Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 58: Page 7, line 3, after second ““a”” insert ““reasonable”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to AmendmentsNos. 59, 60, 61, 121A, 125A, 125B, 125BA, 125C, 125D and 182. This set of 10 amendments aims, on the one hand, to probe the process of competition for the setting up of trust schools, asking in particular what kinds of bodies the Government are looking for as sponsors for such schools and, on the other, to put forward the notion of the community-sponsored trust—or, as we have called it, the ““community foundation””—as an alternative to a private sector sponsor. Finally, Amendment No. 182 probes the whole question of the schools commissioner. The first set of amendments deals with the process of competition. Amendment No. 58 asks that the time period specified for preparation and submission of proposals in any competition should be reasonable. When a similar amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Government made it clear that they were sympathetic to the need to have balance between speedy competition and adequate time to prepare the proposal but did not think that the addition of the word ““reasonable”” was needed. We are concerned that inadequate time will favour the corporate sponsors—the Edisons of this world who will perhaps have a ready-made proposal that they can pull off the shelf—over, let us say, a local parents’ group. I believe that the Government are anxious that such groups should put forward proposals. If those groups are to make such a proposal, they will need to find professional help, and the money to pay for such help in putting their proposal together. We feel that it is reasonable that ““reasonable”” should be included on the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 seek to prove the kinds of qualifications the Government have in mind for sponsors of trust schools. Perhaps we might put alongside Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 Amendments 121A and 125A, which seek to establish a register of institutions regarded as suitable to establish such foundations. Similar amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. In response, the Secretary of State said: "““Allowing schools to choose a trust partner only from a register would fetter the freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their schools, in light of their individual circumstances. It would lead to additional bureaucracy and delay, especially when schools were considering local, community-based trusts that would not benefit from a centralised process for formal approval””.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/05/06; col. 1358.]" During the Committee stage, the draft guidance on trust schools was circulated to MPs serving on Standing Committee E. This guidance singled out as unsuitable to become partners in running a trust school companies involved in tobacco, alcohol, gambling and adult entertainment. It stated that governing bodies should, "““ensure that ‘trust’ partners are not involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate for young people””." However, there is concern that any attempt to set out a list of inappropriate organisations will not address widespread concerns about trusts because of the organisations that the guidance fails to proscribe.For example, nothing in the guidance would necessarily protect young people from religious extremists,extreme political groups, pressure groups or fast-food manufacturers. The guidance makes it clear that the list is not exhaustive and that decision makers must have particular regard to the strength of parental and other local opinion about the appropriateness of trust partners’ activities. It goes on to list positive examples of trust scenarios. These include a top-performing school taking over a weaker school, universities or colleges linking up with schools to improve the take-up of higher education and groups of schools banding together to share computer or financial management facilities. I suppose that that would extend to a group of schools already federated. We are very happy with those examples, but, significantly, there is no mention of faith groups or private companies in that list of positive examples. At Second Reading in the House of Commons, the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, sought to address concerns regarding trusts. She said: "““I can tell the House that there will be very strong safeguards to prevent the acquisition of inappropriate trusts. That is essential. As a result, they will be regulated by the Charity Commission as well as by the local authority. They will be funded by the local authority, which will be able to object on educational grounds to any trust that it thinks will damage children’s educational standards. However, perhaps the most important safeguard will be the common sense of the parents and governing bodies. They will decide whether it is in a school’s interest to adopt a particular trust””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/06; cols. 1464-5.]" The mention of common sense—