Voter Registration Bill
Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Christopher Chope(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Christopher Chope
No, I am not. Indeed, that was what prompted me to introduce the Bill. After the general election, I spoke, in my naivety, to the Electoral Commission to inquire what it was doing to ensure that people who were registered in more than one constituency did not vote more than once. It became apparent that the commission does not have a national register, and therefore is not able to say whether a Mr David Jones in one constituency is the same Mr David Jones who voted in another constituency. That is why I have introduced the Bill.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I have every sympathy for what my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is trying to achieve, but would clause 1(2) place an onerous burden on local authorities in respect of the checks required? Alternatively, does my hon. Friend envisage a national register such as that which he has just mentioned being brought into force as part of the Bill’s implementation?
Sir Christopher Chope
I envisage a national register. Indeed, I think the Government’s policy is to introduce a national register. I would be the first person to accept that the Bill is probably not perfectly drafted, and that anybody who wanted to try to undermine it would be able to do so.
Christchurch and East Dorset Councils: Proposed Abolition
Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Christopher Chope(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
I will not give way. My hon. Friend has already taken up my time in raising a spurious point of order, and I will not give way to him again.
When after seven weeks of asking questions I received the admission that the financial figures were based upon the creation of a new town council, I inquired as to why Christchurch would choose to create a new town council when the consultation document at page 3 assured its readers:
“The two unitary councils would deliver the services currently provided by the six District and Borough Councils”.
No clear answer has been given to my question about what extra services beyond those already being provided in Christchurch would be funded with an extra £150 per year band D council tax. With 21,332 properties paying band D, as an average this amounts to over £3.8 million a year from Christchurch, subsidising this proposition.
The guile exhibited in the consultation is such that it is hard to regard it as merely accidental. If it had been, one would have expected an immediate admission that the prospectus was false. Page 4 of the consultation states:
“Councils would need to make sure that, within an agreed period of time, all residents of one council area pay the same—a process called council tax harmonisation.”
Page 9 explains further:
“This assumes an approach in which over a twenty year period…all the council tax rates in all areas within a new unitary council eventually become the same”.
It is now clear, however, that on the basis of the consultation, council tax rates and bills for citizens in Christchurch will always be higher than for those in Poole and Bournemouth under two of the unitary options, and would always be higher than for those in East Dorset, North Dorset—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset—Purbeck and West Dorset under the third unitary option. Not only is this fact not disclosed in the consultation; it is actively covered up.
The only justification put forward for abolishing Christchurch and East Dorset Councils is financial. The consultation paper states that option 1 would result in East Dorset having a cumulative shortfall of £0.3 million between 2019 and 2025, and Christchurch a surplus of £0.1 million. Such figures would certainly not justify abolition. Some council leaders argue, however, that because the shortfall across Dorset as a whole would be £30 million, reorganisation is justified. Now, £30 million over six years might sound like a lot of money, but when put into the context that Dorset councils are currently spending £920 million a year—£5.52 billion over the six years—it means we are talking about just 0.5% of total turnover. When set against the costs of reorganisation, estimated at £25 million, and the assumptions behind the figures of continuing to increase local government spending by 4% per annum—I think it extraordinary, but that is the assumption—the case for abolition looks incredibly weak.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful. My hon. Friend has mentioned Purbeck, which falls within my constituency, as does East Dorset. Does he accept two things? First, does he accept that there will be an opportunity for each and every council in Dorset to debate this and vote on it later in January? Secondly, does he accept that there is a range of views, on a spectrum perhaps from his views to those of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)?
Mr Chope
Exactly. I had a very civilised conversation yesterday with the deputy leader and chief executive of Purbeck Council. My hon. Friend is quite right that there will be plenty of opportunities, but what I am keen to do in this debate is to make sure that we have a discussion on the basis of the facts. The shortcomings of the consultation so far have meant that the facts have been covered up from the people.
As with all such possible changes, the beneficiaries are keen to shout loudest. Both Bournemouth and Poole Councils have chosen over recent years to freeze their council taxes, while Christchurch and East Dorset have been more realistic in their approach. It is insulting to my constituents that Poole and Bournemouth should now expect Christchurch residents to subsidise their councils—currently in the case of Poole £196 lower than in Christchurch and £161 lower in Bournemouth.
Council taxes in Christchurch and East Dorset are very similar to the national average, which was £1,484 in 2015-16, while the average tax in East Dorset over the same period was £1,720, the second highest in England, and £1,756—the highest—in Weymouth and Portland. Although only tangential to tonight’s debate, I am not sure how many people living in the Weymouth borough realise that under the proposals in the consultation paper they would continue to have to pay at least £150 extra each year compared with other parts of rural Dorset.
There are many other elements of the proposals for change that have not yet been sufficiently revealed. The first is that no savings are assumed across adult social care, children’s services and education—the three upper-tier responsibilities that consume the most money. Nor has the motivation of those seeking a unitary solution been highlighted as wishing to squeeze out local discretionary services provided by district councils so that that income is available to supplement statutory services such as adult social care. Most crucially, the consultation document does not make it clear that option 1 is the most financially beneficial option—unless Christchurch and Weymouth and Portland pay extra for town councils for no additional service.
A document from Local Partnerships headed “Overall Summary without Town Councils” seems to have been suppressed. What it shows, however, is that over the six-year period from 2019-20, the difference between the amounts of council tax forgone in the unitary option for a medium conurbation is £8 million higher on the assumption that there is no town council than it would be with new town councils. That is the extent to which the people of Christchurch are subsidising this proposed project. The financial merit of no change is that each council continues to have the freedom to maximise its increases in council tax in line with Government rules, should it so wish. Having been so cruelly misled by the documents—and, incidentally, at roadshows and focus groups—my constituents cannot have any confidence in the objectivity of the consultation process. Any purported outcome will be invalidated by the inadequacy of the process, and the inherent prejudice and bias in it.
If Dorset councils remain keen to progress the idea of creating new unitaries in place of existing structures, they should launch a fresh consultation based on objective data and with assumptions that are transparent. The process should also enable every household to express its opinion, which happened when the Local Government Commission for England undertook a similar exercise in 1995.
About four months ago, I led an Adjournment debate on the issue of beach huts in Christchurch. As a result of that debate, councillors were lobbied very strongly by people living in the town, and the beach huts proposal was abandoned. I hope that as I have this evening drawn the attention of my constituents to the gravity of the current proposal, they will again lobby their councillors successfully to reject it.
St Ives First School
Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Christopher Chope(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered plans by St Ives First School to become a primary school.
My constituents are fortunate in being able to choose from some of the best schools in the country—primary and secondary in the southern part of the constituency and first, middle and secondary in the northern part. They also benefited from the previous Government’s emphasis on driving up standards while promoting parental choice—policies for which the Minister deserves much credit, and which I am delighted he is taking forward in his new post in the new real Conservative Government.
Today’s debate centres on St Ives First School, a one-form entry first school, with a reception class, situated on the Dorset side of the Dorset-Hampshire border. It is rated outstanding by Ofsted, and has been for seven years. As a recognised national teaching school, it provides school-to-school support to other schools that seek improvement. Its head teacher, Mrs Laura Crossley, who has come to Westminster for today’s debate, is also an accredited national leader of education.
On 24 September last year, the Secretary of State agreed in principle to St Ives becoming an academy, and it has now been confirmed that the school will be a leading member of a multi-academy trust with five other schools, with effect from 2 November this year. For some time St Ives has suffered from turbulence and instability, because although it is geographically in Dorset, the nearest secondary school is about 1 mile away in Ringwood, Hampshire. Because Hampshire has a two-tier system, parents with pupils at St Ives have often opted to move into the Hampshire system early, to secure a Hampshire primary school place from which a transfer could be made to the Ringwood academy at the age of 11. Indeed, there are currently 141 children from the St Ives catchment area in years 7 to 11 at Ringwood academy. That shows how parents have been voting with their feet in recent years.
Prior to the new flexibilities introduced by the previous Government, the school could do nothing about that problem, but last year the governors decided to increase the age range, so that St Ives would become a primary school whose pupils could transfer directly into secondary education at age 11. After initial consultation going back to the autumn, a full proposal document was put forward to all relevant stakeholders on 24 February. I submitted a letter of support referring to the fact that 98% of the parents supported the proposed changes, which would also increase parental choice. A public meeting was held at the school during the four-week consultation period. Dorset County Council attended in the person of the cabinet member responsible for those issues, who did not say anything specific at the time. However, on the last day for written responses the county council put in its objection.
The governing body looked carefully at the results of the consultation and decided unanimously on 16 April, as it had the power to do, to increase the age range by one year in September 2015 and by a further year in September 2016. That reflected the finding that the parents of 19 out of the 23 pupils currently in year 4 would prefer their children to stay on at St Ives in September than to transfer to a Dorset middle school or a Hampshire primary. The St Ives governors recognised that that would mean that some children—perhaps as many as seven—who would normally have transferred to West Moors Middle School would no longer do so.
The local authority had suggested, wrongly, that 18 children were due to transfer from St Ives to West Moors Middle this September. The school’s records show that there are only 11 in that category. Two are going to West Moors Middle in any event and four have accepted places in Hampshire should St Ives not become a primary school. That means that if St Ives were to have its extra form from September, five children would no longer go to West Moors Middle School.
From the local education authority’s objection, one would think that the sky will fall in as a result. It talks about a middle school in Dorset having to close and about tens of millions of pounds of extra expenditure, and so on. That is complete hyperbole and an indication of how out of touch the education authority is with things on the ground. Indeed, we are now told that West Moors Middle School will be oversubscribed this coming September; parents of pupils who still show allegiance to St Ives are being warned that if they do not do something now, it will be too late for them to get into West Moors Middle in any event.
What was the response of the county council to the decision of 16 April? To begin with, the education authority tried to find fault with the proposed accommodation, site security, financial planning and the impact on the pre-school. It even threatened to issue a notice to improve. That led to a meeting at the school on 12 May when most of the grounds of objection were shown to be without foundation. Most fundamentally, the local education authority had to accept that St Ives was constructed as a primary school and operated as one until the county boundaries changed in 1974. It is also a strong school financially.
On 18 May, Mr Minns, head of learning and inclusion at Dorset, wrote to the chairman of the governors concluding that, following the discussion of the local authority’s concerns about the school’s management of the process to convert from a first to a primary school, those concerns had been satisfactorily addressed. That was subject to three caveats, one of which was to ask a local authority officer to
“undertake a new assessment of the space in potential readiness for September 2016”.
That was an implicit acceptance that the year 5 accommodation for September 2015 was readily available, as indeed it is. Understandably, the school believed that the education authority was, albeit reluctantly, accepting the decision, particularly when the 28-day period for objection laid down in the school organisation guidance for maintained schools expired. At page 10, the statutory process guidelines say that
“Any appeal to the adjudicator”—
in this case, the Secretary of State—
“must be made within 4 weeks of the decision.”
The Dorset County Council cabinet considered that issue on 8 April and concluded:
“The local authority will retain its right to refer to the Secretary of State should the decision by the Governing Body of St Ives First School, after consultation, not address the concerns raised by the local authority”.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I, of course, accept the principle and benefits of parental choice, but does he agree that the St Ives proposal should be properly co-ordinated and consulted on, as he was outlining, so that neighbouring schools that are affected, such as St Michael’s in Colehill, can make the necessary consequential arrangements in a timely fashion?
Mr Chope
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected. He is absolutely right: we obviously need to have proper consultation, and that is exactly what happened. I have a letter dated 20 March from the head of Allenbourn Middle School, on behalf of the Dorset Association of Middle Schools, thanking the governing body of St Ives for ensuring that an effective consultation process took place within an appropriate time span and providing all stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views. Therefore, there was a full consultation, despite the county council’s reluctance to provide the pupil number data, for which the school had been asking for many months. The school was eventually able to obtain them only through a freedom of information request. There has been good co-operation with other schools, but I fear that the breakdown has been with the local education authority itself.
After the four weeks expired, people thought the local authority would have to go along, however reluctantly, with the proposal. On 5 May, I wrote to the leader of the council, Robert Gould, attaching a letter from a parent of a pupil at St Ives that was typical of many others I received. I drew attention to the Conservative principle of promoting choice in education, and I reminded him of our Conservative manifesto, which states:
“We believe that parents and teachers should be empowered to run their schools independently.”
It also states:
“We will continue to allow all good schools to expand, whether they are maintained schools, academies, free schools or grammar schools.”
Indeed, St Ives wishes to expand by increasing its age range.
After referring to the enthusiasm of the parents, governors and staff at St Ives about the introduction of a new year group from September, I sought the assurance of the leader of the council that the education authority would not seek to restrict the ambition of the school to extend educational opportunity further. In his response, the leader of the council referred to the lack of physical space for extra classes and raised questions about future finances. However, he said:
“Officers at the Council are keen to keep open discussions with the School”.
The meeting at the school on 12 May, to which I have referred, flowed from that, and I followed up the matter with the council leader with a further email on that date. Having heard nothing further, on 26 May I asked what was happening, repeating my earlier suggestion that it would be better to have a meeting to discuss things than to engage in an adversarial situation.
On 27 May, the council leader wrote to me expressing his continuing concerns. He relied on a note from somebody called Jackie Groves. The content of that note was in stark contrast with the letter from Mr Minns. I was going to refer to its inflammatory remarks about the quality of education at Ringwood School, the criticism of St Ives school governors and the school authorities for being
“extremely difficult to work with and reticent to provide information”.
Fortunately, Mr Minns confirmed this morning in an email to Mrs Crossley, the head, that the document was merely an internal memo and did not represent the official view of the authority. However, that is the document on which the leader of the council was relying when he objected to the proposal.
On 27 May, a letter was sent to the Secretary of State objecting to the proposal, but it did not arrive with the Secretary of State until 3 June. A second letter of objection was issued a couple of days later. Those letters of objection raise fundamental issues relating to the ability of a school such as St Ives to increase its age range. They ask for the Secretary of State effectively to go back on the “School organisation (maintained schools)” guidance.
I hope the Secretary of State will make a quick decision on this matter. The quickest decision would be to say that the objection is out of time, which would enable the school to get on with planning for the future. It would also enable other middle schools that might be implicated to make decisions as well. We are now in the second half of the summer term, and a new school year is starting in September. The education authority has said it is concerned about the implications for everybody else, but it has been dragging its feet over the whole issue.
If the Secretary of State is not prepared to reject the objection on the grounds that it is out of time, I hope she will make a decision quickly on its merits and conclude that the county council’s case is unfounded in fact, is contradictory within itself and would run counter to all the new Government’s principles relating to expanding choice in education and ensuring that good schools—in this case, an outstanding school—are able to expand, where that is the will of the parents and governors.
The proposal enjoys the support of 98% of the parents of pupils at St Ives school. I hope the Minister will help them to have a happy weekend by giving them some warm words of encouragement.