Proceeding contribution from Nick Gibb (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 2 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.
Education and Inspections Bill
We are dealing with a range of amendments relating to school organisations. Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 and 12 relate to local authorities’ power to propose alterations to schools. In particular, they allow authorities to increase the number of pupils admitted. They also clarify authorities’ powers with respect to foundation special schools. Conservative Members welcome these proposals. It would be odd if a local authority could order a school to enlarge its premises but could not order it to admit additional pupils. I am slightly concerned about the separation of foundation special schools from other foundation schools. It seems that the amendments would allow a local authority to change the type of special educational needs for which a school has been organised. I do not imagine that a charity specialising in one form of special education would sponsor a trust school if there were a risk that the local authority would change the type of SEN that it offered. However, this is an improvement on the Bill’s original wording, which implied that a local authority could end SEN provision altogether at a special school. I hope that the Government will make clear, in guidance and regulations, the circumstances in which changing the type of SEN provision in a school would be acceptable. Lords amendment No. 13 restricts the right of governing bodies to publish foundation proposals in the case of voluntary schools or existing foundation schools. That ensures that schools ask permission from their faith groups, foundations or dioceses before they propose to become foundation schools, or change the instrument of government to allow a majority of governors to be foundation governors. The amendment therefore strengths the oversight of faith groups and existing foundations over the control of the schools that they serve. It means that no existing voluntary school could become a trust school without seeking proper permission. Given the historic role that the Churches have played in the development of such schools, that seems a reasonable proposition. Lords amendment No. 90 supplements it by specifically amending the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure. Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 23 concern the removal of foundations under clause 24. Lords amendment No. 20 ensures that the governing body makes arrangements for the transfers of assets and lands when a foundation is removed before publishing proposals to remove the foundation. Clearly if a trust provided a school with resources, it would be extremely unwise for the school to attempt to remove the trust if it would lead to the return of all those assets to the original owners. The amendment will make schools think carefully before removing the foundation by ensuring that they are fully aware of the financial consequences. Again, we support the amendment. Clause 32 imposes certain requirements on the foundations of trust schools. In particular, it ensures that the foundations are charitable and it allows for charity trustees to be disqualified in accordance with the regulations that we saw in Committee, such as when trustees have criminal convictions, or when teachers are on list 99. Lords amendment No. 24 clarifies which type of school this clause applies to. The clause applies to any foundation school or foundation special school with a foundation, subject to three conditions, A, B and C. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Brent, East amends condition B. Condition B states that the section applies to a foundation school with a foundation where it acquired the foundation under this Bill, or where it is an existing foundation school with a foundation whose instrument of government is altered under this Bill to provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors. Is that clear so far? The amendment would replace the words ““the majority”” with ““a component””. I believe that the amendment is probably technically flawed. It is clear from subsection (1) of the Government amendment that clause 32 applies only to foundation schools having a foundation. Such schools will already have ““a component”” of foundation governors on the governing body. There is no question, therefore, of an alteration of the instrument of government leading an existing foundation school with a foundation to ““become”” such a school. If anything, this amendment removes existing foundation schools with a foundation from the requirements of clause 32 where they decide that a majority of the governing body should be foundation governors. So there we are. Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 28 relate to parents councils. Amendment No. 27 in particular allows parents to invite people other than parents of current pupils on to the parent council. It also provides that parent members must consent to the appointment of a non-parent member, and that parents must still form a majority on the council. This is a welcome amendment, because it recognises the role that schools can play within communities and communities can play within schools. In faith schools, in particular, it would be extremely beneficial if representatives of the faith within the community could play a meaningful role on the parents council, particularly where, for religious reasons, such people may not have children of their own. Amendments Nos. 48 to 51 propose that the Secretary of State consult the local education authority and the governing body of the school before deciding to appoint additional governors. Again, this is welcome. Originally, the Secretary of State would have to have consulted only in the case of voluntary aided schools, and in this case only the Diocese or the person who appointed the foundation governors. Now the Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State should consult in all cases, and should also consult the local authority and governing body of the school. According to the Minister in the other place, this already reflects best practice on the part of the Government. I welcome this amendment, which will mean that the foundation of a trust school is given the same rights as the foundation of a voluntary aided school.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c533-5
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Accountability Admissions Curriculum Disadvantaged Community development Costs Community schools Classroom assistants Collective worship Fees and charges Education Governing bodies Human rights Inspections Exemptions Faith schools Headteachers Discrimination Low incomes Local education authorities Public appointments Pupils Staff Music Travel Schools Teachers Special educational needs Trade unions Secondary education Rural areas Sixth form education Islam Musical instruments Trust schools
- Legislation
- Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:33:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357922
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357922
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357922