Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hill of Oareford (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 February 2011. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Building Schools for the Future.


Building Schools for the Future

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat the Statement on Building Schools for the Future, made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows: ““Mr Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to repeat the points made in my Written Ministerial Statement on Friday. On Friday, Mr Justice Holman handed down judgment on the judicial review brought by six local authorities, including Waltham Forest, following my decision to cancel BSF projects in their areas. It was of course deeply regrettable that any building projects had to be cancelled, but the scale of the deficit we inherited meant that cuts were inevitable, and the inefficiency that characterised the BSF schemes meant that we needed a new approach. All the local authorities that pursued the action agreed that cuts had to be made, but, as the judge records, the local authorities argued that other unidentified projects should have been stopped, rather than theirs. The claimants argued that the Government’s decision-making was confused and irrational, but the judge makes it clear that the decisions that I made were clear and rational. He states: "‘the Secretary of State intended to draw, and did draw, a clear demarcation between situations where there were obligations under contract and those where there were not. The decision is not open to challenge on irrationality’." The claimants argued that the chosen cut-off date for projects was wrong, but the judge also makes it clear that a cut-off date of 1 January reflected government-wide policy and helped to achieve that policy by making very large savings. The claimants also argued that there was a breach of promise in stopping their specific projects, but the judge also said: "‘I do not consider that there was any failure … because there was no such promise or expectation’." I am grateful that on all these substantive points, the judge found as he did in our favour. On two procedural grounds, the judge ruled in favour of the claimants. In essence, his view is that my consultation with 14 local authorities in relation to 32 sample schools and a further 119 individual academies projects did not go far enough, and that I should have included the six claimants in my consultation. He judges that I should have had rigorous regard to equalities considerations in reaching my decision. The judge has not ordered a reinstatement of funding for any BSF project; nor has he ordered me to pay compensation to any of the claimants. Instead, he concluded that I must give each of them an opportunity to make representations, and must review the decision, in so far as it affects the six authorities, with an open mind. I am happy to do so. The judge has made it clear that the final decision on any given school or project still rests with me, and that I may save all, some, a few or none. He concluded by saying that no one should gain false hope from this decision. I am grateful to the judge for that direction, for the fair and careful manner in which he appraised the evidence and for his support for the Government on the substantive decisions that we took to repair the economic mess that we inherited””. My Lords, that concludes the Statement.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c539-40 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Construction Capital investment Equality Judicial review Judgements Kent County Council Public consultation Nottingham City Council Schools Luton Council Building schools for the future programme Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Waltham Forest Council Newham Council
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk