Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 10 March 1999
[Mr. Bowen Wells in the Chair]
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Proposals under Section 211 of the Education Act 1996) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998
4.30 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Proposals under Section 211 of the Education Act 1996) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 3172).
Thank you, Mr. Wells, for the opportunity to speak on the regulations. I shall probably do so more briefly than in previous Standing Committees.
I want to tease out from the Government a couple of points. The Funding Agency for Schools published proposals for the establishment of new grant-maintained schools, but the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 asbolished the status of grant-maintained schools and required them to select another status: voluntary, community or foundation. As a result of the change, those schools will come under the control of local education authorities to a varying extent. If the funding agency has been through the necessary processes and procedures and has agreed that a new grant-maintained school may be established before the date given, but that has not been put into practice, under the regulations the proposal requires the approval not only of the Secretary of State, but of the local authority in which the school will be situated.
I want to comment on two aspects of the regulations. First, I am concerned about the approach taken by local education authorities in those circumstances. How will the Government ensure that LEAs consider such proposals with an open and fair mind and do not decide not to allow a school simply because it had initially sought grant-maintained status?
As I go around the country and talk to heads of grant-maintained schools, I am aware of their concern about the attitude of local education authorities in some parts of the country towards grant-maintained schools as they return to local education authorities. That attitude varies and I shall cite an example involving not a new school, but an existing grant-maintained school. It shows why I am worried about the attitude of local education authorities.
Last week I visited the Turney special school, which is an all-age special school in Lambeth. Various proposals were made, including an extension of the school, and there have been discussions and negotiations with the funding agency, which considered the proposals and accepted them. The Department for Education and Employment signified its satisfaction with the proposals but said that the local education authority—Lambeth—must have a say in the matter. The stumbling block is Lambeth education authority's attitude towards the school, which is currently grant-maintained. Such examples lie behind my question to the Minister.
A proposed new grant-maintained school may have gone through all the processes of the funding agency and may have been approved by the Secretary of State, but may fall at the last hurdle, not for valid educational reasons, but because of the local education authority's conception of grant-maintained schools, which, at one stage, wanted to be outside the remit of LEAs.
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that decisions taken by LEAs will be for correct and valid educational reasons, rather than because of the dogmatic attitudes that pertain in certain local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled authorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Pathetic!
Mrs. May: The Minister says, from a sedentary position, that my comment was pathetic, but it is Labour-controlled authorities that head teachers of grant-maintained schools are most worried about.
The Chairman: Order. I find that Standing Committees quickly get out of order if there are sedentary interventions. I therefore ask Committee members to refrain from making them, in accordance with the rules of the House and in deference to the Hansard reporter.
Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Wells.
My second point concerns the decision-making process as it relates to new grant-maintained schools already approved by the funding authority for schools. Perhaps I have misunderstood the regulations but, as they stand, they appear not to refer to any other body in cases where a grant-maintained school intends to assume voluntary or foundation status rather than community status. That will give rise to a chicken and egg problem.
A school that has yet to be set up, and which would have been grant-maintained, will, if it is to continue, be required at some stage to decide its status. Before that decision is taken, it is subject to the LEA approval process. At what point would the diocesan authorities have a say in the setting up process if a proposed grant-maintained school wanted to assume voluntary-aided status?
A school might ask to be set up and the funding agency might reply, ``Yes, the Secretary of State is willing if the LEA is willing''. Those who wish to set it up might want voluntary-aided status, but the regulations appear to permit that only after the approval process has been completed. The diocesan authorities would not be approached, therefore, prior to the taking of the decision to set up the school. I wonder whether it would be better if the regulations allowed the relevant bodies to participate at an earlier stage.
My second point is perhaps pedantic and particular. As I said, I may have misunderstood the regulations, but I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the matter. My first point is a genuine worry that some LEAs may choose to refuse approval for reasons that are not educational, but which relate instead to attitudes to the concept of grant-maintained status.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): I rise for two—
The Chairman: Order. There is a Division in the House. We shall resume our proceedings at 4.48 pm.
4.38 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.48 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Foster: As I was saying, I rise briefly for two reasons. First, I should like to welcome you, Mr. Wells, to the Chair. Secondly, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
I studied the order with great diligence—as, no doubt, did all Committee members—and I could find nothing of any excitement or interest. I was surprised that it had been prayed against. I therefore consulted some experts, who managed, with great expertise, to produce half a side of paper. The final sentence on that paper states that the order is entirely non-controversial, which is also my view.
I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead on managing to speak for eight and a half minutes on an issue that even she must believe is totally non-controversial. I shall therefore not support her if she chooses to press the matter to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Proposals under section 211 of the Education Act 1996) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998, No. 3172).
Committee rose at ten minutes to Five o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Wells, Mr. Bowen (Chairman)
Blackman, Liz
Bradshaw, Mr.
Clarke, Mr. Charles
Cooper, Yvette
Foster, Mr. Don
Gilroy, Mrs.
Illsley, Mr.
Jamieson, Mr.
Kingham, Ms
May, Mrs.
Squire, Ms
Winterton, Ms Rosie
|
