Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 11 May 1999
[Mr. Jim Cunningham in the Chair]
Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999
10.30 am
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Education (School
Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999,
No. 700).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to
consider the Education (School Organisation Plans)
(England) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999, No. 701) and the
Education (Transition to New Framework) (School
Organisation Proposals) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999,
No. 704).
Mrs. May: Before I make several detailed points about
the statutory instruments, I shall explain why Opposition
Members are concerned about the introduction of the
school organisation committees that the Government put
in place under the School Standards and Framework Act
1998. I must say, however, that it is nice to see some old
faces in Committee.
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle
Morris): Getting older!
Mrs. May: Yes, getting older at every stage. We are
concerned about the structure of school organisation
committees, which show two of the trends that are
characteristic of the Government, the first being of which
is an increase in bureaucracy and administrative burdens.
Why have one committee considering an issue when there
could be two? Why have 10 members of a committee
when there could be 50 or 100 members? Examples of
such bureaucracy are yet again being shown in the way
in which school organisation committees are to operate.
The Government are constantly introducing structures that
are cumbersome, unwieldy, over-bureaucratic and
impractical, and I shall explain how that policy relates
specifically to the proposals that we are discussing.
The second, perhaps more sinister and worrying, aspect
of the Government's proposals is their attempt to deny the
legitimacy of decisions taken by democratically elected
representatives. Given what goes on inside the Labour
party, we are well aware that the Government have tried
to manipulate votes so that the centre of the party here in
London gets its own way. Let us consider the vote for the
Labour leadership in Wales. However, the electorate in
Falkirk, West
The Chairman: Order. May I suggest that the hon.
Lady sticks to the statutory instruments under discussion?
Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I had almost
finished my sentence; I was saying how the Government,
through their internal arrangements, try to deny the
legitimacy of democratically taken decisions, which is
what they are doing in the introduction of school
organisation committees.
Under current arrangements, decisions about the
structure and organisation of schools in a local education
authority area are taken initially by that authority's
democratically elected councillors as representatives of
the local electorate. They are then passed on for a final
decision to be made by the Secretary of State who,
again, is democratically elected and to whom local
Members of Parliament can make representations and take
delegations to express the concerns of local residents.
Both decision-making groups local councillors or the
Secretary of State are democratically elected.
Under the regulations, when the local council has
decided on a school's organisation, that decision cannot
then be passed directly to the Secretary of State. Inserted
in the process is the new body, the school organisation
committee whose membership and structure is set out in
SI 700. That Committee is interposed between the local
education authority and the person who decides on the
school organisation structure for the area.
The school organisation committee is not an elected
representative committee, but it will now be interposed in
the process. Beyond that committee, however, decisions
do not go to the Secretary of State as an elected
representative but to the adjudicator a new role, referred
to in SI 701. Those are our general concerns. As I said,
however, we wish to make some detailed comments on
the proposals.
Yet more bureaucraacy is being put into place; more
administrative burdens are being imposed on local
authorities; and more people will be appointed to yet more
committees. The Government may think it useful to be
able to make appointments to so many local committees,
but it takes decision-making power away from those
elected local councillors who serve on the local education
authority. That is our main concern. The Standing
Committee expressed a similar concern when it
considered the 1998 Act; and the same view was
forcefully expressed when the Act was debated in the
other place.
SI 700 deals with the membership of the committee. It
takes some time to get one's mind around the various
regulations. So many sub-paragraphs, clauses and
schedules have to be referred to determine the
membership of the committee that I may not have fully
grasped it. I therefore have several questions.
My main questions are about the schools group.
Complicated decisions have to be made about the number
of people from the schools group who can be members of
the school organisation committee, and about the
constituencies that they are appointed to represent. I
understand that there must be a mixture; there must be a
member from each of the different types of school
primary, secondary, special and middle school. Overlaid on that, however, is a desire to ensure that each category of school community, voluntary and foundation is
represented. That representation will depend on the
percentage of pupils in the area who are educated within
the various categories of school.
The local education authority in my area covers most of
my constituency. I have no foundation schools or special
schools, but I do have some secondary and primary
voluntary schools. I understand that no one will be
appointed from the special school and middle school
sector, but that the number from primary and secondary
schools in that schools group will be divided; some will
come from the secondary and primary community schools
and some will come from other groups. I realise,
Mr. Cunningham, that I have made my first error. The
only voluntary schools that are allowed in that category
are non-Roman Catholic or Church of England.
In my constituency, only one primary school and one
secondary school would be represented. Will the Minister
say whether, in such a scenario, it would be possible to
have so few representatives from the schools group? At
the other extreme, the number of types and categories of
schools paints a more diverse picture. There could be
10 members from the schools group, to ensure that the
10 per cent. of secondary pupils who were being educated
at a foundation secondary school could be represented
separately in that schools group.
The number of people from the schools group can
therefore vary significantly, from as few as two, or
perhaps three where there is a special school, to as many
as 10 or so. I would like clarification from the Minister
on that point. I should also like clarification on the issue
of someone who is a governor of both a primary and a
secondary school; if that person were appointed to the
school organisation committee, would he or she represent
both schools or would each school need separate
representation?
The total number of representatives on the committee
is also a matter of concern. There could be as few as 37
although that is hardly a small number of people sitting
around a table or as many as 45. We all know the
difficulty of arriving at decisions in a committee and of
deciding the correct number of representatives, but 45
people debating the issues could make the
decision-making process more cumbersome than even the
Government had intended. Paradoxically, 45 people will
not mean 45 votes. There will be only one vote per group;
groups will therefore have to decide their single vote
outside the meeting in order to bring it to the meeting. So
we would have a large number of people debating the
issue but a small number of votes to determine whether a
committee approves a school organisation plan.
The question of balance on the committee is also
important. The Opposition have consistently supported
church schools and have concerns about the long-term
implications for them of the School Standards and
Framework Act 1998. Under the regulations, the Roman
Catholic and the Church of England diocese concerned
can each have up to seven representatives on the
Committee, whereas in an area such as my own, the
schools group, consisting of the members of governing
bodies, could have as few as two or three representatives.
The Minister may say that in such circumstances, the
churches would be expected to examine carefully the
number of people that they appoint to the committee and
that ultimately a group would have only one vote. Why,
then, allow for a maximum of seven people in each
group? That maximum number also applies to the Further
Education Funding Council for England, which is now to
be brought into the decisions; it was not involved in them
when they were taken by local education authorities. Does
the Minister intend that the FEFC will always have the
further education vote, if I can call it that? If the post-16
review were to change and a single body, as under
published proposals for Wales, were to be responsible for
considering all post-16 education, would that be
represented on the committee rather than the FEFC?
I also have a question about special schools. As the
Minister knows, the issue of special educational needs has
consistently been raised in the discussions on the School
Standards and Framework Act because of a concern to
ensure that SEN and special schools are properly
represented and given a voice in such arrangements. As I
understand the schedule to SI 700, if there were one or
more special schools in a local education authority but
they had less than five per cent. of the total pupils, would
they still be assured representation on the school
organisation committee? It is important that special
schools are involved in such decisions.
SI 701 deals with school organisation plans and refers
to the possible submission of a draft plan to the
adjudicator.
The local eduction authority will decide a draft plan on
which consultation will take place. The plan and
comments on it will be considered by the new body, the
school organisation committee, which will have three
options. It could say, "Yes, the local authority's got it
right, regardless of any comments and objections. We
approve its school organisation plan." However, it could
say that it does not approve the plan and wishes to
produce its own proposals, which could, as I understand
it, be based on proposals made by community groups,
school staff or parents, or on an amalgam of comments
made about the sort of draft plan that might work, The
third option is that it could refuse to make a plan of its
own and refer the matter to the adjudicator.
Where there is controversy about a plan's details, an
adjudicator will decide on it. Adjudicators are not elected
but appointed by the Secretary of State. Under other
regulations that we have not brought to debate in
Committee, adjudicators will not know the local area on
which they will make decisions. They cannot live in the
area and must not have been involved in the local
education authority for a certain amount of time.
Currently, the local education authority the
democratically elected councillors takes such decisions,
which are referred to the Secretary of State, to whom
Members of Parliament have rights to take delegations
and make representations. The change will be from
a process in which the democratically elected
representatives of the people make decisions, to one in
which decisions will go through a cumbersome
organisation committee and end with an adjudicator
appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by
anyone. That is at the heart of our concerns about the
proposals.
I am also concerned about the voting procedure in the
regulations, which is backed up by the voting procedure in
the School Standards and Framework Act. As I suggested
earlier, each group does not have a number of votes
according to the number of members present when
determining whether a draft plan is correct, but one vote
only for each group. As I understand it, what matters is
the number of votes of those present and voting on the
specific day on which the decision is taken. A group
represented by a small number of members who are not
present and have not, for various practical reasons, been
able to appoint alternates would not have a vote in that
decision on the school organisation plan. The fact that a
meeting may be called at only seven days' notice may
cause practical problems in appointing alternates.
Why put a procedure in place that means that a group
need not be represented when the final decision is taken
on the school organisation plan if the Government are
serious about all the different groups having a say in it?
That is a matter of concern. The Minister may say that
certain people have a right to take the decision over and
above the right of councillors, the elected representatives
of the local electorate. If so, surely a preferable scenario
would involve each group having to be represented on the
school organisation committee at the time at which the
vote is taken.
Those are my detailed comments and, as I said in my
opening remarks, we have two main concerns about the
proposals. They are cumbersome and over-bureaucratic
and put in place an administratively burdensome structure
for local education authorities and for decision-making
on school organisation in any area. Perhaps more
significantly, they take the decision-making power away
from those who have been democratically elected and
give it to those who have been appointed.
Our greatest concern about the proposals is that the
adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State will not
know the local area or be from it, but will sit in judgment
over the structure of schools and decide whether to go
against the decisions taken by those elected to represent
the interests of the local electorate. Those interests could
be cast aside by someone appointed by the Secretary of
State.
10.50 am
| 
