a local authority to have 20 per cent. of the voting rights on a foundation is likely to give it undue influence. It is a matter of judgment. Some will argue that it is right and proper that the local authority should have a powerful voice on the foundation, but I repeat that not all local authorities will embrace the changes with the enthusiasm present in the Committee. I therefore feel that we need to be cautious about the structural role that we give local authorities.

The Prime Minister’s intention was to embrace the idea of genuinely independent non-fee-paying state schools. It was not only the right hon. Gentleman who embraced it; we embraced it too. He wanted his party, the House and the whole country to embrace the idea. Why, then, should 20 per cent. of the representatives be appointed by the local authority? Why not a smaller number?

The amendment is essentially probing, and designed to discover the Government’s thinking. That is not to say, in my view and that of the shadow Schools Minister, that people working for a local authority should not be able to become members of a foundation. I make no bones about the fact that some in the Committee will express other views, but I take the view that local government is important and that those who work for it perform a great public service.

I do not have a prejudiced view about local government. I was a local councillor for many years and I enjoyed that time. I hope that I made a useful contribution to the locality that I represented. I got to know many councillors of all political parties and persuasions, and many local government officers, who greatly benefited the people whom they served. It would be quite wrong to prohibit members of local authorities from being part of the process. They should be able to participate in the local community. Indeed, some may have educational experience and an understanding that could be highly beneficial to a foundation. Why would one want to prohibit their involvement and possibly lose the opportunity of bringing that experience and knowledge to bear?

The structural role of local authorities in the process is qualitatively different from the involvement in foundations of those who happen to work in a local authority. I urge the Committee to accept amendment No. 256.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I oppose the amendment on the ground that many local authorities follow the established principle of allowing 20 per cent. of places on charity boards or trust boards that are partly funded by the public sector, or whose purposes are funded by the public sector, to be taken by local authority nominees. Sports trusts and the arts are two examples, and housing increasingly involves arm’s-length management, which requires 20 per cent. representation by local authority nominees.

If we accept the amendment, we will set an unhelpful precedent that would call into question arrangements for local authority representation on charities and trusts that are already in place throughout the country.

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

I concur with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith). Amendment No. 359 would take us back to grant-maintained schools. The schools in question would become separate, and a collaborative model of education would be almost impossible. That is why it is so important to have an input by local authority governors.

I do not believe in the local authority having a majority. That side of the argument seems far more extreme than mine. I believe simply that the local authority must have an input. My local authority moved on so much further when working with our small number of secondary schools when grant-maintained status was abolished. When foundation status came in, we had healthy links with, not prescription from, the local authority. Every school buys into the LEA governors training scheme, which advertises for governors. The route by which the governors enter does not matter. It is a well respected service. Surprisingly, lots of services provided by local authorities are well respected and will be purchased at a reasonable price. The training by a local authority governors scheme, when it is good, is a great advantage. However, there is a bias in this matter, because even those of us who support local authorities do not support a majority of local authority governors.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, because the amendment takes us back not just to the time of grant-maintained schools, but to the period before the Education Act 1870. It gives us the clearest insight into what a large section of the Tory party would want to do.

It is important that the Committee puts down a strong marker against this irrational, ill-informed prejudice against the functioning of local authorities. Clause 31 suggests the possibility of having 20 per cent. representation on a foundation, which is an extremely creative model for how certain schools may operate in future; it adds to the diversity of different models of governance. It is, therefore, strange that the Conservatives have argued throughout the debate that they want to extend diversity, but when we are given the opportunity, as we are here, of increasing diversity by another form of governance, their outriders oppose it.

The opposition to this measure is in complete contradiction to the spirit of the legislation following the “Every Child Matters” White Paper, which focuses on the need to bring about greater integration between education, health and social care. Therefore, if there is going to be a serious attempt to remove such provision, those who are promoting that attempt need also to make clear their view on the Children Acts and the question of bringing about greater integration in the delivery of childrens’ services.

The amendment is irrational; it is based not on any evidence, but on archaic, atavistic prejudices deep in the bowels of the Tory party, and I hope that the Committee rejects it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendments relate to the local authority membership of trusts. Amendment No. 359 deals with the arrangements for the appointment of governors to trust schools.

Amendment No. 359 would prevent local authorities and their nominees from being members of trusts and prevent trusts from appointing local authorities as foundation governors. It is not clear whether that is intended to refer to elected members or officials. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire did not make that clear when she moved the amendment. I will address that matter in relation to the legal effect of the amendment.

Amendment No. 256 would place excessive restrictions on the ability of local authorities to be members of trusts.

The amendments refer to clause 31, which makes various provisions covering requirements relating to foundations and inserts two new sections into the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, with respect to the requirements relating to foundations. I do not want to rehearse in detail the provisions of the clause, as they are not all relevant to the amendment. However, in responding to the amendments, it is worthwhile outlining again some of the overarching policy intentions on trusts and their formation as they relate to the clause.

As we have made clear, from the White Paper onwards, in this stage of reform the aim underpinning our trust schools policy is to bring in the experience, energy and expertise of new partners as a lever to raise standards in schools and to improve the outcome for every child. We want to strengthen the leadership and ethos of schools by enabling them to form long-term, sustainable partnerships with charitable trusts which will, where governing bodies so choose, be able to appoint a majority of governing bodies. Those partnerships might be entirely new or they might take existing collaborations a step further.

However, as we have argued today and throughout the process, the policy is enabling, as is the Bill. No school will be forced to acquire a trust. Indeed, it will be for schools’ governing bodies to decide whether to acquire a trust and how it should be composed. There is no single model for the composition of a trust—it could encompass one partner or many. Decisions about the relationship that a school has with a particular trust should be taken locally, in accordance with its needs, and the school should have maximum flexibility to decide what will best serve the needs of its pupils.

Similarly, there are no set criteria as to who should be involved in a particular trust. That is a matter for the governing body and for local stakeholders to comment on as part of the consultation on published proposals to acquire a trust. There will, of course, be safeguards, as we have made clear not only in the guidance on the process for the acquisition of trusts but also by requiring trusts to have certain charitable objects and disqualifying certain categories of individual from being trustees.

In addition, clause 31 contains some requirements as to the composition of trusts. That is where amendment No. 256 comes in. The clause allows local authorities to be minority partners on trusts, with local authority trust members or local authority-appointed trust members accounting for no more than 20 per cent. of the total voting rights of the trust. That provision is included as part of the strategic shift in the role of local authorities. Local authorities are already represented on the governing bodies of all maintained schools, and they will continue to be represented on the governing bodies of trust schools. Against that background, we do not think that it would be appropriate for them to have a dominant interest in trusts; indeed, nobody is arguing that they should. However, local authorities may play a valuable role in brokering relationships and supporting the formation of trusts. The clause gives them the flexibility to do that.

Amendment No. 359 would remove that flexibility, so we do not agree with its presumption; my hon. Friends have been very clear about that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North was right in saying that it gives us an opportunity to put down a marker to say that we do not agree that local authorities can never make a useful contribution to a trust or to the leadership and ethos that a trust can bring to a school. Given their wider strategic role, there could be circumstances in which a school would want local authority representatives to be part of its trust as well as of its governing body.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made an important link to the “Every Child Matters” work that we are expecting local authorities to lead. It is reasonable and easy to envisage circumstances in which a local authority has a strategic role in a trust, supporting schools to manage a collective responsibility for delivering the five outcomes of “Every Child Matters” at a local level. For example, it could work alongside the local authority children’s trust or form a trust with other local partners and businesses to work with schools across the local community, perhaps as part of a regeneration scheme, linking regeneration to improved opportunities for children in the area. We should not shut off such possibilities. We must leave such important opportunities as choices for each school, subject, as we have shown in relation to the clause, to some limitations on the local authority’s ability to be a member of a trust.

Amendment No. 256 acknowledges that there can be a role for local authorities as trust members, if that is what the school and the trust wish, but it takes a more restrictive view of the role of local authorities than we think is necessary. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that the amendment, which would reduce the maximum voting rights of local authorities or their appointees to 10 per cent. from than 20 per cent. as we propose, is probing. In the spirit of his probing, so to speak, and in strong agreement with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, let me say that the 20 per cent. figure that we have chosen is wholly consistent with provisions in local government legislation on other forms of local authority involvement in companies and trusts. It therefore provides certainty and consistency for local authorities, and it represents, as my hon. Friend said, the same limit that relates to other trusts, such as housing trusts or leisure trusts, in which councils may be involved. The limit gives those trusts the maximum flexibility of operation, while still allowing local authority involvement. It is appropriate to take a similar approach to local authority representation on school trusts. It would be perfectly possible, of course, for any school to choose not to have local authority representation on its trust, but we think that we have got the balance about right by creating the opportunity for representation on school trusts at 20 per cent., consistent with other approaches to representation of local authorities on trusts.

The second aspect of amendment No. 359 is the bar on local authorities from being appointed as foundation governors, though it is unclear whether the amendment refers to local authority members or officials. In my view, the provisions proposed in the amendment are unnecessary and, quite simply, wrong. The role of trusts is to appoint governors to the school or schools for which they act as a foundation. We need to have confidence that trusts will make the right decisions about who will bring the necessary drive and expertise to the governing body. If, having appointed a governor, the trust considers that they are not fulfilling that requirement, the trust can remove and replace that governor, but we should not and need not set excessive restrictions that could be unworkable.

For example, the trust will need to appoint a number of parents as foundation governors. Is it the intention of the amendment that a parent who happens to work for a local council, but who has a child at the school, should be excluded from being a foundation governor? That would be more restrictive than current requirements, because there are no such restrictions to prevent existing foundation governors from being local authority staff or members, and the governing bodies of all existing schools are also required to have certain maximum and minimum proportions of local authority governors.

We see no need to change those arrangements, either for existing VA or VC schools, or for new trust schools. We think that our policy of allowing local authorities, or their appointees, to be members of trusts, subject to the 20 per cent. limit, is a balanced, proportional and workable one. It strikes a balance between allowing local authorities to be involved in trusts in a strategic but not controlling capacity, and that also gives greater flexibility to the school to decide on the most appropriate level of local authority membership of the trust. The choice will remain with the school as to whether to take up that relationship.

I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is right: the amendment is a probing one, designed to oblige the Minister and the Committee to focus on the precise role that we expect local education authorities to play in the new schools that we all envisage.

Let me make it clear that the official Opposition Front Benchers see a role for LEAs in the process. Some of the Minister’s points on what LEAs can bring to the process are valid. It is entirely unimaginable that we should return—in the rather dramatic but none the less compelling words of the hon. Member for Bury, North—to the circumstances that prevailed before the Elementary Education Act 1870, when we relied entirely on private endeavour to provide education for our people. In those days, most of the working people in this country were not properly educated. I believe strongly in state education. I believe, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that Government can be a force for good. The issue is not whether we think the state should be involved in education, or whether we think that local government is a good thing; we are committed and convinced that it is. The issue is to what extent local authorities should be involved in schools. Our caution is born of our fear that some local authorities will not be convinced of the virtues of the measures in the Bill.

Twenty per cent. is a fair proportion of a governing body. Those Committee members who are school governors—I imagine that many have been or remain so—will know that because the quorum in a school governing body is rather less than its whole, if all the local authority governors and many fewer of the other elements on the governing body were to be present, that 20 per cent. would be a powerful block on what the school might choose to do. That is why in our probing amendment we suggested a smaller proportion, which might make the process somewhat more straightforward. However, it is a probing amendment. We might return to the subject, but we shall not press the amendment.

I hope that the Minister will consider our suggestion, perhaps before we enjoy high tea together, to which I am looking forward with some degree of relish. A seductive image is lodged in my imagination about precisely what that tea might be and where we might have it. [Laughter.] Let it suffice to say that it proves that there is no such thing as a free point of order.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am in awe of the Minister’s larynx. She has done so much talking this afternoon.

I am not as reassured by her comments today as I have been before, because I do not see a role for the LEAs. I am a rebel, as hon. Members might have noticed. I do not think that the Minister heard my previous comments. The other day when I quoted Essex as an authority, she laughed. It does not matter to me what political colour an authority is. We have enough badly performing LEAs in the country of all colours to bring their role into question, and we have enough failing schools and children from deprived areas being let down by their education to ask the question whether LEAs should have any involvement in schools.

Does it not go against the Bill’s essence to involve LEAs in trust schools or foundation schools as they develop? The desire expressed in the White Paper was for schools to have independence and freedom—the same independence as the independent sector—so that they can develop their resources. I do not agree with the comments of my Front-Bench colleagues, although I wholeheartedly understand them. I still think that we should not involve the LEAs.

The hon. Member for Bury, North gets me wrong. I am not prejudiced against LEAs. The fact that I do not feel that they should exist does not mean that I am prejudiced against them. [Laughter.] I simply do not think that they should be there. Prejudice is a strong word to use, and as the moderate person I am, I do not wholeheartedly agree with it. We should not be prejudiced.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Lady is now playing the role of outrider of the Opposition Benches. Given her previous comment that teachers are letting down the education system and her comment this afternoon that local authorities are letting down the education system, does she think anybody is doing a good job in our schools?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I do, actually. I think that the independent sector does a very good job, and I should like to see the state sector in total do as good a job. I do not know when I made that comment about teachers, but I must have made it if the Minister has it written down somewhere. If teachers are not doing a good job, that is probably because they are restricted by the local education authority from doing what they want to do and teaching as they want to teach. The headmaster of a school that I visited recently in my constituency made exactly that comment. Teachers would like more freedom with the national curriculum—more freedom to do what they want to do in schools. They do not have that now, but we hope that they will under the Bill.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

To return to the hon. Lady’s previous point, could she share with the Committee her definition of prejudice? If it does not include the concept of someone else not having the right to exist, what does it include?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I do not have my dictionary with me, but “prejudice” is a strong word. I do not loathe education authorities; I just do not think that they have a role in education after the Bill, with the development of trust schools. That is quite simple. I have been accused of being extreme. I am extremely angry that children in schools are deprived of a good education, but I am not extreme. Although I am not as reassured as I was, we have had some debate and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 43, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

‘(6) Regulations may prescribe requirements as to persons who are to be disqualified from acting as charity trustee.'.

No. 80, in clause 31, page 22, line 11, leave out from first ‘requirements' to ‘persons' in line 13 and insert—

(a) may include requirements as to the objects or purposes of the foundation, and

(a) must include requirements as to'.

No. 79, in clause 31, page 22, line 14, at end insert—

‘(6A) Requirements under subsection (6)(b) must provide that a person shall be disqualified for holding, or continuing to hold, office as a charity trustee if—

(a) he is liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983;

(b) he has been adjudged bankrupt or sequestration of his estate has been awarded and (in either case) he has not been discharged and the bankruptcy order has not been annulled or rescinded;

(c) he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors and has not been discharged in respect of it;

(d) he is subject to a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or to an order made under section 429(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (failure to pay under county court administration order); or

(e) he is included in a list of teachers and workers with young persons under any other enactment whose employment is restricted or prohibited.'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

In essence, our amendments deal with who might serve and who might be disqualified from service on a trust. The Minister presented a draft schedule listing the individuals who may not act or continue to act as a charity trustee. The amendments would specify those individuals in the Bill, making it crystal clear who should be disqualified. There are important differences between the draft schedule and the amendments. The amendments would disqualify someone liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, whereas the draft schedule would disqualify only someone who was detained under that Act. We have in mind someone who is in the process of being detained or someone who is unfit for other reasons.

We have to be very careful about who serves on the charitable trusts. That point was made by Liberal Members. I understand their concern about inappropriate people being part of that process. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee share that concern. In this respect, we might find common cause with Liberal Members—but I imagine that I am about to be disabused of my happy thought.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I have great sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. I am concerned, though, about the definition of

“liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act”.

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he means? I have concerns that so widely drawn a measure could lead to all sorts of people being affected. I am thinking of people who may have had a nervous breakdown and recovered from it and who are perfectly well able to function normally.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a good point, which I thought about when considering the amendment. The definition in the amendment is perhaps slightly broader than the very clear arrangement that will pertain if the Bill remains unamended. However, I am concerned that we might be talking about people—we have all come across them in our constituencies—with a history of serious mental disturbance. Sometimes that will have involved their being detained previously and they might be about to be detained again because of a pattern of behaviour that could be perceived as dangerous to children or others, although they have yet to be detained and so would not necessarily be included in the category that the Bill currently defines. The hon. Lady is right. This issue is not easy, but I am anxious to ensure that no one who is unsuitable finds their way on to one of the boards.

Perhaps it will reassure the hon. Lady and bind us even more closely together, given her warm words about the principles of our amendments, if I say that this is a probing amendment, intended to enable us to look at how the Government have considered the matter and ways in which they might consider it further by drawing in others whom we would all regard as unsuitable to play a part in the process.

Given the seriousness of the question of who should be allowed to serve as charity trustees on a foundation, it is only right that the safeguard should be in place and that the Secretary of State should have that power. It would be less than responsible to be vague or imprecise about powers that the Secretary of State might exercise, particularly in light of the revelations in recent months about the sort of people working in schools who have access to children, and the public worry about the involvement of unsuitable people in education.

I do not suggest that the Bill will be a vehicle for all kinds of people with malevolent intent who want to get involved in schools. We must be careful about that, of course, although I do not think it will be a significant problem, but it is possible that someone inappropriate could find their way into an influential position in a school’s governance in which they could be involved in decisions about our children. It is my judgment that we need to probe and to press the Government; we need to ensure that a belt-and-braces approach is taken to the membership of trusts. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

As I said earlier, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. Although they repeat much of what is included in the draft regulations circulated at a previous sitting, there is some merit in putting it in the Bill. If nothing else, it will shore up confidence in the system. The Minister has spoken with some irritation at persistent questions about whether McDonald’s or other unsuitable people could run a trust school. Including such provisions in the Bill would at least shore up people’s trust in the system.

As I said earlier, however, I have some anxiety about the definition of

“liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983”.

I suspect that it will be open to considerable legal challenge. Many people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses may be perfectly well for long periods; and many have nervous breakdowns at some point in their lives. People can be detained under the Mental Health Act not only because they are a danger to others but because they can sometimes be a danger to themselves. They may recover and go on to lead a perfectly normal life. One period of serious illness does not necessarily mean that a person will have others; and they could be healthy for long periods and could serve the community very well. I have some concerns about that provision. I understand the point being made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I suspect that it is not the right way to go about it.

Other issues have been raised, which I shall deal with later, but they are relevant now. We need flexibility in the system to ensure that the charitable trust is able to vote off members that it considers to be unsuitable. Those are the kinds of things that probably should be written into the guidance, rather than in the Bill or regulations. There needs to be the ability to vote off members who are considered unsuitable. That would probably deal with some of the worries that the hon. Gentleman has raised about somebody with a recurrent mental health problem whose behaviour during a particular period means that they are unsuitable to serve on a committee, but who may be well for the most part.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall speak to the whole group of amendments, although some of them appear to contradictory, particularly amendments Nos. 43 and 80. Both would delete almost exactly the same provisions, but each suggests replacing them with different text. I am not completely clear which of the alternative options hon. Members wish to be considered, so I shall address the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Members who have spoken so far.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to set out in regulations requirements as to the charitable objects that the trusts of trust schools must have. Amendments Nos. 80 and 79 retain that power, but with the intention of requiring certain categories of individuals to be included in the regulations specifying categories of persons who are to be disqualified from being trustees, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings outlined. I shall address the issue concerning trustees and, I hope, the points that the hon. Member for Brent, East raised about the conditions of membership of a trust and the removal of a trust member.

The power to set out in regulations requirements as to the charitable objects that the trusts of trust schools must have is contained in proposed new section 23A(5) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which is inserted by the clause. Amendment No. 42 would remove that provision and therefore that regulation-making power.

Amendment No. 43 would replace proposed new section 23A(6) of the 1998 Act, which would also be introduced by the clause, with a more limited regulation-making power. Proposed new section 23A(6) currently specifies that the requirements to be prescribed in regulations under new subsection (5) may include the object or purposes of the trust and persons who are to be disqualified from acting as charity trustees. Amendment No. 43 would limit that to a regulation-making power to prescribe requirements as to those persons.

The net effect of those two amendments would be to remove the Secretary of State’s power to set certain specified objects or purposes for the trust. I should like to explain why it is beneficial to be able to require trusts to adopt certain charitable objects. The draft illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations 2006, which we have made available to the Committee, set out the charitable object that all trusts must have, which is

“the advancement of the education of the pupils at any school in respect of which it acts as the foundation.”

Furthermore, we have made it clear that the trust must also “promote community cohesion” as part of its work to further the advancement of education. Those requirements are contained in regulations 4 and 5 of the draft illustrative regulations that we have circulated.

Those are the right objects. It is right that we should have certainty that trusts that will enter into relationships with schools will have the advancement of education as a key object and that, alongside that, they will be promoting community cohesion. Because they are charities, trusts will of course have to have exclusively charitable objects and to conduct all their affairs in accordance with those objects. That is an important safeguard. However, without the requirements in the draft indicative regulations, which the amendment would effectively remove, a trust could be established legally with charitable objects that do not include the advancement of pupils’ education at the school. That would probably be unacceptable.

In reality it is likely that such a trust proposal would not make it through the consultation and decision making processes, but I want to avoid doubt and reinforce clearly our policy intention and the purposes of the reforms, which are to raise standards for all and to allow every child to receive an excellent education in order that he, or she, can fulfil their potential. It is right therefore that we require that for all trusts the advancement of the education of the pupils be one of their charitable objects.

When the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings proposed his amendments, he did not in fact argue that that should not be the case. I want to be clear that he understands that if his amendment were made, that would be the case. As I have suggested, it is important also that we require all trusts to promote community cohesion in order to further their charitable object—the advancement of education.

That follows up our White Paper commitment that trusts will be under a duty to promote community cohesion. That is a clear commitment that we do not want trust schools to operate in splendid isolation or to cherry-pick the best students—issues that hon. Members have raised. For example, promoting community cohesion could include mentoring arrangements between schools in which the best schools help the lowest achievers, and shared facilities so that less-advantaged pupils have access to good IT, science or language provision.

That is fundamental to our objective of ensuring that the reforms drive up standards for every child, and allow them to achieve their full potential. That sends a clear message that trust schools must work in partnership with their communities. We have been clear that schools need to work in partnership with others, which is reinforced by the requirement to promote community cohesion as outlined in the regulations.

As I have suggested also, the requirement that trusts adopt such objects does not prevent them from adopting additional charitable objects as they consider fit. An existing charitable trust could adopt such an additional object if it wished to meet the requirements in the clause, but that must be alongside the important objects that I just outlined and which are spelt out in the regulations. That would not be the case if the amendment was made.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As the Minister rightly said, I did not refer to that particular aspect of our amendment. As she will recognise, our concern is that this element of the Bill might be too broad and vague in its expectations of the trusts. However, if that expectation is as simple and straightforward as their educational purpose, could it not be put in the Bill, rather than being left to regulations and that rather vague reference in the Bill?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is a very interesting suggestion made reasonably persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. It is so important to us to be clear that the charitable object of all trusts associated with schools should be the advancement of education, and that in promoting that, they should advance community cohesion as well. However, in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to agree with him: it would be a good idea to put that in the Bill. Perhaps he would be willing for us to come back on Report with proposals that will ensure that those objects are in the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not accepting his amendment, but his point that it would be a good idea for those objectives to be in the Bill.

I shall now turn to amendments Nos. 80 and 79. I leave aside the Secretary of State’s power to specify in regulations the objects or purposes that all trusts would be required to have and shall concentrate on the other effect of the amendments, to require regulations disqualifying certain categories of person from acting as charity trustees to include those categories listed in proposed new subsection (6A). I will not dwell on the importance of the safeguard of the Secretary of State being able to disqualify certain categories of people to prevent unsuitable people from acting as trustees, as the need for it is self-evident and it is not questioned by any member of the Committee.

Much as I broadly share hon. Members’ aims in seeking to ensure that the categories of individual that they identified are indeed disqualified from being trustees, in these circumstances their amendment is unnecessary. I am not about to become a soft touch with respect to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but in these circumstances there are good reasons why the disqualified persons should be stated in the regulations rather than in the Bill, not least because some of the legislative provisions to which they refer may change over time. It would then be more appropriate to be able to update regulations rather than primary legislation.

I shall try to reassure the hon. Gentleman in respect of most of his comments about the sorts of individuals it would be appropriate to disqualify. The draft illustrative Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations 2006, which we have made available, give an indication of the categories that we have in mind for disqualification. They already include the main categories that hon. Members suggested in their amendment. In particular, but not exclusively, they make it clear that a person who is prevented by education legislation from working with children or young persons would be disqualified; a person who at any time has been convicted of any offence, and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment for not less than five years would also be disqualified. We also include a person who is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. That is where I disagree with hon. Members that we should include the wording in the amendment about somebody being “liable to be detained” under the Mental Health Act. The hon. Member for Brent, East made the arguments why that would not be appropriate.

In a previous ministerial incarnation, I was fortunate to serve as the Minister with responsibility for mental health. One of the Government’s priorities, which was argued for strongly by people who have had mental health problems, was to tackle some of the discrimination that often exists in that respect. That is important, not least because one in four of us is likely to suffer mental health problems at some time in our lives. It is important to tackle that prejudice. Of course, it is often the case that even those who have had serious mental health problems and have been detained under mental health legislation will recover and be able to lead full lives, in employment and in civic life.

As the hon. Lady rightly said, on the whole people with mental health problems are more likely to be dangerous to themselves than to others. It is therefore important to use the definition in other education legislation, which reflects mental health legislation, and in the regulations, that we disqualify people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, not those who are liable to be detained.

As I said, the detail proposed in the amendments belongs in regulations rather than in the Bill, for the simple reason that legislation moves on and we need to be able to update it. Although we share most of their aspirations, I hope that hon. Members will be able to withdraw the amendments about the listing of disqualified persons, warm in the knowledge that they have been successful in persuading me, as have the others who have already made that point to me, that it would be appropriate to put the objects of trusts in legislation. We will come back and ensure that that happens.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I offer a word of thanks to the Minister for acknowledging the point about the importance of putting the objects and purposes of trusts in the Bill in specific form. We await her further comments on that on Report.

My aim on the other matters was, as the hon. Member for Brent, East said, to reassure all those who are looking at our deliberations on the Bill that there would be no doubt about who might become involved in education by such means. There is sensitivity about the issue among parents and the wider community, and the Minister has acknowledged that by making it clear that the regulation will go further than the regulations that pertain to charities as a whole. A number of people are disqualified from acting as trustees of all charities, but the Minister suggested that further steps will need to be taken in respect of these charities because they deal with education and vulnerable people. It is long-established practice that charities can add further qualifications and disqualifications when dealing with vulnerable people.

I understand the Minister’s point about my argument about people who are liable to be detained. I want to make it absolutely clear that we mean no prejudice towards people who have had mental health problems. I would guess that we all, as constituency MPs, have worked with community groups, charitable groups and individuals who have found themselves in such circumstances. I certainly have in my constituency. There is an enormous amount of prejudice that we need to cut through.

Although I have not had the opportunity, still less the pleasure, of serving as a Minister responsible for mental health, I have been delighted to be involved over some time in all-party groups concerned with brain injury and with disability as a whole, as secretary and co-chairman respectively. I take a great interest in such matters and am absolutely determined that someone should not be subject to prejudice because they have had such challenges.

Our aim was to tighten things up in respect of those who might be in the process of being detained, as well as where the reason for their detention might relate to risk to others, particularly children. That was at the heart of why we made those probing amendments. However, the Minister has reassured us that she shares our desire to protect children, and as a result I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 24 to 41.

The amendment is intended as a probing amendment to explore the reasons why the Government want the power to remove and replace certain individuals on a trust body. Although it seems appropriate and desirable, as we have just discussed, for the Secretary of State to be able to disqualify certain categories of people from serving on trust bodies, it does not seem immediately clear why the Secretary of State would want the power to remove and replace individuals.

That leads clearly on to the question of whether that provision is intended to leave open the power to interfere in a more political way with the running of the school. That does not seem to be in the general spirit of autonomy that the Government have spoken about. In extreme circumstances, the Charity Commission can investigate if concerns are raised about the conduct of a trustee. The commission then has the power to remove individuals if they fall foul of the guidelines. In other situations, the removal of trustees would, I assume, be governed by the rules in the charter of the charitable trust, which is likely to make provision for trustees to be voted out. I would like clarification on that from the Minister. It would be helpful to put something about that into guidance, as we said when we discussed the previous string of amendments.

If the school is failing, surely it is not the Secretary of State but the local education authority that should step in. There is the question of why the Secretary of State still wants the power to remove an individual trustee. It is not clear to me why the Government want that power. The amendment is merely meant to probe into the circumstances in which the Secretary of State intends to use the power. I want reassurance that the power is not for the purpose of political interference in the direction and running of the school.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Again, the Secretary of State wants to have her cake and eat it. The whole idea of foundation schools—or trust schools, as the Prime Minister called them, or grant-maintained schools, as we called them—is to inject outside management and competence into the running of schools. Charities are being encouraged to take on the task of creating foundation schools, or to take under their wing existing schools and become foundation schools. What is the chance of them doing that when the Secretary of State gives herself power under the clause to make regulations to remove a charity trustee from the foundation school, or to appoint a new charity trustee? By implication, she would be doing so against the wishes of the founding charity, because if it were the wish of the charity to remove or appoint a trustee, then surely it would do that itself.

Once the Secretary of State has approved a foundation school—which includes having approved those who are to run it—she has to stand back and let them run it. She cannot hold over them the threat of taking away the charity’s control through the governors. What recourse will the charity have, and does the power not go completely against the grain of empowering local charities, communities and faith groups? If the Prime Minister wants schools to act and behave as independent schools do, they need the freedom to do so, otherwise the idea is a fallacy. They cannot behave as independent schools without having the freedom that independent schools have. I view the power as just one more unnecessary obstacle to achieving the goal of all schools being as good as independent schools, and having the same freedoms and equalities as them.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Brent, East, for not responding to the point that she made on the previous group of amendments about the ability of members of the trust to remove individual trustees. Because of the charitable nature of the organisations that would be trusts, those who constitute the charitable company or incorporated organisation—those are the two categories that could form a trust that would make a link with the school—would deal with the removal of trustees or members by trustees or members of the trust. In the case of a charitable company, its memorandum and articles would provide for that to happen. So in all those circumstances, there would be a route by which individual trustees could be removed.

The amendment would delete new section 23B, which clause 31 of the Bill inserts into the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It would therefore remove the power that we have introduced for the Secretary of State to remove trustees from, and appoint them to, the trust of a trust school by direction in certain prescribed circumstances, as we have heard.

In the Bill and the draft illustrative regulations, we have developed and made clear a proportionate, well balanced and graduated series of safeguards around trusts. The hon. Lady is concerned in particular that the power might be an attempt to impose some sort of political element on to the trust. I absolutely assure her that that is certainly not the intention behind the provisions; far from it. We have been very clear that we envisage decisions being made by the schools’ governing bodies, in the interests of the school and the local community. They will make links with trusts that they feel will be appropriate for delivering higher standards for their children.

The process for considering that decision is set out in the guidance that we have outlined. The provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to remove and appoint individual trustees comprise a reserve power—a fall-back position—to be used in exceptional circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that she considers it to be a reserve power, only to be used where there are clear and serious concerns about an individual trustee. I hope that I can convince hon. Members that it should remain alongside the other safeguards.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Will the Minister give some examples of when the Secretary of State thinks that there might be an issue, and explain why provisions could not be written into the regulations disqualifying certain categories of individuals from serving as trustees, which would be much fairer?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There will be a variety of individuals who will have done certain things, whether criminal or otherwise, whom we have referred to clearly in the regulations as those who would be disqualified from taking a role in a trust from the start. We have discussed those restrictions, but we also have to recognise that we cannot legislate for every particular circumstance. It is possible that, despite the safeguards, there may be occasions where a trustee is not disqualified, but acts in ways that cause concern or risk bringing the trust into disrepute. It would be invidious, if not impossible, to attempt to legislate in advance for such activities, if they are not illegal. We are confident that such circumstances would be extremely rare because of the other safeguards we have put in place.

It would be foolish and remiss of us not to include a mechanism in the Bill to deal with such an eventuality, should it arise, which is why new section 23B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, inserted by this clause, will give the Secretary of State the power to remove trustees in certain circumstances. Perhaps it will reassure the hon. Member for Brent, East to learn that the circumstances in question would have to be very serious. The power would not be used lightly.

As I have already said, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is a reserve power. Perhaps an extract from the draft Education (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations will reassure hon. Members, especially on the point the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made about whether the power might be used willy-nilly for political reasons. Before the Secretary of State can exercise her power to remove trustees, she must be satisfied that the person has acted in a way that is incompatible with the object or purposes of the foundation, or that the person is likely to bring into disrepute any school to which the foundation appoints governors.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Would the foundation not be the best body to decide whether that was an appropriate action? Why should it be the Secretary of State? Why is the foundation not empowered to make that decision?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have already identified that the foundation might be empowered to make that decision and might want to make it. The argument is that in very extreme circumstances it might also be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have that power. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings argued in relation to the previous group of amendments, when we are dealing with schools, education and children, we should make it clear that if circumstances arose in which we needed to use those provisions, they should be in the legislation.

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady that there is no question of the Secretary of State removing a trustee without giving them a chance to defend themselves. The draft regulations require the Secretary of State to respect certain procedural requirements before exercising her power. She must notify each of the charity trustees of the school that she intends to exercise her power, setting out the reasons for her decision to remove any charity trustee, and she must provide the person whom she proposes to remove with the opportunity to make representations against their removal.

The removal of a trustee would be a serious matter, and it is intended that this reserve power would be exercised as a last resort. As I outlined, many safeguards are in place. They include the disqualification of certain categories of person from acting as trustee; the trust acquisition process; the need for public consultation on trust proposals; and, similarly, the requirement that the school’s governing body and the trust partners should make the decision about who should be a trustee. However, there may be a rare circumstance in which it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint a particular individual to the trust of a particular school. It is another element of the Secretary of State’s powers, but we do not envisage using it widely.

I shall respond to the point that the hon. Member for Brent, East made. I think that she was questioning whether the Secretary of State would use the power in circumstances of school failure, and whether that would be appropriate. We do not expect to address such circumstances using that route, because governing bodies and not trusts will be accountable for school performance. If there were concerns about a school’s performance, the school would be in the same position as all other maintained schools, and the local authority would have the same powers of intervention.

The hon. Lady asked what would be the local authority’s role. In those circumstances, it would have the power to issue the governing body with a formal warning, and, ultimately, appoint additional governors, suspend the school’s delegated budget or replace the governing body with an interim executive board. That would effectively reduce or remove for a time the trust’s influence over the school. If those measures did not work, the local authority would have the power to propose the school’s closure, in which case the trust’s role would end. The relationship with a trust would also be broken in circumstances of trust insolvency.

It is wise and prudent to provide in legislation the possibility of Secretary of State intervention in closely prescribed circumstances. I hope that hon. Members feel reassured, and that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did not speak before the Minister, so I just want to say a word in support of what she said. The Charity Commission suggests that only 33 per cent. of charities surveyed had formal checks on prospective trustees in place. It is critical that in respect of schools, the Minister provides that long stop. We will be dealing with vulnerable people and the concerns of parents and others.

If the Charity Commission suggests that that is the rate at which charities go through the formal process of checking prospective trustees, it gives some cause for concern. The gist is that when charities are formed, the commission asks trustees to sign a declaration making it clear that they are not disqualified under a variety of criteria. There are people who might seek dishonestly to find their way on to those bodies. None of us would want them there, and for that reason, I wanted to say a word in support of what the Minister said about the long-stop, reserve provision.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In a debate on a previous clause, I made a point about the lack of Criminal Records Bureau checks. However, it would be better to deal with the issue through charities law, than by introducing more discretion for the Secretary of State.

I moved the amendment to probe the reasoning behind the Secretary of State’s desire for the power. I am concerned about process. The Minister well knows that I understand and sympathise with the need for safeguards. I have raised the issue at various points during our sittings. However, I am more comfortable with the idea of people knowing up front what disqualifies them from serving, so they know where they stand, than leaving it up to the Secretary of State’s discretion at a later stage.

I am concerned that the Minister is not clear whether the regulations are adequate to deal with all her concerns. Might it not be better for us to draw up stricter regulations than to maintain a reserve power for the Secretary of State? As a Liberal, I am instinctively uncomfortable with extensive power being put into the hands of one individual. The Minister has addressed most of my concerns so, although I continue to worry about the reserve power of the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 32

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 32, page 23, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

‘(3) The function of a parent council is to assist the governing body in its consideration of matters arising for determination by the governing body in the exercise of its powers.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 225, in clause 32, page 23, line 21, at end insert

‘and

‘(e) the availability to a parent council of administrative, secretarial and related services and of information relevant to matters to be considered by such a council, whether by way of written reports or otherwise, excluding from involvement in the provision of any such services any member of the staff of the school otherwise than under an agreement voluntarily entered into by such member of staff for reasonable remuneration.'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

The purpose of these two amendments is to allow us a brief opportunity to examine some of the issues in relation to parent councils, particularly the role and function of such councils, the kind of administrative support that they might require, and the demands that they might make on the school. Given that the Education Act 2005 abolished the previous obligation of schools to hold an annual parents’ meeting, how is it that we now feel that there will be sufficient interest among parents for them to attend a parent council which would, presumably, meet more frequently than once a year? The argument for the parent council is clearly that, in circumstances in which a trust school has been established and the foundation has been given a majority on the governing body, it would serve as a compensatory mechanism whereby the parents’ voice could still be heard, albeit not to the same degree as it used to be on the governing body.

The clause does not specify the role or responsibilities of the parent council other than to say that it should advise the governing body. If the governing body were to refuse to take its advice, what kind of dispute resolution procedure would there be, and how would the governing body ensure that a tiny minority of parents did not subvert the council’s role to their own advantage, or to the perceived advantage of their children?

Finally, if the parent council is to be a serious body—if it attracts the support and confidence of parents, meets fairly regularly, and deals with serious and substantial issues—what sort of administrative support will be necessary? Who will provide it and what burden might fall on the school? Will members of staff—teachers or support staff—be expected to service the parent council in the way in which, previously, they have been expected to service the governing body? Those are some of the questions that arise from my amendments. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend’s response.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment No. 224, to which the hon. Member for Bury, North spoke in the briefest contribution that I have heard him make to this Committee, would change the role of the parent council from one of giving advice to one of assisting. Depending on how those words are interpreted, that would either make it a non-voting group on a school’s board of governors or it would do nothing. I hate to sound like the Minister, but I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. Regulation 6 of the draft School Governance (Parent Council) (England) Regulations 2006, which the Minister kindly circulated on 19 April, states:

“The governing body shall consult the parent council on such matters and in such manner as they consider appropriate in relation to the governing body’s conduct of the school, and...the governing body shall have regard to any advice given or views expressed to them by the parent council”.

That is the correct role, and it is important. There are already positions available to parents as parent governors. To go further by incorporating the parent council in the governing board of a school would make the board unwieldy, large and unworkable. It may be that the Government have got the balance right in the Bill.

Amendment No. 225 would ensure that regulations include provision for secretarial support for parent councils. The hon. Gentleman’s wish has come true, because regulation 7(2) states:

“The governing body shall provide the parent council with such support and assistance as they may reasonably require.”

Paragraph 7.22 of the regulatory impact assessment, on page 97, states that that will mean two hours of the school secretary’s time to organise meetings, at a cost of £20; and the use of facilities, including heating, lighting, caretaking and opportunity costs for the room, calculated at approximately £80.

The regulatory impact assessment goes still further, saying that the sanction for non-compliance will be a direction from the Secretary of State, to be enforced by court order if necessary. Ofsted will inspect

“how schools take into account the views of parents and other stakeholders.”

Incidentally, it is interesting to see the extent to which this guidance is to be enforced by provisions and guidance to Ofsted, whereas the homework guidance has no related enforcement procedures. Sometimes the prescription that the Government inflict on the education world is focused on minor issues, and no attention other than the publication of guidance is paid to the big issues such as how much homework children are set.

The hon. Gentleman has got what he is asking for, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Member for Bury, North seeks to strengthen the role of parent councils. It would not matter if parent councils were merely an advisory body, had not parents’ voice on governing bodies been diminished by earlier clauses of the Bill. I have placed on record my desire not to see a reduction in the number of elected parents on governing bodies. I sympathise greatly with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to strengthen the role of parent councils, given the reduction in the number of parent governors, but avoiding the latter would have been more desirable.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The effect of the amendments would be to place additional requirements on governing bodies of trust schools which have a majority of trust-appointed governors, and on parents who are members of statutory parent councils. I understand the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, which is to probe the relationship between the parent council and the governing body. He wishes to establish how the parent council fits into our other provisions intended to ensure the delivery of our objective: that is, parents not only engaged meaningfully in their child’s education but able to influence what happens in their child’s school.

Amendment No. 224 would place an enormous burden on the governing body of a trust school. I recognise that that was not necessarily the intention behind my hon. Friend’s amendment. Parent councils can potentially make a very important contribution in all kinds of schools, and the clause makes it clear that where a trust appoints the majority of governors, the school should be required to have a parent council. I can see that the parent council might be able to make a broader contribution, but a governing body, the strategic leader of a school, is rightly responsible and accountable in law for its school’s conduct. With the head teacher and the leadership team, it is responsible for taking all major decisions about the school and its future. Nothing in the Bill—neither the establishment of parent councils nor the relationship with a trust—will change that fundamental role. Governing bodies will continue to be made up of representatives of the various stakeholders with an interest in the school, including parents.

The hon. Member for Brent, East corrected herself, but she made the mistake of saying what I have heard plenty of others say: that the parent voice will be diminished by the new governance arrangements for trust schools. That is not the case. As with other categories of school, there will still be a requirement for a third of the governing body to be parents. I accept that the hon. Lady corrected herself regarding how parents would be elected, or not, to the governing body, but the fact remains that parents will have a strong voice as a third of the governing body, and will rightly take their role as a key stakeholder.

As an elected representative, I believe in the power of democracy, but I do not think that being elected is the be-all and end-all of one’s ability to represent a particular viewpoint on a governing body, for example.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

My concern is that although a majority of the governing body are appointed by the trust, the parents also appointed by the trust will not be in the same way directly accountable to other parents at the school.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There are two contentious elements to that. Of course, in the strictest sense, elected parent governors are accountable to the extent that they have been elected by parents. Many of them do a good job in feeding back to those parents, but that does not always happen when parents are elected.

Secondly, the important element is that they are parents. If the hon. Lady suggests—I am not sure that she went that far—that a parent might put the interests of the trust before the interests of the school that their children attend, I must say that I have yet to meet a parent who would do that.

Sarah Teatherrose—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The important element here is that the voice of parents is protected not only on the governing body but in a range of other ways that I will go on to develop once I have let the hon. Lady have another say.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Of course, that is not what I am suggesting. She said that people do not always feed back when they are elected. That is often the case for councillors, and even MPs, but they tend to get voted out when they do not perform those duties adequately. That is my point about democracy.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not disagree, but I was simply emphasising that the hon. Lady was wrong to say that the parent voice on the governing body is being diminished. It is not.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Has my right hon. Friend or her team at the Department given any thought to the development of mutual schools—co-operative set-ups—that would give parents a share and a voice in the running of those schools?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend raised this issue the other day. It is an extremely interesting idea. I know that my colleague the Under-Secretary has a strong interest in such things, being a Labour and Co-operative MP, and that the Co-operative group in Parliament has considered the opportunities that the Bill and the trust model in particular might provide for that sort of co-operative approach. I am extremely willing to consider such ideas. There are good opportunities within the legislation for that to happen, and I am keen to consider how we might give more support to such ideas. That might be a good way in which parents can be represented and properly involved.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

As the Labour and Co-operative MP for Corby in east Northamptonshire, I am one of 30 Labour and Co-operative Members of this House who work together co-operatively to promote the interests of co-operation across the board. Those values can be well applied in the education arena to raise standards and promote those values to our young people.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is hard to imagine a finer group of men and women than the Co-operative group of Labour MPs. I have every confidence that with their vision and effort we will be able to make the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) a reality.

Of course, we agree that it is vital that the governing body listens to the views of parents.

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

I want to put a particular scenario to the Minister, just for consideration. It concerns a governing body that decided, with no consultation with parents, to impose a certain school uniform. There was absolute uproar, but the point was that elected parent-governors would be responsible for that. If a parent-governor who was appointed by the trust agreed with that implementation of the uniform—in other words, that was the minority view of parents—that person would not have the same accountability to the parent body. There are other matters, aside from the school standards to which the right hon. Lady referred, that can be contentious.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was not referring only to school standards. I agree with the hon. Lady that issues such as school uniform, discipline, school food and the way in which the school is organised are not only important for parents, but can be contentious. My argument is that we need a broad range of ways in which we can engage parents in discussing those issues.

We will, I hope, impose a requirement under the Bill to have regard to the views of parents. I do not know the details of the scenario that the hon. Lady was outlining, but a governing body when making that sort of decision would be required to have regard to parents’ views. It could not simply ignore them. That new duty is part of our strategy to involve parents more actively in the running of schools. All schools currently have to demonstrate to Ofsted that they listen to and take on board the views of parents as part of school inspection.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made a point about the annual general meeting. However and whenever it was introduced, many of us who have had experience of AGMs as governors or as parents would accept that whatever their good intentions, they did not fulfil those intentions in respect of parental engagement. We have removed the requirement foran AGM. As I have outlined, we are making new requirements for parental involvement under the Bill and have already begun work to ensure that schools produce a school’s profile for parents. The profile will be an easily digestible set of information about the school’s priorities, what it has been up to and how successful it has been. I suspect that that will be more successful than the AGM at both communicating information and enabling parents to think how they can be involved.

Parent councils are designed to ensure that parents are represented and to provide a forum for them to be heard. Our aim is to make sure that parents of children attending a trust school where there is a majority of governors from the trust and thus the number of elected parents is reduced, will have the opportunity to be involved and to influence the running of the schools.

The regulations that we have made available tothe Committee place light-touch requirements on governing bodies of trust schools in relation to parent councils. It is right that they should do so. Engaging with parents is not a new requirement on schools and it will be for the governing body and the parent council to determine how they will work together most effectively. It would not be right to impose particular arrangements on governing bodies and parent councils. We want to allow maximum flexibility so that parents and governing bodies can establish arrangements that are right for their school.

I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment, not least because, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, he will be reassured by the illustrative regulations that we have issued. I am referring to regulation 6, in particular, which makes clear how we envisage that relationship between the parent council and the governing body.

Amendment No. 225 would enable the regulations to be made under subsection (4) of proposed new section 23A to the Education Act 2002 to make provision as to the administrative, secretarial and related services to be provided to the parent council. The power in subsection (5) to confer functions on the governing body in relation to the parent council already allows regulations to make such provision.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton stole all my best lines, pointing out that regulation 7 of the illustrative parent council regulations makes clear the requirement for support and assistance to the governing body to be made available. He went even further and quoted the regulatory impact assessment, giving an example of how we might expect to see that delivered.

We believe that parent councils can make an important contribution. They can provide a forum to allow parents to make a real contribution to their children’s education, which will help improve the school system. They will provide a more accessible way of involving parents in decisions about the school. Because they are more informal, and because they are less of a commitment than being an elected parent governor, they can involve more parents than the governing body. In addition, it is likely that serving on a parent council will give parents the sort of training that will enable them to be more effective and confident parent governors.

We will issue guidance and good practice examples to assist parents in setting up and running their council. It will refer to what already works well in schools and, more important, it will include arrangements to make it easier for disadvantaged parents and those who have English as a additional language to become involved.

Parent councils have the potential to make an important contribution. The regulations and guidance allow the right balance between the roles of the parent council and the governing body, and they ensure the support that is necessary for them to function effectively. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 32, page 23, line 22, leave out ‘or impose'.

This is a brief probing amendment, to flush outthe meaning of subsection (5) of proposed newsection 23A. It states:

“Regulations may confer or impose functions relating to parent councils”.

I have read the regulations, but I am still unclear whether they impose or confer. I ask the Minister to clarify that.

On the substantive issue, the Opposition are in favour of parent councils and of parental involvement in schools. Indeed, we believe that schools should be far more responsive to the needs and wishes of parents. The thrust of the Bill will enable the type and quality of schools demanded by parents to be more available. We support parent councils, because we believe that they will put the right kind of pressure on schools to deliver the quality of education that parents demand.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am being even handed in my largesse this afternoon. Having been very amenable to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I now propose accepting amendment No. 44. It improves the drafting of the clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for bringing the matter to our attention. We will accept the amendment, because “functions” encompasses powers and duties, making the words “or impose” superfluous and unnecessary. I am happy to accept the amendment, as I am to accept the hon. Gentleman’s support for parent councils and the contribution that they will be able to make.

While we are on the topic of the word “impose”, it is worth my emphasising that we are not suggesting that we should impose parent councils on schools that do not have a trust with a majority on the governing body. They may have an important contribution to make. We want them to develop, but that would be a choice for the school in such circumstances.

Clause 33

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause relates to the alteration in the definition of capital funding for the purposes of voluntary aided schools. Its objective is to widen the definition of capital expenditure so that it is more in line with the definitions used in general accounting practice. It will enable voluntary aided schools in private finance initiative agreements to be funded in the same way as other schools. As a chartered accountant, I could not possibly let the clause go by without contributing to the debate.

Voluntary aided schools are required to contribute 10 per cent. of all capital expenditure. When it comes to PFI contracts, the question arises about whether10 per cent. of the revenue expenditure that relates to the capital of the project should be provided by the school and the foundation. It is usually the Church of England that supports them. According to the regulatory impact assessment,

“The aim of amending the legislation is to put VA schools on an equal footing with other maintained schools, and remove any doubt that PFI contracts can be met from revenue income without any statutory 10 per cent. contribution.”

We, of course, support the measure. However, I want to raise the issue of buildings insurance with the Minister. Insurance is an item of revenue expenditure. It is met by the LEA in the usual course of events. However, if there were a fire in a school, can she confirm either now or by letter whether insurance will cover the full cost of the new capital expenditure required to rebuild the school or will the voluntary aided school still be required to find 10 per cent. of the capital cost in those circumstances? If the school will need to contribute that 10 per cent. after a fire, presumably it will wish to insure itself for that potential liability. The question then arises that, if it does that, will the insurance premium be paid by the LEA under the provision?

Under the draft Education (Capital Expenditure in respect of Voluntary Aided Schools) (England) Regulations, a spending of £2,000 shall not constitute capital but, as an experienced chartered accountant, in the context of an average school’s expenditure that seems to be a reasonable figure to be regarded as revenue. I presume that there are practices that stop abuse of that by separating out items into smaller units to fall within that definition.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

How pleased I am that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is an accountant. However, I must say that he let me off reasonably lightly. As he identified, the clause updates the definition of capital expenditure in respect of voluntary aided schools under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 so that it is consistent with more recent legislation. The current definition of capital expenditure set out under article 13 of the Regulatory Reform (Voluntary Aided Schools Liabilities and Funding) (England) Order 2000 contains a list of types of expenditure that are to be treated as capital, while the amendment defines capital expenditure as that which would be treated as capital in accordance with proper accounting practices.

The updated definition is in line with modern accounting practice, thus avoiding the need for an exhaustive list under the Bill. The definition also mirrors the approach taken under section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003, which defines capital expenditure when that term is used in relation to a local authority.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is right that the change in definitionwill provide flexibility to help ensure that voluntary aided schools can be procured through optimal arrangements, such as the private finance initiative, when that offers best value for money. It will be especially relevant for new build, voluntary aided schools that are procured through the “building schools for the future” programme. That programme is one that will transform the secondary school estate throughout the country, and we would not want voluntary aided schools to be excluded from it or have any difficulties with it.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about the treatment of insurance, and where insurance payments should come from. In accordance with his invitation, I shall write to him about it, because it is an important issue for the schools involved.

Clause 34

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 363, in clause 34, page 25, line 7, at end add—

‘(2) The provisions of Schedule 4 only apply to land which was purchased and paid for by the local authority or by the Secretary of State.

(3) Schedule 4 does not apply to land which was provided by the foundation or charity for the purposes of the school, or which was purchased by the foundation or charity for the use of the school.'.

It may be reasonable for the Secretary of State to make detailed provisions in schedule 4 for disposal or change of use of land that the state and the local authority or the Department for Education and Skills originally made available to foundation or voluntary aided schools. It is not reasonable, however, for the Secretary of State to have such rights over land that was supplied by the charity itself. Most voluntary aided schools stand on land that was purchased at some time in the past by the relevant charity—often the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. Many such schools were also entirely paid for by the churches before they became voluntary aided, and my own daughter went to a Roman Catholic primary school that was built by the local church and handed over before it became a voluntary aided school.

In effect, the clause requisitions land from such charities, or at least subjects them to the whim of the Secretary of State as to how they may or may not use their land. Given the number of playing fields sold off by local authorities in recent years, it is as well to keep voluntary aided and foundation school playing fields out of the clutches of the Treasury.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is not present at the moment, has done a substantial amount of work on child obesity—a huge problem in this country. We do not want to see land that could be used for children’s physical activity and for general school activities being taken away, nor do we want the Secretary of State to have the ability to take it away. All Governments have been guilty of selling off school playing fields and school land. The lives of Governments come to a natural end—ours came to a natural end, the present Government’s life may be coming to its end and so shall the life of any future Conservative Administration—and school land needs protection from future Secretaries of State, future occupants of the Treasury and future Governments, whoever they are. Will the Minister therefore review the clause?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 34 introduces schedule 4, which makes a number of amendments to the provisions in schedule 22 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that protect land at foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools that was provided, or enhanced, at public expense. Thehon. Lady based many of her opening remarks onthe contention that the clause was somehow about the Secretary of State getting her hands, or the Government’s hands, on land that was provided by a trust or charitable organisation. There is nothing in the Bill, however, about transferring land that was originally provided to the state by a trust or by a Church. Clause 34 and schedule 4 set forth not only a process but considerable protection for land on the basis of its origin, as does the guidance that I have circulated on those provisions. However, we also have to ensure that land that has been publicly provided is equally protected for public use: public assets have protection at a time when the relationship between a school and a trust is discontinued, for example. That is what the provisions are about. The hon. Lady’s amendment would weaken the provisions to protect publicly funded land, and I therefore oppose it.

Schedule 4 provides that where the governing body, foundation body or trustees of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school propose to dispose of certain land that has been acquired or enhanced using public funds, they will be required to notify the local education authority of their intention to do so and how they propose to use the sale proceeds, which must be reinvested on capital expenditure. Local authorities in those circumstances can object to the disposal and to the reinvestment proposals and they can claim a share of the value proportionate to the public investment. When there is not agreement, the matter can be referred to the schools adjudicator for determination.

At present, the governing bodies and foundation bodies of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools can dispose of land held on behalf of the school that was acquired or enhanced at public expense only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The trustees of foundation and foundation special schools also require the Secretary of State’s consent to dispose of land acquired at public expense. The Secretary of State is already involved in decisions about disposal at foundation and voluntary-aided schools.

When trustees propose to dispose of all other land that they hold on behalf of maintained schools that was acquired or enhanced by public expenditure, they do not require the consent of the Secretary of State. They are required to inform the local education authority only after they have sold the land.

Once the trustees have disposed of the land, depending on how they received the public expenditure, they are required either to pay the local education authority a just amount of the sale proceeds or to undertake to the local education authority to use the sale proceeds for the purposes of the school or another existing or proposed school.

Our aim in schedule 4 is to introduce a uniform procedure to be followed when a body or trustees propose to dispose of publicly funded land and will enable the local authority to have some input inthe future use of the land or the proceeds of any disposal. It is the Government’s duty to protect public investment in schools and that is exactly what schedule 4 does.

The hon. Lady did not dispute those aims in introducing her amendment, not least because she focused not on publicly funded land but on land that had not been provided or enhanced by public funds. The schedule and the clause provide safeguards for publicly funded land held by governing bodies, foundation bodies and trustees of maintained schools. I recognise that the amendment aims to ensure that the assets provided by trustees or schools cannot be put at risk. As I said, they should not be, and I assure the hon. Lady that our proposals will not affect the ownership by foundation or voluntary schools of assets that they or their trustees have provided and which have not been improved using public expenditure.

We have discussed the matter with the leading voluntary bodies and overall they are content with our proposals. The amendment would restrict the public safeguards to land purchased and paid for by a local authority or by the Secretary of State. For example, it would mean that land which is acquired or enhanced by the trustees of a school, who actually pay, but where the money comes from the Secretary of State, would not be counted as publicly funded. It would mean that land acquired by the governing body, foundation body or trustees of a school with the proceeds from the sale of publicly funded land would not be protected either. I do not think that that is what the hon. Lady intended, and I hope therefore that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

As the hon. Lady got us on to the issue of playing fields again, it would be worthwhile for me to put on the record that, under section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, there are separate provisions for the protection of school playing fields. She is right that the previous Government presided over the sale of a lot of playing fields. However, we do not know how many were sold because there was no way of measuring it. There was no process for the approval of a sale and no requirement for a body to approve such a sale such as the one that exists now comprising of the major organisations interested in those elements. None of that was in position pre-section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act. We can now measure that and have protections in place, none of which will be put at risk by the proposals in the legislation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister will recall, if she checks the copies of Hansard for earlier Committee sittings, that we had a long debate about that matter and I was wondering whether she will come back to us with an updated survey of playing-field sales since the guidance was tightened by the now Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Education and Skills. We can hope only that his record on school playing fields was rather better than his recent one. Will she come back to the Committee with that information?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. We will confine our consideration to amendment No. 363.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was reassuring the hon. Lady that section 77, which protects school playing fields, remains in tact. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings rightly said, we had a lengthy debate about playing fields more generally. One of the difficulties with that debate was that there were times when he conflated local authorities’ playing fields as a whole with school playing fields—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. We are discussing amendment No. 363.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I apologise, Mr. Cook. I hope that in the context of amendment No. 363 I can reassure the hon. Lady that the clause does not do what she fears that it does.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am reassured by the Minister’s comments, particularly because she has had discussions with the voluntary bodies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 420, in clause 34, page 25, line 7, at end add—

‘(2) Where Schedule 4 makes provision for a case to be referred to the adjudicator and the adjudicator makes a decision in such a case there shall be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to appeals under this section, including provision—

(a) as to the time by which an appeal is to be made,

(b) as to the manner in which an appeal is to be made,

(c) as to the procedure to be followed in connection with an appeal, and

(d) as to the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow an appeal.'.

The amendment introduces the right of appeal against the adjudicator’s decision to the Secretary of State and is based on some of the same objections to the adjudicator as were discussed during our deliberations on schedule 2. In particular, the Billwill give to the adjudicator far more functions and powers than is currently the case. For instance, new powers are being given with regard to land transfers. The Government produced guidance for that: “The Transfer And Disposal Of School Land In England”. On page 9 it states:

“In all these matters,”—

the transfer of land and change of status—

“where the authority and the school cannot reach agreement, the Adjudicator should determine”

the matter. When a school intends to dispose of land and the local authority objects to that disposal, the proposed use of the proceeds, or wishes to claim a share of those proceeds, the authority may refer the matter to the school adjudicator.

Page 11 of the guidance states:

The Adjudicator will determine...whether or not the disposal can be made...whether the school may invest any share of the proceeds which derive from public funding...what proportion of the proceeds is due to the trustees and what proportion is due to the local authority”

and

“what share of the disposal proceeds the school should pay to the local authority”.

So the adjudicator gets power also to order the transfer to the authority of land acquired with public funds and held on trust by a foundation or school trustees for the purposes of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school.

Page 15 of the guidance states:

“It will be the task of the Adjudicator where there is disagreement to...determine what land will be excluded from transfer”,

to

“Determine whether or not a proposed disposal of surplus non-playing field land should go ahead where it is opposed by the local authority”

and

“Determine whether a school shall reinvest the proceeds as it proposes”.

The adjudicator can:

“Determine how much of the sale proceeds if any of such a disposal is due to the authority”

and

“how much of the public share of proceeds, if any the school shall pay to the authority”

as well as ensuring that the

“governing body, foundation body or trustees give to the authority a suitable undertaking as to the use of the public share of proceeds where he has awarded them”.

He can also determine

“whether surplus land acquired by public funding and requested by an authority as a site for a new school or as the site to which an existing maintained school is to be transferred or for use of other educational or children’s service purposes be transferred to it”.

It is clear, therefore, that the Bill will give the adjudicator significant new powers. The guidance goes on to give examples of how the adjudicator will use his powers. Much of that is good, and we particularly welcome the statement on page 19 of the guidance that

“The adjudicator should support school autonomy and decision making and assume that its proposals are sound.”

As we continue through the guidance we see that the adjudicator wields immense power. Let us consider the case of claims for a share of proceeds. The guidance states that in such a case the adjudicator will have regard to the proportionate value of land acquired from the public, the proportionate enhancement in value, the proportionate contribution of each of the above categories and any payment previously made by the trustees.

The adjudicator is expected to make decisions on the market value of the land that is being disposed, and our amendment would simply introduce a method of appeal on those important decisions, without the expense and limitations of the judicial review process. That will be an appeal to the Secretary of State when people feel that the decisions made by the adjudicator in those complex areas, which involve enormous amounts of expertise, have been erroneous.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

To a certain extent, we are returning to our argument about the role of the schools adjudicator with respect to school organisation. The amendment would return to the Secretary of State the final decision-making powers, by providing a right of appeal to the Secretary of State when matters cannot be agreed locally on the transfer and disposal of publicly funded school land that is in the ownership of governing bodies, foundation bodies or trustees.

The provisions of schedule 4 specifically give the schools adjudicator the powers to determine those disagreements. They also ensure that the adjudicator must have regard to guidance that the Secretary of State will issue.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, I have already circulated an illustrative draft of the guidance to members of the Committee. I think that it spells out the balanced and reasonable way in which we will safeguard land that has been publicly funded or enhanced at public expense, or of which a local authority might want to make a particular use. It balances that with the important freedom and autonomy that day-to-day control of assets provides for foundation and voluntary-aided schools. The guidance represents the right balance and, of course, provides guidance to the adjudicator in making decisions about the allocation of the proceeds of certain sales, or the local authority’s requirements with respect to the use of particular land at foundation or voluntary-aided schools.

It is a reasonable set of guidance for the adjudicator to make decisions on, were the decisions to reach the adjudicator. Of course, we hope that there will be a discussion between the school’s governing body and trust or the local authority and the school about their relative requirements and a local agreement will be reached. That is a much better way to operate than by reintroducing the Secretary of State into those decisions in the way that I outlined in respect of previous amendments. That is not the ideal position to be in.

Amendment No. 56 to schedule 2 proposed to give similar rights of appeal against decisions of a schools adjudicator on proposals for school organisation. It is right that local decisions should be taken at a local level wherever possible. I thought that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would agree with that. Giving powers of appeal to the Secretary of State could bring decisions on land ownership at schools back into the political arena. That would not necessarily ensure the right decisions, and they would certainly not be taken at the right level.

The schools adjudicator is independent of the Secretary of State and will take decisions on the merits of each case. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman fears that decisions would be biased in favour of local education authorities, while others might fear a bias in favour in schools, but I am confident that the schools adjudicator will decide each case fairly in the light of the evidence that is presented.

We have backed that up with the draft guidance that I have provided and to which the adjudicator will have a statutory duty to have regard. As I have described, the draft guidance is aimed to steer the adjudicator to a fair balance between the property rights of the schools and the strategic duties of local authorities. The guidance will be further developed in the light of discussions with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and with other partners. It can and will be revised in the light of experience. The hon. Gentleman might have comments to make about the guidance, which I shall of course bear in mind as we finalise it.

As we pointed out in the previous discussion on the role of the adjudicator, in the case of serious legal mistakes in the adjudicator’s decisions there is the right to judicial challenge by way of judicial review in the High Court. That deals with situations in which the adjudicator makes a decision that is wrong legally. Since that recourse exists, it is not necessary to provide a further appeal to the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I raised the issue to demonstrate how significant the schools adjudicator’s new functions are. As the Minister said, we have already had a debate about whether there should be an appeal from the adjudicator. We also had a Division on that debate, and in view of that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 4

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 281, in schedule 4, page 135, line 3, at end insert—

‘paragraph 28(2) of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (including that provision as applied by any enactment),'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenientto discuss Government amendments Nos. 282 to 292 and 297 to 327.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have done slightly better this time than with the last set of Government amendments.

The amendments add to the provisions inschedule 4, which revises schedule 22 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which protects public investment in school land where it is owned by the governing body, foundation body and trustees of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools—in simple terms, schools that own their assets. It is essential that public investment in schools should be protected. Local authorities have that responsibility where they own the assets of the school.

There has been some scaremongering to the effect that our encouragement of schools to benefit from owning their assets will mean not only the transfer of those assets from local authority ownership to school ownership, but the risk of permanent loss to the public sector. That is emphatically not the case with our proposals. Schedule 4 provides proper safeguards for publicly funded land held by governing bodies, foundation bodies and trustees of maintained schools. Those safeguards, which we touched on in relation to previous amendments, cover the disposal and transfer of publicly funded non-playing field school land and the situation where schools are discontinued.

Local authorities can object to disposal proposals for such land and to reinvestment proposals for proceeds, and can claim a share of the proceeds. They can also ask for the transfer of publicly funded land, if it is surplus to the school’s needs, for use by another school or in the delivery of children’s services. In all cases in which there is not local agreement, schedule 4 empowers the schools adjudicator to make the determination, having regard to guidance that the Secretary of State issues.

The main purpose of the amendments is to bring publicly funded land held by the trustees of voluntary aided schools within the disposal, transfer and discontinuance provisions of the schedule. Government capital support for voluntary aided schools is paid as capital grant by the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. By including land funded in that way in the definition of publicly funded land, we bring voluntary aided schools in line with other schools or trusts that own their own assets.

I emphasise that we are not seeking to sequester in any way the assets of voluntary aided schools or their trustees. The amendments will affect only land that is acquired or enhanced by capital grant from the Secretary of State after 1 April 2007. The measures will not be retrospective: they apply to land in respect of which public money is provided after that date. Further, they require that the Secretary of State give notice within six months of making the grant that these provisions apply. We do not seek to stop schools, trustees or foundations disposing of their own surplus land, or to give local authorities any claim on such land.

We are including voluntary aided schools now because there have been significant changes in capital funding of such schools since schedule 22 was brought into force in 1998. There is much greater Government investment in schools: from less than £700 million in 1996-97 that investment will increase to more than£8 billion by 2010-11. The voluntary aided sector continues to get its fair share of that money. In addition to the huge overall increase in public investment in schools, the proportion of Government investment in voluntary aided schools has increased over the years and, from 2002, was raised to 90 per cent.—in other words, voluntary aided schools must now contribute only 10 per cent. of their building costs. Recently, the Secretary of State decided that, because of the scale and targeting of the “building schools for the future” programme, she would, exceptionally, fund voluntary aided school investment through that programme at 100 per cent. It is important to ensure that that unprecedented public investment in the assets of voluntary schools is recognised and protected. We have had discussions with the Church of England and Roman Catholic bodies representing the interests of the great majority of voluntary schools, and have agreed with them that the changes are right.

Unless hon. Members press me hard on these issues, I do not think that it would be useful to go through in detail the many other, mainly technical amendments. The amendments add further protection for publicly funded school land, and I am therefore pleased to propose them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to raise one or two issues relating to some of the Government amendments. On Government amendment No. 311, I heard the Minister talk about the fact that paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 relates to grants made by the Secretary of State to the governing body or the trust of a voluntary aided school. Under new paragraph A30 of schedule 22 of the 1998 Act, which the amendment inserts via schedule 4 of the Bill, the Secretary of State may give notice that expenditure using grants made by the Secretary of State will be included in the definition of publicly funded land. What I cannot understand is why it is necessary to have this in such a detailed schedule—it goes into the detail of every conceivable type of land that is included in the schedule—and why the land transfer procedure for some sorts of land should be determined solely in terms of whether the Secretary of State decides to issue a notice. Will the Minister say why she believes that is necessary and why the power is necessary with all the different methods in the schedule?

Amendments Nos. 298 and 304 exempt land that is acquired by means of a grant under schedule 32 of the 1998 Act by a voluntary school from the definition of publicly funded land under this section. Why do voluntary schools have that exemption and other schools, such as foundation schools, do not? If my understanding is right, can the Minister explain why there is a difference?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I made a specific point in my opening comments about the six months’ notice that is required for the change of regime and the fact that it would not be retrospective. It is also necessary—this relates to the hon. Gentleman’s second point—that we do not automatically capture all the grant payments in the proposals made in the amendments. Some programmes—for example, devolved formula capital—will need to be excluded from the provisions that we are making.

I think that I have answered both of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. If I find subsequently that I have not done so, I will write to him and other members of the Committee to ensure that they are covered.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 293, in schedule 4, page 157, line 17, at end insert—

‘( ) In determining whether to make an application under sub-paragraph (1) for a transfer order, a local education authority must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Government amendmentNo. 294.

Amendment No. 226, in schedule 4, page 157,line 27, leave out ‘may' and insert ‘shall'.

Government amendment No. 295.

Amendment No. 227, in schedule 4, page 157,line 37, leave out ‘or'.

Amendment No. 228, in schedule 4, page 157,line 42, after ‘2006,', insert ‘or

(iv) is required by the local authority for any other purpose which the local authority may show to the satisfaction of the adjudicator to be in the local community interest,'.

Government amendment No. 296.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

An aim of this part of the Bill is to empower a local authority to ask the schools adjudicator to make a transfer order in respect of surplus publicly funded land held by a governing body, foundation body or trustees of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school when the authority requires the land for another school, for another of its education functions, or for delivering children's services.

Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 make it clear that before asking for such a transfer order, the local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I have provided for hon. Members the illustrative draft guidance, which we have already discussed in part.

We have set out in the Bill the factors that the adjudicator will consider when deciding to make a transfer order. They have been carefully considered to balance a school's ownership of its own assets against the strategic needs and duties of an authority. Amendments No. 295 and 296 describe in some detail the circumstances in which an order may be made. They include when the land is required for another school or educational use or for delivering children’s services, so that the school's land which has been acquired using public expenditure is still used for the benefit of the children and young people of the area. I hope that the Committee will accept those amendments.

I will respond to other amendments in the group if and when they are spoken to.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendments Nos. 295 and 296, to which the Minister referred, alter the circumstances in which the adjudicator can make the transfer order. At present, there are three purposes for which a local authority can ask for land to be transferred: it is needed by a school maintained or receiving assistance from a local authority; it is needed for the exercise of the educational functions of a local authority; or it is needed for the purposes of any of its education or children’s services or under various sections of the Children Act.

The wording of new sub-paragraph (5A), which the amendment would insert into paragraph A26 of schedule 4, is slightly different from that of the second purpose that I just quoted. It says that the land

“is otherwise required for the purposes of the exercise of any of the functions of the authority”.

In other words, it removes the word “educational” from the current second purpose. The drafting seems to be very broad and vague, and means that the use will not necessarily be limited to the educational functions of the local authority. I should be grateful if the Minister explained why a broader definition is to be included in the schedule.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The new sub-paragraph is worded in that way without broadening the purposes for which the transfer order would be made because in that case “authority” means local education authority, so all its functions must relate to education. The purposes that I spelled out—that transfer be for the use of education or children’s services—are the confined functions for which we expect transfer orders to be made. We are not allowing the proposal of transfer orders for, for example, the provision of a dustbin depot or any other function of a local authority. I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

‘Notice in relation to grants under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3

Clause 35

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

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 35, page 25, line 13, leave out ‘have regard to' and insert ‘act in accordance with'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 72, in clause 35, page 25, line 16, leave out ‘have regard to' and insert ‘act in accordance with'.

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

I do not wish to speak to amendment No. 72. Perhaps it will hearten people to learn that I have less to say. Amendment No. 71 is simply a probing amendment. It arises from the fact that in the Children Act 2004 there is a duty placed on local authorities to co-operate with other partners to promote and safeguard the welfare of particularly vulnerable young people. When the 2004 Act was passed, we were concerned that a duty was not placed on all schools to co-operate with other partners, such as health services.

We have become more concerned about this lack of duty for schools given the proposals to give a greater number of schools more autonomy. Indeed, given some of the comments we have heard about the abolition of local education authorities, our concerns are growing. The amendment would replace the phrase “have regard to” with the words “act in accordance with”. Obviously, children and young people’s plans stem directly from the requirements of the 2004 Act and, therefore, we need to be reassured that schools who have this new great independence and autonomy have a duty to co-operate with those other important services, which will be so vital for children, teenagers—if we are thinking of certain health issues—and many others. The amendment arises from our concern that certain activity needs to take place within a local framework.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Would the hon. Lady ask the question—[Interruption.]

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. There is a northern expression called “chuntering”. There is far too much chuntering going on at the moment, to the extent that the Hansard reporter cannot hear clearly what is being said. It would also help if we had a bit of an increase in volume from the hon. Lady’s direction only. Control the chuntering from now on.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

My question to the hon. Lady is this: if the views expressed by parents of registered pupils were mutually contradictory, how would it be possible to act in accordance with them?

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it makes perfectly clear why I did not speak to amendment No. 72, to which I was a little concerned to see my name attached.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I rise briefly to speak to the amendment on behalf of the official Opposition. There is a sense in which the amendments that stand in the name of the Liberal Democrats and those that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough represent the two extremes that I am happy to sail between. If my hon. Friend and his accomplice are outriders, I am securely placed in the limousine.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

An easy rider.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Indeed, an easy rider, not an outrider. The Liberal Democrats’ amendments would have the likely effect of curtailing school autonomy—one of the key principles of the Bill—and include a prescriptive proscription that a school has to act in accordance with views expressed by parents, children and the young people’s plans published under the 2004 Act. I know that the hon. Lady did not speak to one of the amendments, but even so, strengthening the relationship between the Bill and those other aspects of local authorities’ responsibilities would make it less likely that the Bill would achieve its objectives. However, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who is not in his place, would have the opposite effect.

We are likely to be at one with the Government in thinking that the existing words in the Bill are a reasonable compromise between those two positions. With that short contribution, I urge my hon. Friends to resist the Liberal Democrat amendment, and urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire to detach herself from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and find common cause with the Front Benchers and, I suspect, the Government in sticking with the Bill as it is. Let us all travel in the limousine. None of us need be outriders on this occasion.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It looks as though we will be travelling not only in the limousine but on the middle way—certainly the official Opposition and the Government will on these provisions.

I shall confine my comments to amendment No. 71, as it is the only one in the group that has not been spoken to. The amendment proposes a duty to act in accordance with the children and young people’s plan, which would be wholly at odds with the ethos of the plan, which was born of a jointly developed partnership, involving all those responsible for local services for children and young people. It would put schools in a very different position from the other partners in relation to the plan: one of compulsion rather than co-operation.

Furthermore, the amendment misunderstands, or misjudges, the nature of the children and young people’s plan, which is a high-level strategic document that sets out key priorities and actions, and is therefore unlikely to contain the sort of detail needed to make it meaningful for schools to have to act in accordance with it. The plan does not lay down strict criteria or requirements that need to be followed in the same way as the admissions code, which is, I suspect, where the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole got the inspiration for the formulation of her amendment.

I agree that it is crucial that schools recognise their role in identifying and delivering better outcomes for children and young people within their local community. Schools are the universal service with which most children have contact most days of the week.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The Minister is making perfectly fair points. One of our concerns and a reason why we tabled this probing amendment is a concern that the Local Government Association raised with us that although it has powers to intervene when schools fail in their duty on standards, it does not have a power to intervene when schools are not meeting requirements to do with “Every Child Matters” and the young people’s plan, which might include matters such as high rates of teenage pregnancy. We were trying to get at the relationship between schools and the children and young people’s plan, but I accept that the wording is not ideal.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady. When we discussed the role of school improvement partners, we covered the fact that they might well, in their discussions with schools, get into areas that would link to other “Every Child Matters” outcomes. Secondly, Ofsted is now inspecting on a framework that also requires them to consider the delivery of the “Every Child Matters” outcomes. Thirdly, a key “Every Child Matters” outcome is the achievement of children. Other outcomes are important to ensure that that standards outcome is delivered. Therefore, it is arguable, at least, that if the standards of a school are not adequate, that one of the most important outcomes is being failed on.

As well as teaching and learning, schools play a key part in delivering services to children more generally. It is only by having regard to the local authority’s children and young people’s plan that each school can see where it fits within that wider strategic picture. It is equally important that schools use the plan to inform their planning, based on their circumstances. They need flexibility to personalise their approach, guided by the range of activities available in their local area.

To a certain extent, the amendment would restrict the school’s ability to do that, and that is why we have introduced a duty to have regard to those matters.It will be accompanied in England by amendments to the Children and Young People’s Plan (England) Regulations 2005, which will place reciprocal requirements on local authorities to consult schools, school forums and admissions forums during the preparation of the plan, ensuring that schools have their say on the content and are fully drawn into its preparation, so that the plan is reflected as effectively as possible in the school’s development plan.

That is the appropriate way to deliver the objective that we all share, which is to ensure that the school plays its role in delivering all “Every Child Matters” outcomes and, alongside other schools and children’s services, the best outcomes for all children. I know that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment share that objective, but I hope that they recognise that our approach is the most appropriate way to ensure its delivery, and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will withdraw the amendment.

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

I thank the Minister for her helpful comments. I know that there was a lot of noise when I was talking, but I felt that people would appreciate it if I just kept going rather than prolong the sitting.

I reiterate our continual concern that schools with the greater autonomy must be firmly part of a local partnership. It will be important to pursue that issue and provide leadership. We in this room have different philosophies about how much partnership engagement there should be. In its precise wording, the amendment was meant as a probing amendment to emphasise our view about the great need for co-operation and partnership. I must point out to Conservative Front Benchers that during the proceedings on the Children Bill, they supported amendments, which we tabled, to place a duty on individual schools. I am sure that they would like to take a consistent view. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.