School Funding: North-east of England
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(7 years 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
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. I, too, will be sorry to lose the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I have enjoyed debating and sparring with the hon. Member for Hartlepool over many years, both in his role as a Minister for Education and in his more welcome role as a shadow Minister for Education. He carried out both roles with intelligence, humour and application, and I know that I shall miss those debates in the years ahead.
I trust that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West agrees that we share the ambition to see a country that works for everyone and where all children have access to an excellent education that unlocks talent and creates opportunity, regardless of where they live, their background, ability or need. We are introducing the national funding formula in order to tackle the unfairness in the current funding system, using up-to-date data rather than 10-year-old data. That is why, contrary to what has been said today, under the national funding formula hon. Members will see increases in their funding.
I accept that schools face cost pressures, and I will come to those issues in a moment, but let us get the facts clear. Schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) will see a £1.6 million increase in funding overall as a direct consequence of the national funding formula. That is a 3.6% increase—85% of schools in her constituency will see an increase in funding. Funding to schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) will increase by £0.8 million, which is a 1.4% increase in spending. She mentioned Holystone Primary School. That school’s funding will rise from £1.43 million in 2016-17 to £1.47 million, on the basis of the new national funding formula—a 2.7% rise. That is a direct consequence of the national funding formula.
As a direct consequence of the new national funding formula, funding to schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will rise by £0.6 million—a 1.3% increase—and schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) will see an increase in funding of £0.3 million, which is a 0.7% rise. He mentioned Sedgefield Community College, where he went to school. That school’s income will rise from £5.332 million to £5.384 million—a rise of 1%—as a direct consequence of the national funding formula. It is important to distinguish the national funding formula from other cost pressures affecting schools, which I will come to in a moment. Those cost pressures are being absorbed across the public sector.
Mr Iain Wright
I am thankful for, and moved by, the Minister’s tributes to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and other colleagues. He talked about funding increases in general terms, which is true, but we are also seeing record pupil numbers. Will he pledge that, as part of the national funding formula, we will see a rise in funding per pupil in the next Parliament? Just to clarify, I am not dead—at least, not yet.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She would have been better to avoid the issue of private sector pension schemes because of the enormous damage that was done by the Labour Government in those early years, in the July 1997 Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, they took £100 billion out of private sector pension funds, which at that time had an asset value of £650 billion. It was the envy of the world, and £100 billion was a very large proportion of that sum.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s acceptance of this very important Bill and the fact that the Labour Opposition will support it in the Lobby. Despite her assertion, my view is that the negotiations were handled extremely well by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the individual Departments involved. There was engagement and a willingness to compromise, but there was also a firm approach to ensure fairness between the taxpayer and the public sector employee.
I support the Bill not just because of its importance in tackling this country’s historically high budget deficit, but because of its vital importance to ensuring that we have high-quality, well-rewarded public sector employees, in the teaching profession in particular. We need a well-rewarded profession that continues to enjoy a defined benefit pension scheme on a sustainable basis when such schemes are increasingly rare in other sectors of the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said, even without the budget deficit, these reforms are necessary to tackle increased costs and life expectancy.
The Government’s education reforms are built on trusting the teaching profession, ensuring that we have the best people coming into teaching, and raising the status of the profession. Indeed, the schools White Paper was called “The Importance of Teaching”. In the opening chapters it made the point:
“The evidence from around the world shows us that the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a school system is the quality of its teachers. The best education systems draw their teachers from the most academically able”.
Countries around the world that have the best education systems, such as Singapore and Finland, recruit their teachers from the top third of their graduates, and South Korea recruits from the top 5%, but Singapore and South Korea pay their teachers more than any other country in the world relative to average earnings in their own country. Finland pays its teachers at about the OECD average.
In its 2007 report, “How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top”, McKinsey made the important point that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. Its 2010 report, “Closing the talent gap: attracting and retaining top third graduates to a career in teaching”, looked at precisely how Singapore, Finland and South Korea manage to recruit graduates from the top third. It concluded that the key to recruiting the best graduates is attractive starting salaries and attractive top salaries.
A report that examined the US education system concluded that a starting salary of $65,000 and a top salary of $150,000 were needed. In this country starting salaries outside London are about £21,600 and £27,000 in London. Top salaries for teachers are about £105,000 outside London and £112,000 in London. Although the McKinsey report was about the United States and looked at the US employment market, it is nevertheless fair to draw the conclusion that compensation packages are an important element in determining the calibre of graduates recruited into teaching, and pensions are an important part of that remuneration package. Defined benefit schemes are particularly attractive, and in my view they are an important part of that package, which is why the Bill is so important.
In his final report Lord Hutton stated:
“Given the current design of public service pension schemes, the general public cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”
The issue of sustainability is therefore critical. Is a scheme sustainable in terms of its costs, given increased life expectancy? As Lord Hutton pointed out,
“In 1841, someone who reached the age of 60 might expect to live a further 14 years on average, but most people did not live to this age. By the early 1970s…the life expectancy of a 60 year old had increased to about 18 years and this has now risen to around 28 years. In addition, many more people can now expect to reach 60.”
Public service pension costs have been rising significantly over recent years—by a third in the past decade to £32 billion. Expenditure on teachers’ pensions is projected to double from £5 billion in 2005-06 to almost £10 billion in 2015-16. As Hutton pointed out,
“between 1999-2000 and 2009-10 the amount of benefits paid from the five largest public service pension schemes increased by 32 per cent. This increase in costs was mainly driven by an increase in the number of pensioners, a result of the expansion of the public service workforce over the last four decades, longer life expectancy and the extension of pension rights for early leavers and women.”
Hutton also said that it was important to look at the pension position as a whole, comparing the situation in the public and private sectors. One of the over-arching principles was to achieve fairness between taxpayers and public sector employees. The divergence, he said, between the public and private sectors is of concern. That does not mean, as the hon. Member for Leeds West asserted, that public service pensions should follow the trend in the private sector. Hutton said:
“This downward drift in pension provision in the private sector does not however provide sufficient support or justification in my view for the argument that pensions in the public sector must therefore automatically follow the same course. I regard this as a counsel of despair. In making clear I believe there is a case for further reform I have therefore rejected a race to the bottom as the only answer, and hope that reformed public service pensions can be seen as once again providing a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards.”
It is worth pausing a moment to look at how extensive this downward drift in private sector pension provision was, and its causes. According to the 2010 occupational pension scheme survey by the Office for National Statistics, the peak provision of occupational pensions was in the mid-1960s, when there more than 12 million active members, of whom 8 million were in the private sector and 4 million were in the state sector. By the mid-1990s active membership had fallen to about 11 million, but 90% of that 11 million continued to have defined benefit schemes. This means that more than 5.5 million private sector employees of that time were in some form of final salary or defined benefit scheme. By 2010 membership had fallen to 2.1 million and, as Hutton points out, only about 1 million of those members were in schemes that were still open to new members and an increasing number of schemes were closing to new accruals for existing members.
The fall in membership was due in part to the private sector making a realistic assessment of the costs of increased life expectancy. There had been a modest trend away from defined benefit schemes and towards defined contribution schemes in recent years, but that accelerated after 1997, in my view because of the decision taken by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in his first Budget to end the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds and other tax-free funds, which took about £3.5 billion a year from pension funds. At the time, Britain’s private sector pensions were the envy of the world, with assets of more than £650 billion.
Many people, including in the pensions industry, said that that policy would have a very damaging effect on pension provision. Treasury civil servants shared those misgivings. In 2007 the Treasury was forced to release a number of internal papers from 1997 assessing the likely impact of the policy to end the repayment of dividend tax credits. A Treasury paper, dated 15 May 1997 and headed “Paper Four: Pension Schemes and Insurers”, pointed out that 90% of employees in occupational pension schemes had defined benefits but warned:
“In recent years we have seen a small but steady shift towards defined contribution schemes.”
The Treasury paper alerted Ministers to the risks arising from ending the repayment of dividend tax credits, stating:
“The present shift towards defined contribution schemes might accelerate…One of the claimed merits of defined contributions schemes is that they give employers more control over costs since the investment risk is transferred away from employers and onto employees. This factor would become ever more relevant with the proposed tax credit change.”
Despite that clear warning, the right hon. Gentleman pressed ahead with the policy, and the predictions made by his civil servants have come to fruition. That is why we have the problems we face today and why we are debating the Bill.
Mr Iain Wright
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1997 Budget. First, what does he think was the impact of the then Chancellor’s decision to cut corporation tax by 2p in the pound with the aim of encouraging more long-term investment in pension funds? Secondly, what impact does he think the long payment holidays for employers have had on defined contribution and defined benefit schemes?
Mr Gibb
The whole basis of the decision was the argument that the stock market was rising and so the tax cut would lead to more profits, more dividends and further rises in the stock market. Unfortunately, after 2000 the stock market started to fall and the whole basis of the argument fell apart, and therein lies the problem. Those pension holidays were temporary because of the over-exuberant stock market. Indeed, the Treasury papers from 1997, released under duress in 2007, made the point to Ministers that there was a danger that the stock market was overvalued.
As a consequence, the public sector faced a situation in which the private sector was moving away wholesale from final salary and defined benefit schemes while it was increasingly becoming the exclusive preserve of such schemes. The issue of fairness thus became paramount, particularly as the cost of those schemes was rising so quickly. Although Hutton rejected the notion that public sector pensions were gold-plated, he did conclude that longer-term structural reform was needed because
“current schemes had proved unable to respond flexibly to changes in working lives and longevity.”
Therefore, the only way to ensure that teachers and other public sector employees continued to enjoy high-quality defined benefit pensions was to engage in structural reform.
The final arrangements represent a very good deal. They now link the normal pension age to the state pension age in order to deal with longevity issues. No one within 10 years of retirement age will be affected by the changes and there is a tapering arrangement for those within 13 years of retirement. Although final salary schemes will be replaced by career average schemes from April 2015, all the accrued rights to that date will be maintained and the final salary will be the final salary on retirement, not the final salary in April 2015, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirmed again today. Career average is still a defined benefit scheme, and it is fairer. Its generosity, of course, depends on the actual accrual rate. Currently the teachers’ pension final salary accrual rate is one 60th, and that will become more generous under the new scheme, with an accrual rate of one 57th. The salary that determines the career average will be indexed by CPI plus 1.6%, as far as teachers are concerned, although that varies in the different schemes.
These arrangements have been accepted by the Association of School and College Leaders, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers union and the National Association of Head Teachers, which have said that they are planning no further action over pension reform. These arrangements, and the Bill that will implement them, will ensure that public sector employees, including teachers, can continue to benefit from a defined benefit pension scheme that is sustainable in the long term and that will be supported by the public. That, along with other education reforms, will help to ensure the teachers are well rewarded and that we will have a teaching profession that continues to see its status rise and, with it, standards in our state schools. I fully support the Bill and, if there is a Division tonight, look forward to voting for its Second Reading.
Education Bill
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gibb
Yes, and innovative sittings.
New clause 20 seeks to give pupil referral units in England greater autonomy, to enable them to provide vulnerable children with high-quality education and support. In the schools White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, we announced that we would give PRUs control over their budgets and staffing. We had intended to use PRU regulations to achieve the financial control aspect of that objective, but although we could do that, the regulations would become very complex and difficult to understand and use. The easiest and clearest way to achieve the objective is to amend section 45 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, so that the provisions on school finances apply to PRU management committees. That is what new clause 20 does.
This is a small change, but its effect will be significant, and we believe that it will be an important driver for further improvement in the PRU sector. In common with our other education reforms, it is based on the trust that we place in the teaching profession and our desire to give schools of all kinds the freedom and autonomy to run their own affairs.
Mr Gibb
We can talk about those qualitative issues when we discuss the quantitative ones in the meeting that I just offered. I am happy to do that.
On assessment, the hon. Lady referred to the special educational needs Green Paper, which states clearly in paragraph 3.55:
“We know that there is a group of children with SEN who are currently excluded on multiple occasions on a fixed-term basis, and there may be other excluded pupils whose SEN have not yet been identified.”
That paragraph also states:
“we will recommend in exclusion guidance that children are assessed through an effective multi-agency assessment for any underlying causal factors. We will suggest that schools trigger this assessment in instances in which a pupil displays poor behaviour that does not improve despite effective behaviour management by the school.”
I quoted that in Committee and I quote it again today, to show that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that those assessments take place.
I think people have heard enough of me—
Mr Gibb
Thank you.
Finally, let me turn to new clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I fully understand his concerns about the proposed change to the pupil registration regulations that apply when parents choose to remove their children from school to home educate them. My hon. Friend now knows that we shall not proceed with the change in its present form, and I hope that I can further reassure him by explaining the thinking that led us to propose the regulation change in the first place, and what we intend to do now. As he said, the change would have required schools to retain pupils on the roll for 20 school days following a parent’s decision to remove their child from school for home education. If the parents change their minds, the child could be re-admitted to the school. I was attracted by that proposition, as was my hon. Friend.
The Government’s policy remains that parents are responsible for their children’s education. They have the right to choose to fulfil that responsibility by educating their children themselves, rather than by sending them to school, and we have no desire to interfere with that right. The proposed change in the regulations was intended to protect any children whose parents had reluctantly decided to home educate against their own better judgment—for example, those who would rather their child went to school, but who have concerns about the school that they feel it has not addressed. That group is not typical of the majority of home educators, who in my experience are determined, committed and passionate people. Having considered the issue further and taken into account the views of home educators and those of my hon. Friend, I am not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address the concern. Therefore, we are considering other policy options. However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for tabling new clause 22, which has enabled me to put that on the record.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s free schools policy seems to be shrouded in secrecy, rather like the whereabouts of 500 ministerial responses to Members’ unanswered parliamentary questions. At a time when mainstream schools face severe cuts in their budgets, local areas must be able to judge whether free schools offer the best use of public money. The Minister failed to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), so I shall give him another go. Will he tell us how much money has been promised to free schools for 2010-11 and 2011-12, and where that money is coming from?
Mr Gibb
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that £35 million has been allocated to free schools this year. We will be completely transparent about this. As soon as a free school opens, all the details of the funding agreement will be made public once all the figures relating to that school are known.
School Governance
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(13 years, 3 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
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this important debate on school governance. I know that the subject is close to his heart because he served as a school governor for four years prior to his election to the House. I join the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in pointing out the high quality of the debate and of the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Wirral West (Esther McVey).
There are some 300,000 school governors, which makes them one of the largest volunteer forces in the country. School governors work in their spare time to promote school improvement and to support head teachers and teachers in their work. They are an important part of the big society agenda and play a vital civic role. In the words of my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon and for Wirral West, they play a pivotal role in our schools system. Every one of the 300,000 school governors deserves our thanks for their work and time and, more importantly, for taking on such important responsibilities. We all know how difficult it is to find people locally to take on such responsibilities. It is easy to get volunteers, but there is often a poor show of hands when it comes to taking on responsibilities. We owe a huge debt of thanks to those who are prepared to take on such a role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole is right to question whether we are doing things in the right way. Our White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, was published in November and sets out the coalition Government’s intention to increase freedom and autonomy for schools and to remove unnecessary duties and burdens. It also states that we should allow schools to choose for themselves how best to develop, whether by acquiring academy status, by becoming multi-school trusts and federations—again, those were referred to by the hon. Gentleman—or by continued development as a maintained school. All that is to be underpinned by clear accountability and strong and effective governance.
As we work through our programme of reform, those freedoms need to be extended to school governors, so that they are given the flexibilities, support and recognition they deserve. We know that the quality of school governance has a significant impact on how well schools perform. Good governance and leadership at school level are key drivers in achieving better educational outcomes. Academies provide examples of smaller, high-powered governing bodies that have demonstrated rapid improvements in standards. The arrangements for academy governance allow for greater flexibility in the number and category of governors than in maintained schools, while ensuring that essential groups, such as parents, are always represented. They are charities, so it would not be appropriate or right for us to prescribe the exact composition and size of their governing body. That flexibility is a popular concept and there are many differing governance arrangements in converting schools. They are now able to constitute their governing body to suit their school and local needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon will recall, maintained school governing bodies, which include foundation schools, are constituted under the stakeholder model. That model prescribes representation from groups with an interest in the school: for example, parents, staff—including the head teacher—the community, the local authority and the foundation or trust, where schools have one. The model goes on to prescribe the representation from each group.
We want to make it easier for schools to adopt governance models that work for them and which clearly hold the school to account. That is why the Education Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education last Wednesday, includes provision to free up the constitution of maintained school governing bodies. We are legislating to provide that governing bodies will mirror the academies model and be required to have at least two elected parent governors and the head teacher, unless the head teacher chooses not to take up his position as a governor. Then, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned, they should be able to attend the governing body as the head teacher, but not as a full member of the governing body.
The church or foundation will still be able to appoint the majority of the governing body in voluntary aided and foundation schools. Other governors, such as authority governors, community governors, staff governors, partnership governors and associate members will be appointed at the discretion of the governing body, and in numbers determined by them. Academy governing bodies have built-in safeguards to prevent particular categories of governor from dominating the governing body; for example, staff governors cannot exceed one third of the total membership, and charity law prevents those connected with local authorities from having more than 20% of the membership. We will consider the effect of such restrictions in maintained schools, but we want to move to a less prescriptive model overall.
Mr Iain Wright
I apologise to the Minister if he is coming on to this point, but will he respond to an issue raised about the constitution of the governing body? The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) made important points about how to identify failure in school governance and what will constitute failure. What will be the mechanisms by which a local authority or some other body—perhaps the Secretary of State—can determine change within the governing body?
Mr Gibb
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come to the detailed questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West shortly.
We do not intend to prescribe any particular model, which is the overarching policy direction, as we believe that governing bodies are best placed to determine what will work best for them locally. It is important to point out that the changes will be permissive rather than mandatory, and that there is no intention to force any change on governing bodies. We will therefore encourage governing bodies to recruit more governors on a skills basis and carry out skills audits to inform that task. Those were also the conclusions of the working group on governance referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Hartlepool. Its report recommended clear accountability and felt that size was not the key issue for a governing body; a more important issue for the report was the skills of the governing body. It recommended that governing bodies should be free to recruit by relaxing the stakeholder model, which is precisely what the Government are introducing in the Education Bill.
We know that volunteers from a business background bring a valuable range of skills from the workplace to governing bodies, and are more likely to take on important responsibilities such as chairing committees or, indeed, chairing the governing body. To that end, we will continue to support the School Governors’ One-Stop Shop to recruit and place governor volunteers from the business world in schools with vacancies. That has been very successful: by the end of December it had recruited nearly 11,000 governors and placed them on to governing bodies with vacancies. In addition, the Education and Employers Taskforce is working with CEOs of large businesses to develop partnerships between schools, colleges and employers. It encourages senior business leaders to visit schools, and encourages staff with the right skills and experience to become school governors. In fact, I recently joined Sir Terry Leahy in a school in Hertfordshire during the “visit our schools and colleges” week.
Research tells us that where governing bodies are effective, they take a strategic role, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon pointed out, in guiding and supporting the school’s work and challenging further improvement. They should not get drawn into the day-to-day management that is rightly the province of the head teacher and senior leadership team. In the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, we set out a series of 10 key questions for governors to ask to assist them in setting their schools’ strategic direction and holding them to account, such as, “How are we going to raise standards? Have we got the right staff and the right development and reward arrangements? Do we have a sound financial strategy to get good value for money, and robust procurement and financial systems? Does the curriculum provide for and stretch all pupils?” My hon. Friend is right to say that the committee-based decision-making structure is appropriate for our governing bodies. Governing bodies already have the freedom to bring people with particular expertise on to committees as associate members, and they can commission work from people outside the governing bodies.
My hon. Friend referred to the issue of complaints, on which I want briefly to touch. Parents should be able to send their child to school confident that they are receiving the highest possible standard of education. Any problems should be dealt with by professionals in an appropriate and timely manner. There must be mechanisms in place for parents to express their concerns, secure in the knowledge that they will be dealt with quickly, effectively and fairly by all involved. Since September 2003, all schools have been required to have a complaints procedure, and that procedure has to be published. Generally, schools follow a three-part complaints procedure: investigation of a complaint by a staff member; investigation by the head teacher, or by the chair of the governors if it is about the head teacher; and a meeting of a panel of governors where the complaint has still not been resolved. Governing bodies must act in the interests of the children in their school and must rigorously ensure that those who serve on complaints panels conduct a fair and unprejudiced investigation. Challenge is part of the governor’s role, and a pattern of complaints can inform them of incipient problems in the school’s operation, in the same way that correspondence with an MP can alert us to an impending big political issue concerning how our country is run.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole brought out in his speech, in recent years schools have increasingly chosen to collaborate with other schools to achieve more for children and young people. Partnerships have taken a variety of forms, including local area clusters, as well as more formalised arrangements involving shared governance through federation, shared trusts and shared leadership, with heads taking responsibility for leading more than one school. The benefits of those partnerships are clear in extending the breadth and quality of provision; responding better to pupils’ wider needs; widening the impact of the strongest school leaders, teachers and governors; widening opportunities for collaborative professional development; and delivering greater value for money. There is not a single, best collaborative model; instead, schools can consider a variety of models and adapt them to suit local needs and circumstances.
Mr Wright
On that point and my earlier remarks about a move away from partnership and collaboration in the school family towards schools going it alone, how does the Minister reconcile his comments with the provisions in the Education Bill, most notably clauses 30 and 31, where the duty to co-operate with the local authority and the duty to have regard to the children and young people’s plan are abolished?
Mr Gibb
Legislation is not necessary to require people to co-operate. The best co-operation is engaged in because professionals feel it is the best approach for their school. We need to move away—the Government are moving away—from that tick-box, prescriptive and centralised approach to such issues. We believe that the best partnerships and collaborative arrangements are those that head teachers and governing bodies enter into voluntarily because they know they are in the best interests of their school. We do not want a school to feel bound to find a partner—in a behaviour partnership, for example—simply to fulfil a statutory requirement and to ensure that it has a box ticked when the Ofsted inspection comes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is always talking about collaboration between professional peers in our school system as a key to school improvement, which is why we are tripling the number of national and local leaders in education. Peer-to-peer mentoring is the key. Professionals working together and spreading best practice is the better way to ensure improvement in our school system, rather than a series of prescriptive statutory requirements for schools and bodies to enter into partnerships with other bodies.
I turn to the general context surrounding the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West raised about Calday Grange grammar school. She asked about resolving disputes between head teachers and the governors. All governing bodies have grievance procedures which they must follow to resolve complaints. She then asked how the situation can be resolved if the head teacher is ill, which is the case in this instance. The governing body is the employer, and it has to follow grievance procedures in cases of challenge over employment law. It needs to allow the head teacher to present his case, but he cannot do that, of course, if he is ill. That does not provide a solution but presents the legal framework around the current position.
My hon. Friend asked whether parents should be kept fully informed about what is happening during a dispute. Unfortunately, that is not always possible due to the need for confidentiality in some disputes. She asked whether parents should be allowed to decide the way forward. The answer to that is no, unfortunately. Parental views are represented on the governing body, but the governing body itself is responsible for the school. Of course, a responsible governing body should take parents’ views into account and expedite the resolution of matters, particularly when they are of enormous concern to the parents.
My hon. Friend asked when a governing body can be removed. There are three circumstances in which that can happen: when Ofsted has put the school in special measures; when Ofsted has found that the school requires significant improvement; or when the local authority has issued a warning notice and the governing body has failed to comply with it, or failed to comply satisfactorily. I know that she is concerned about the issue. Lord Hill of Oareford and I have corresponded with the governing body and the local authority about the matter, and we would be happy to discuss it with her further, if she would find that helpful.
In conclusion, I want to take the opportunity once again to pay tribute to our school governors, who are the unsung heroes and heroines of our education system. We should thank them for their work, and I am pleased to do that. I am sure that the increased freedom and autonomy for governing bodies, allied with our reduction of burdens and bureaucracy, will make a huge difference to their work as they seek to raise standards in schools, and will enable better deployment of their time and expertise.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gibb
It is possible for an academy order to be issued in September, while the details of the funding agreement are still being negotiated. These things are very complicated, and it might take several weeks after the academy order is issued before the funding agreement is signed, so the consultation process can continue after the academy order has been issued.
Mr Iain Wright
We really need clarity on this very important point. As I mentioned earlier, paragraph 7 of the explanatory notes states:
“The Secretary of State expects that a significant number of Academies will open in September 2010”.
Is the Minister now suggesting that academies will open without a funding agreement being in place?
Mr Gibb
The school can continue with an academy order made. That is the point. The academy order can be made in September, but the funding agreement might take several additional weeks afterwards—[Interruption.] No, the school will be open; children will be able to attend a school and an academy order will have been made.
Mr Iain Wright
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle?
I will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) have said all that needs to be said about amendment 54. I welcome the amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friend. He has rightly expressed the concern about the risk that community facilities—provision that could and should be used by partnering schools or the wider community—could be stopped as a result of an academy order. All three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have said how important such facilities are to social cohesion.
A further point is that in times when public finances are tight, the potential saving from having extended schools with those provisions is immense. There could be savings to the NHS, from having that social network in place, to the Home Office and police budgets, from early intervention, or to the social care budget. Those savings could be huge, and they all stem from the idea of an extended school that opens out into the community, providing an open and collaborative range of offers. However, there is nothing in the Bill that might safeguard that. I am concerned about that, which is why I welcome the amendment. I know that it is a probing amendment, as my hon. Friend said. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that what is in the Bill will safeguard what is available for the community, because the whole of society can benefit as a result.
Mr Gibb
Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that each academy order contains provisions that make the school’s facilities available for community use once the school has converted to an academy. We agree on the importance of schools being at the heart of their communities. We would want to encourage the community use of school facilities. That is why the model funding agreement, which has been made available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website, requires academies
“to be at the heart of their communities and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community”.
That could include a wide range of initiatives—for example, making the school’s sports facilities available for local groups to use, offering adult education after hours, and engaging staff in outreach work across other local schools. It is clear from the provisions in academy arrangements that we are committed to academies being a central resource to their local communities. That is also borne out by our expectation that all outstanding schools commit in principle to working in partnership with a weaker school, as part of their applications to become academies.
However, it would not be appropriate for every academy order to make such provision. Academy orders are intended to be the documents that confirm a school’s conversion, and will contain key pieces of information pertinent to the conversion, depending on the circumstances of each school. We believe that the place to impose obligations on an academy is through the academy arrangements, in either the funding agreement or the terms and conditions of grant. That is consistent with the approach of the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about the gym and the sports facilities in his local school, and asked whether it could be made a requirement that there should be no less provision to the community than existed at the date of the transfer. He wanted to put that in the Bill, which I have explained would be excessive. He also raised the issue of the fees charged for those sports facilities. Again, his fear is that an academy would raise those fees in order to raise further funds for the academy or the school. However, all the issues that he has raised are issues for the funding agreement. There is no reason why those facilities cannot continue. If the issue is shared facilities between the school and the local authority, these will be subject to discussion as part of the conversion process. On the wider issue of charging, charging that is allowed is limited, as he knows, and will be equivalent to the money that maintained schools are also entitled to raise for out-of-hours-type activities.
I suppose that the issue at the back of the hon. Gentleman’s mind is the concern that somehow academies will be less community-minded than the maintained schools that they replace—that somehow they will gouge out those facilities used by local residents or the out-of-hours evening classes that they attend. I see no evidence from the academies that I have visited around the country that that is their attitude. They are just as much a part of the community as the maintained schools that they are replacing.
The hon. Gentleman should be assured, certainly on the basis of the statements that I am now making to the Committee, that it is not the Government’s intention that academies should become islands unto themselves, charging the maximum that they can to raise funds for their facilities. They will continue to be part of the community, concerned about the community, and wanting to share their facilities with the community.
I want to turn now to the points raised tangentially by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). They both raised the issue of community cohesion. It is our view that the funding agreement will already include that requirement, using the phrase that I have just read out about being at the heart of the community and sharing facilities with the community. I am also able to help my hon. Friends by adding to the funding agreement an explicit requirement that academies will be required to be at the heart of their communities, to promote community cohesion and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community. I hope that, in the light of those few words and the arguments that I put forward earlier, the hon. Member for Hemsworth will withdraw his amendment, which he described as a probing amendment.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend will know that the admissions code will apply just as much to academies as to maintained schools, that the admissions appeals code will also apply just as much to academies as to maintained schools and that the co-ordination arrangements will apply too. So the local authorities will hold the ring on admissions in the same way as they do at the moment.
Mr Iain Wright
I may be pre-empting what the Minister is going to say. He has been talking about existing maintained schools converting to an academy, using the phrase “as is” and he mentioned that schools would have the same head, the same estate and so on. New clause 7(1) states:
“Before a school makes an application for an Academy order or”—
this is the point on which I seek clarification—
“an Academy arrangement with an additional school”.
That refers to a free school. Will the existing arrangements still apply in respect of a free school too? Could the Minister provide clarity on that?
Mr Gibb
I shall seek to do that during the rest of my speech. If I do not get round to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I shall write to him.
We believe that the impact of an increase in academies and the freedoms they provide will lead to improvements in standards across the education sector as the best heads and the best schools drive improvements and expertise. The noble Lords were concerned about schools changing their age range and the Bill was amended to allay those concerns. Subsection (4) of clause 9 makes it clear than when a maintained school becomes an academy under the current school closure processes, further to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and not further to an academy order, when the age range is not like-for-like, the school would be classed as an additional school, so the Secretary of State would be required to evaluate the impact. That would include, for example, an academy created as a result of the amalgamation of two or more schools or an 11-to-18 academy that replaced an 11-to-16 maintained school, if that involved a closure rather than a conversion. Any school wishing to add a sixth form would need to follow the relevant statutory provisions.
The answer to the question whether the admissions code and the appeals code will apply to free schools, too, is yes, it will. The problem with the Minister’s opening remarks—
Mr Gibb
Sorry, the shadow Minister. It is all very new.
The problem with the shadow Minister’s speech in moving the amendment was that it was written, I think, before he heard of the Government’s intention to put in the funding agreement an explicit requirement to promote community cohesion. On top of that, it already requires academies to be at the heart of the community. He cited the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment that local authorities will not run schools. That is a view common throughout the coalition and we also agree that local authorities should be the champion of parents and pupils, championing school improvement and challenging rather than defending underperforming schools. In an old politics kind of way, he is trying to drive a wedge into fissures in the coalition where no fissures exist—and he is doing so unsuccessfully.
The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about excluded pupils is wrong. He alleged that the funding for an excluded pupil stays with the academy. The funding follows the pupil when the pupil is excluded and that is a requirement in the academy agreement.
With those few words, I hope that I have persuaded Opposition Members and those elsewhere to withdraw their amendments.
Mr Iain Wright
I apologise to the Minister on the subject of the concession that he has made on social cohesion and community cohesion in the funding agreement. I had meant to mention that, but I was wrapped up in helping Liberal Democrats. I apologise; that is a welcome concession.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) went so far in tempting me to think that he does not agree with academies, but then he pulled back considerably. He mentioned, rightly, that coalition—like all politics—is a question of compromise and negotiation, but I think that the Liberal Democrats are getting a bit of a raw deal in the coalition agreement when it comes to education policy. I will readily admit that today there has been the announcement on school funding and the pupil premium and I am pleased to see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), on the Treasury Bench. I pay tribute to her for pushing that forward.
In every other sense, the emphasis has been on Conservative party policy, with an emphasis on free markets. There has been a rush to the markets and a lack of consultation with and consideration for the wider community that is at odds with what the Liberal Democrats want. I shall still provide the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends, who seem readily poised to join us in the appropriate Lobby, with the opportunity to ensure that the commitments that were made in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in the general election, only a matter of weeks ago, can still be fulfilled.
I am not content with the Minister’s explanations in terms of new clause 7. I think it is very important and I will want to press that to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Pre-commencement applications etc
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Iain Wright
I beg to move amendment 65, page 6, line 38, at end add—
‘(11) The Secretary of State before making a property transfer scheme shall consult with—
(a) the local authority;
(b) the current owner, if not the local authority;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.
An identical amendment was tabled in the other place by the noble Baroness Sharp of Guildford, and the rationale behind the proposal remains sound. The clause allows the Secretary of State to “make” a property transfer scheme, which might involve the transfer of IT equipment and other assets. I mentioned last night the weakness in the Bill regarding consultation, and amendment 65 would improve the consultative process. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Opposition that the local authority and the current owner—if that is not the local authority—are consulted to ascertain what should happen to other property or assets, and whether they could be used elsewhere in the area for alternative educational provision.
In speaking to the identical amendment in the other place, Baroness Sharp also said the clause does not mention consultation with interested parties that might be affected by such a transfer, such as catering contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and I made a similar point last night about proper consultation with hard-working staff within the estate, such as catering and cleaning staff, as well as consultation on other assets such as IT equipment.
The amendment would mean a much smoother transfer from the existing school when it converts to academy status. The Minister in the other place said that he would reflect on the matter, and I believe that clause 10 arose as a result of that reflection. However, what should happen to other property, because that too should be subject to wider consultation? There should be proper consideration on important assets, of which the most important are the people who will be affected by the transfer. By doing so, we would ensure a much smoother, less painful and more considered transfer.
Mr Gibb
Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school in respect of which an academy order has been made. Amendment No. 65, ably moved by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority or other owner or any other appropriate persons before making a property transfer scheme that would affect, among other things, desks, computers and the assets of any existing school.
In the case of converting academies, we intend that there should be a seamless transfer between the existing maintained school and the academy, as part of which the school will clearly need to be able to continue to use its property, and to take advantage of contracts into which it may have entered, such as those for cleaning, catering and insurance. It may also need to transfer the benefit of trust funds left in trust for pupils or the school. The trust—say, a bursary for art left to the school many years ago in the will of a benefactor—may well mention the name of the predecessor school, and clause 8 would enable it to be transferred to the new entity of the academy.
Mr Gibb
In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change.
I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.
Mr Iain Wright
In the large amount of time I have available, I would like to say that the Minister has explained a lot, and to be fair he has gone some way further than the Minister in the other place—
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Nick Gibb and Iain Wright(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gibb
I will ponder the points that both my hon. Friends have made and I will write to them shortly to set out our position with greater clarity.
In the letter to lead Members sent on 26 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government see strong local authorities as central to our plans to improve education. We want to see a smooth transition to the new school system and want a genuine dialogue with local government—and other partners—to that end. There are important questions about the role of local authorities in school improvement, how to ensure that local provision meets the needs of all children in an area, including the most vulnerable, and how we help schools to understand the opportunities, freedoms and responsibilities of the new system.
Over the next weeks and months, we want a further dialogue with local government on those and related matters, and we do not think it would be right to pre-empt those discussions by accepting the amendment, which would clearly place a bureaucratic burden on local authorities ahead of a wider discussion about their continuing role. As I have already explained, additional schools are required to consult locally on their proposals, and the Secretary of State has a duty to consider the wider impact of any school on its local area, so a requirement for him to take account of an annual report provided by the local authority would, in our view, be unnecessary.
On new clause 5, we share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) to promoting fair and proper processes when establishing all new schools, including free schools, which is why we have put in place a rigorous approval process and are requiring that groups comply with every aspect of it before being allowed to open a new school. As part of the process to establish a free school, groups will have to demonstrate that there is genuine, robust demand for places at the school they are proposing, both at the proposal stage and in completing their business case and plan. To meet this requirement, we expect groups to provide evidence of this demand, perhaps through a petition or a declaration from interested parties, but in every case demonstrating clear evidence of unmet local need, not just expressions of support.
The new clause would prevent organisations or groups from offering financial inducements to parents and pupils to encourage them to attend or support new free schools. It is, of course, right that we would not wish to see any organisation trying to manipulate public opinion or to give financial incentives to any person to obtain their support. However, it shows a marked lack of trust in parents, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, to suggest that they would send their child to any school on the back of a financial incentive. They will obviously want to send their child to the best school possible.
Mr Iain Wright
Will the Minister address the point I made on this subject? Parents might quite rightly be disappointed about Building Schools for the Future capital being scrapped, but are the Secretary of State or the Minister saying, “We’re trying to look for additional school capital programmes, and if you set up a new school, you’ll be first in line, regardless of what the wider community requires”? Can he say that that will definitely not be the case?
Mr Gibb
We have allocated £50 million of funding from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund, which was established in 2008 by the hon. Gentleman’s Government to promote new schools. That is the fund that will provide capital for free schools until 31 March 2011. It is quite clear that it does not come from the Building Schools for the Future fund.
New clause 5 would have an unintended consequence as a result of its wide scope. For example, it would prevent a school from being able to offer subsidies for the provision of school uniforms to pupils from low-income families, which I am sure is not something that Labour Members would want.
Mr Gibb
Well, no disrespect right back at you. The point is that the TUPE regulations are already in statute and they have to be followed. Whenever there is a transfer of undertakings, those procedures are followed, and there is no need to set that out in the Bill. However, we are simply adopting the same approach that the previous Government took to academies, which is that we regulate through the funding agreement. The hon. Lady can also be assured that the things said in this House are on the record for her to hold us to account against, so the more she can get me to say now, the more reassured she can be.
This Government’s approach is to let the people who have the experience and knowledge in their areas of work make the decisions that will affect them. The promoter of a free school will know who the interested parties are in their local area. Any proposal for a free school must be able to demonstrate genuine, robust demand for places at the proposed school—for example, through a petition or a declaration from interested parties. As I said, clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with a free school, to take into account the impact of such a school on existing schools and colleges in the area. That will ensure that when decisions on any free school proposal are made, due consideration will always be given to its wider implications.
I want to run through some of the other points that the hon. Member for Hartlepool made. I made the point about consultation, but he also talked about academies being disconnected from their surrounding areas. However, the model funding agreement for academies, which hon. Members will have seen, explicitly says that
“the school will be at the heart of its community, sharing facilities with other schools and the wider community”.
That is a key provision of the model funding agreement.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about TUPE. Consultation can take place after the academy order has been made. The key issue for staff transferring—he also mentioned the discussions taking place in August—is the signing of the funding agreement. These consultations can take place well into September and October before the funding agreement is signed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the disapplication of sections 15 and 17 of the Education Inspections Act 2006 for schools converting under clause 4. This is relevant because under those arrangements the school is not closing, but converting, so there is no need for provisions to govern all the steps that have to be gone through when a school is closed. Consultations are provided for, as I said, under clause 5. He also asked about the impact on the further education sector. Clause 9(2) requires the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on colleges as well as on other schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) asked about the facilities at free schools. Health and safety law will, of course, apply. Ofsted will continue to inspect, and there are detailed provisions about fire, safety, security and structure, food hygiene and so forth in the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2003, which will now apply to academies. Those regulations are very detailed; if they were not detailed, many independent schools around the country would have the same worries as my hon. Friend.
With those few remarks, I hope that I have assured hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and I urge them not to press their amendments.
Mr Iain Wright
I begin by thanking the Minister for his usual courtesy and kindness in wishing my daughter Hattie a very happy birthday. The whole Committee is welcome to join us for “Toy Story 3” on Sunday, if it so wishes.
The Minister has reassured me to some extent on clauses 9 and 10 and on the model funding agreement. That goes some way to addressing my concerns and I also thank him for clarifying some points about the FE sector. However, he has not gone far enough. As I said, there are fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the Bill, as seen in this group of amendments. Those weaknesses are on capacity and on consultation. With great respect to the Minister, he has not reassured me on those matters.
More to the point, some comments by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and the excellent comments by the Chair of the Select Committee, showed that there is concern about the gap in the appropriate level of consultation. I understand that the Minister hopes to ponder on that issue, but I would suggest that he table a Government amendment on Report, which we could consider. I would be more than happy to discuss any such amendment with him. I suspect, however, that he will not do that.
I repeat that there are fundamental weaknesses on capacity, which amendment 20 would address, and on consultation, which amendment 33 would address. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the Committee on those amendments.