Education and Inspections Bill

Mention of common sense brings me rather neatly to the only other amendment in this first set that I have not so far dealt with—Amendment No. 60. If common sense is to be the arbiter of who might be a suitable partner, parents will be looking for a sponsor who will improve provision in their area. Therefore, it is utterly reasonable to ask, as Amendment No. 60 does, that those seeking to establish trust schools should specify how they would improve provision in the area and especially provision for the disadvantaged, since trust schools are to be established particularly to ensure that the disadvantaged get a reasonable share of the pie. That first set of amendments deals with the process of competition and, in particular, selection of sponsored partners. The second set of amendments in this group of 10 includes Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D. Their purpose is to promote the Liberal Democrat alternative to the Government’s vision of the trust school. We would call it a ““community trust””, or, in the words of the Bill, a ““community foundation””. We have throughout argued in favour of viewing education from a community perspective. In this series of amendments, we propose a foundation run by a local authority or a grouping of local authorities. For example, a grouping of local district councils and the county council might form what we have called the community foundation. Amendment No. 125B specifies that the foundation will consist of one-third elected local authority members, one-third parents and one-third other community representatives. I am afraid that the gremlins got into the drafting of the amendment, which is incorrect on the Marshalled List. However, a new version of it has been circulated. Amendment No. 125C seeks to provide that such a community foundation would embrace all the schools in a given area, and would require that they all collaborated and worked together. Amendment No. 125D is consequential to those two amendments. It is notable that, in their evidence for Second Reading, both the General Teaching Council and the Association of School and College Leaders strongly endorsed the idea of encouraging schools to collaborate according to the concept of the local federation. The Government have been promoting such federations of schools at a local level, and the amendments seek to capture some of that enthusiasm and to translate it into what we believe to be acceptable—a local and locally accountable community foundation. I make no bones about the fact that we are not enthusiastic about foundations run as national chains of schools, whether they are run by Edison, Chris Woodhead or the United Learning Trust. We are not enthused by a model that separates out local schools and sets school against school and parent against parent, which we feel will happen under the Government’s proposals, as I made quite clear in our discussions on earlier amendments. I repeat that we are anxious to see local schools working together for the good of their local community. Finally, Amendment No. 182 is designed to probe the role of the schools commissioner. Is he there just to supervise the work of the local choice advisers? Is he there to encourage the growth of new trust schools nationally? Is he there to ensure that the right people are setting up trust schools? We suggest that this is where he might perform quite a useful role if we really are to have another level of highly paid official to ensure that the Government’s agenda is working properly. I believe that the post has already been advertised, so the Government are already moving to appoint a schools commissioner. It would be a great responsibility for schools to have to vet anyone who comes before them with proposals to turn the school into a trust school. Small schools in particular often do not have the resources to probe the background of such people, so the Secretary of State may well delegate the task of vetting those people to the schools commissioner. By publishing an open register, as the amendment proposes, we would avoid the need to have to use the freedom of information legislation, as now, to find out who has applied to form a trust. An open register would give parents and schools confidence in a system that is very new and highly suspect, in the view of many of our fellow citizens. It is therefore in the Government’s interests to go along with this idea. Although local authorities should be able to decide what sorts of people are acceptable locally, there should be some sort of national standard of what is acceptable, otherwise undesirable people might simply go from one area to another until they find one that is not so choosy. The standards should be much more detailed than simply ruling out pornographers and tobacco manufacturers. The Government might say—indeed, they do say—that the Charity Commission will vet potential trustees, but the Charity Commission cannot do so for two reasons. First, it does not have the capacity to deal with the expected volume. Secondly, it would need to change and extend the checks that it already carries out on charity trustees in order to make them fit for purpose for this educational task. It is much better for the Secretary of State to delegate this task to the new commissioner. I beg to move.