Schools causing concern: powers of Secretary of State, etc

I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 22, page 22, line 10, at end add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any of the powers conferred by subsections (1) to (6) above without—

(a) consulting the local authority in which the school is located, and

(b) receiving advice supporting the planned actions from an independent body established to make impartial assessments of school standards.’.

I will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. Clause 22 deals with schools causing concern and the powers of the Secretary of State. I think I am right that it amends the last education Act to be passed, which was agreed by Parliament just one week before this Bill was published. The Government are clearly not thinking their proposals through properly and are proceeding with such speed that new legislation is replacing legislation that has not even had a chance to bed down.

I have a sense of dĂ(c)jĂ vu because, as in the last education Act, there is a strong presumption in the Bill that the Secretary of State knows best and that he or she should have powers that can be exercised over failing schools, regardless of the views of the local authority. The last education Act introduced powers for when the Secretary of State essentially did not think that local authorities were being tough enough, and clause 22 will give the Secretary of State new powers to direct local authorities.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority and an independent school standards body before undertaking intervention action. That would ensure that judgments that overrode a democratically elected local authority on how school improvement was to be delivered were informed by discussion with the local authority, which is accountable for the oversight of local school performance under the Government’s model and ours. It would also ensure that there was ratification of the fact that the school concerned, which could be closed down or have other action taken against it, was a poor performing school on the basis of some form of rational assessment. That should take into account the school’s circumstances, as we discussed under clause 20.

Our concern is that this Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State could unreasonably override a local authority without discussion or independent evidence to show that a school was doing badly, and without considering whether an improvement plan had been put  in place. We regard that as extremely heavy-handed, so we ask the Minister to reconsider whether these draconian powers are necessary.

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the sensible way in which he has presented his amendment.

Nobody wants the Secretary of State to be intervening in every situation. That would be ludicrous, clearly, and would override the rights and responsibilities of the local authority to commission school places and look after school improvement in its own area.

This provision seeks to deal with those few cases in which the local authority has not taken the action that needs to be taken with respect to a particular school. If everyone but the local authority deems it appropriate to give a warning notice to a school, it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to direct the local authority to issue the warning notice. I am not talking about that as a first step, however. I am not saying that we should immediately jump in and say, “Whitehall knows best.” It should not be an immediate reaction to a particular problem. The situation should arise in only a few instances after a series of discussions with the local authority and local representatives and reference to the school improvement partner. In such circumstances it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have, as the last resort, the opportunity to intervene with respect to a local authority.

I know that such a provision will not need to be applied to the vast majority of local authorities in the vast majority of situations. None the less, there have been situations—I can think of one or two—in which the involvement and intervention of the Secretary of State has led to an improvement in a particular school. There are also one or two examples of when it has been difficult for the Secretary of State to get the sort of local action that any reasonable or sensible person would expect to happen. The amendment would circumvent the Secretary of State’s ability to take any such action.

I understand the point that the Minister makes, but that is not what the amendment says. It says that before exercising such powers, the Secretary of State should have consulted the local authority and received advice supporting the planned actions from an independent body, which under his model would be Ofsted. Is he really telling us that there are any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not want to do that before taking the serious action that he proposes?

I am not trying to say that at all. I am saying that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will consult the local authority before taking action. The Secretary of State will not look down a list of schools and their results and say, “Hey, things aren’t going on very well there,” and then direct the local authority to issue a warning notice. Such a reaction would come about only after the sort of process to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Of course we will consult the local authority. In a small number of circumstances, if a local authority fails to take the necessary action, the Secretary of State should have the power to direct action in the interests of the pupils or communities in that particular area. As for the independent person, the SIP and Ofsted will be involved.

I feel that we are making a bit of progress. Proposed paragraph (b) in the amendment says that before taking action, the Secretary of State should receive advice that supports the planned actions. Is the Minister prepared to go that far? I would be satisfied and reassured to a large extent, if, before such draconian action was taken, there was not only consultation with the local authority, but discussions with a body such as Ofsted to ratify the Secretary of State’s judgment.

It seems that we are dancing on the head of a pin. If it reassures the hon. Gentleman, I will say that, in such circumstances, I would expect the Secretary of State to obtain advice and information from a whole range of bodies, starting with the local authority, and then to consult others, which might include Ofsted and the SIP. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State should have the power to direct something to happen in a local area when—this will be in a very, very small number of cases—the local authority is not fulfilling its responsibilities. Following that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

I feel a bit more reassured. I am not suggesting that there are not circumstances in extremis in which such powers might need to be exercised, and I am pleased that the Minister says that local authorities will be consulted. When he says that he expects such things to happen, he is talking about how he would conduct himself as a Minister, but we are legislating for future Governments who might behave in a totally irrational way, and who might, for political reasons, want to be seen to be making some sort of draconian intervention, even when that is not ratified by Ofsted, which has the expertise to judge whether the intervention is necessary. That was why I wanted to tease out that point.

Of course in the first instance, before we direct, we may ask for action to be considered—as an intermediate step first, if that helps. As I said, we are dancing on the head of a pin.

I accept that, but we might not be dancing on the head of a pin if there has been a lot of consultation with the local authority, if the local authority has a clear view that a school is improving—it might have taken recent action—and if Ofsted takes the view that the school is improving and has taken the relevant action. However, a Secretary of State, who might be of a different political party to the local authority, could decide that he or she wished to override those two judgments. In that specific circumstance, we would have concerns. However, the Minister has at least acknowledged that he—the Government—would not wish to do that under the circumstances I have set out, so with that very modest triumph, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.