---

School Governance (Constitution, Federations and New Schools) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8 July, be annulled (S.I. 2005/1730). [7th Report from the Merits Committee]. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg leave to pray against these three statutory instruments, numbers 1731, 1801 and 1730, all of 2005. I should like to deal with them in that order, if I may, even though they appear in a different order on the Order Paper. Statutory Instrument 2005/1731 allows community schools a fast track to foundation status if the governing body wants it. The Government now want to allow a minimum of only four weeks’ consultation before the governing body can decide by a simple majority to change the governance of the school completely. The first thing I wish to ask the Minister about these regulations is whether they are redundant following yesterday’s White Paper, or whether they have planned obsolescence built in and will spontaneously combust when we get the threatened legislation. Yesterday’s White Paper offers a new category of trust school, which is a sort of foundation school with the property in the ownership of a charitable trust standing slightly outside the school. The Secretary of State’s plan is very similar to a foundation school with a foundation body. The Government consulted on giving foundation bodies more power in July 2004 but dropped the proposal. Is that what we are now seeing in the White Paper? Indeed, can the Minister explain how the Government’s ambitions for trust schools relate to the proposals in this statutory instrument for fast track to foundation status? If this statutory instrument is not redundant, there are some very relevant questions to be asked. First, how can the governing body be expected adequately to consult all stakeholders in as little as four weeks? There is nothing, so far as I can see, to stop a ruthless governing body doing this so-called ““consultation”” during the summer holidays when everyone is away. Parents could come back from Skegness or wherever and find their school changed irrevocably. Surely this is not real consultation? Secondly, what notice did the Government take of their own consultation with local authorities? Most were opposed to these proposals on the grounds that allowing school governing bodies, rather than school organisation committees, to decide their own proposals reduces democratic accountability and that an increase in foundation schools makes it difficult for LEAs to carry out their strategic planning role and provide the necessary school places in the right areas. So far as I can see, the Government have ridden roughshod over the LEAs and their only response to these objections was to require governing bodies to consult before publishing proposals. All I can say to that is that if governing bodies take as much notice of their consultations as the Government take of their own consultations, then there will not be much change to the proposals. Even the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments of your Lordships’ House expressed concern about this. It said in its report published on 21 July 2005:"““We question whether the DfES have given sufficient weight to these expressions of concern since they have been made by bodies with important strategic responsibilities, as DfES themselves emphasise””." That is a polite way of saying that it thinks the Government have not listened when they should have done. If, as the Government clearly hope, these new arrangements increase the number of applications from schools to take on foundation status—or trust status, if, as I suspect, they supersede foundations following the White Paper—local authorities will have an awful lot of extra work to do. They have to transfer contracts of employment and land to the governing body or trust. That is not as easy as it sounds. Will the Government make some financial provision for all this extra legal work? Statutory Instrument 1801 relates to community, foundation, voluntary-aided and controlled schools. It reduces the statutory period for proposals to expand to be considered—more fast tracking. Again the Government consulted LEAs and about a third of them replied. Most were against the proposals on the grounds that the expansion of a popular school would lead to a decline in less popular schools. As I mentioned yesterday in response to the Statement on the White Paper, no school is an island. If you do something to the admissions policy or the number of places available at one school, you will undoubtedly affect others around it. The LEA is charged with the strategic role of providing places and yet the Government are bowling googlies at them all the time. It is a bit like drawing the ““Go to Gaol and pay £200”” card in monopoly. The game carries on without you and there is not a lot you can do about it. Even the school organisation committee will have to answer to the adjudicator if it turns down expansion proposals from schools for strategic reasons. The Government have talked about a new commissioner role for LEAs, but what does that mean if they have no power to commission school places? We heard yesterday that new providers can come in and set up new schools even if there is no shortage of places in the area—indeed, even if there is a surplus of places, which is clearly going to happen in the next few years. It sounds very much like a free for all to me and I am afraid that I was not convinced by the Minister’s response yesterday. I am concerned about the schools left behind and the children who attend them. Naturally parents will be attracted by new schools with shiny new buildings, large computer suites, drama studios and sports halls. Of course, those who can afford it will vote with their chequebooks and move into the area, and there is not a lot that we or the Government can do to stop them. But what about those who cannot afford to do that? They have to go to the schools unhappily referred to as ““sink schools”” and we get a self-fulfilling prophesy as all the children who need extra resources to help them overcome disadvantage find themselves lumped together in the same old school. How, then, can the Government say that there is no danger of a two-tier system through these regulations and the other proposals we heard yesterday? The answer is not all this structural change but making sure that every community school improves and becomes a good school. No parent wants to have their child travelling miles across town to go to school. Give them a good neighbourhood school and they will send their children there. Statutory Instrument 1730 allows schools to appoint up to four, rather than two, sponsor governors. I have several questions about this. First, what checks are done on sponsors who want to sit on the board of governors of a school? How can a school know the source of the money that has been given to it, and be assured that there is nothing unsavoury behind what may well appear to be a perfectly legitimate and proper business? I ask this not because I suspect that the many businesses that have already got involved with schools have done so for the wrong reasons, or have something to hide. On the contrary, most of them are fine, upstanding pillars of the community and have only laudable, philanthropic aims. However, it is a question that needs to be asked. Does anybody ask it? How do we know they are legitimate? Does the department offer any help to schools? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Secondly, how much does it cost to buy a place on a board of governors? We have no guidance about the minimum donation schools can expect to receive before they give away some of the power over what happens in the school in the form of a place on the board. Can all large donors to a school expect to be offered a place on the board of governors? What sort of guidance do schools receive on this matter? Of course, we welcome the interest of businesses in our schools, especially when those businesses are deeply rooted in the communities and provide jobs for parents and school-leavers. However, this seems to be an area where schools are left very much to their own devices. I suspect they may welcome some help. Perhaps the Minister can help them.