Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nick Gibb (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

I do not accept that. As we witnessed in Committee, all the Liberal amendments are designed to thwart the reforms. Paragraph 13 of the Government’s draft guidance, entitled ““Decision Makers Guidance on Acquisition of Trusts””, sets out detailed guidelines that schools should follow, including unacceptable types of industry, which the funders of a charitable trust should avoid. They include, as the Secretary of State said, tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment and alcohol. That guidance should be enough for the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who tabled new clause 48, which would establish a register of approved institutions. There comes a point when one has to rely on the good judgment of people in decision-making positions. No governing body will acquire a trust funded by Ann Summers. Governors are as keen as, if not keener than the hon. Member for Bury, North to protect and enhance the reputation of their school. With all the other protections that the Bill contains about the character of individual charitable trustees, enhanced by Government amendment No. 46 and the specific requirements of Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44 that the purpose of a foundation must be the advancement of education, I believe that new clause 48 over-eggs the pudding and is designed mainly to thwart the reforms. Thwarting the reforms is the main purpose of rebel new clauses 16 and 17, which seek a ballot before any school can become a foundation school. Doubtless the hon. Members whose names are attached to those new clauses will argue that their proposals simply the follow the model that the previous Conservative Government used for grant-maintained schools—and they would be right. However, most Conservative Members now believe that the requirement for a full-scale ballot before a school could become a grant-maintained school was probably a mistake.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1369-70 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal records Abuse Admissions Discipline Charities Administration Community schools Cooperation Finance Education Governing bodies Inspections Foundation schools Local government Parents Local education authorities Office for Standards in Education Registration Standards Voting methods Schools Teachers Trust schools
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk