NEW CATEGORIES OF MAINTAINED SCHOOLS (Hansard, 15 July 1998)

§ Mr. Byers
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 20, 21, 31, 145, 255 and 409.

§ Mr. Byers
I am always surprised when a relatively small change requires so many amendments, but that is the way of parliamentary counsel.
It will normally be the case under the new framework that a grant-maintained school, in moving into the new framework, will be maintained by the local education authority in whose area that school is situated. However, there may be isolated cases where schools are located within a particular local education authority area where, perhaps for historical or traditional reasons, the bulk of the children attending the school may be resident in a neighbouring local education authority. In those circumstances, the local education authority with the majority of children attending the school may feel that it is the appropriate body to take responsibility for maintaining the school. This may apply to only a handful of schools, but we must ensure that clause 20 is amended to allow a local education authority in those circumstances to appeal to the Secretary of State and make representations so that it can take responsibility for maintaining the school.
The amendment provides that, by 30 November 1998, a former maintaining local education authority, or the local education authority in whose area the school is situated, may appeal to the Secretary of State. We feel that that is an appropriate course of action and agree with the amendments.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)
Will the Minister consider a small issue relating to amendments Nos. 20 and 21 that is of great significance to my constituents? He said that an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State. Southend-on-Sea has four grant-aided grammar schools that provide for 25 per cent. of its children. We are entitled to keep that arrangement as long as the local people support it. Additional places 438 go to children from other authorities. As a result of our 25 per cent. rule, the standard demanded of a Southend child is different from that demanded of a child from outside. This has been our situation for some time.
We support the arrangement because the 25 per cent. rule gives an opportunity for children to break through. Our education results are better than those for the rest of Essex. As is the case for Northern Ireland, our results are better overall than those of England, Scotland and Wales. Will the amendments and the change of category from grant-aided to community or foundation school status change other things of which the House is not aware?
The change that we have in mind is the Greenwich judgment, which resulted from legislation passed by the previous Government, and undermined the provision for an authority to make a special demand, such as the 25 per cent. rule for children in Southend-on-Sea. We escaped the judgment because we were able to argue that it should not apply to grant-aided schools. If the judgment applied, it would mean that Southend's grammar schools would be open to applications from anyone who wanted to come to them from other parts of Essex. As the Minister well knows, many people from places near Southend would like their children to go there. I appreciate that there is an argument for the Greenwich judgment, I appreciate that there is an argument for grant-aided schools and I appreciate that there is an argument for abolishing grant-aided schools. But it worries me that, in passing the amendments, we could be changing something without being aware of it.
Am I raising just a silly fear? I honestly am not. I know that a paper put forward by Shoeburyness county high school, which was considered by Southend-on-Sea borough council, gave the impression that the new status of that school, which has a small selective intake, would change the whole arrangement. Does the Minister believe that, as a consequence of the amendments and the change in the classification of a school, Southend's educational system will be changed significantly? Will it mean that people who are willing to bring their children from all parts of Essex and further afield will have equal admission to those schools?
If we are to make such a change, the House should consider it in detail. It is not something which should slip through. I have raised this point not to hold up proceedings—I appreciate that we have many amendments to consider and I have no wish to detain the House on other amendments—but because I hate the situation that often arises in the House, when we make one change in something and create a rather dramatic consequence of which we were not aware.
In Southend-on-Sea, we appreciate not a change of policy by the Government, but the fact that the Government have kindly, despite what they said previously, indicated that where grammar school arrangements are acceptable to the local community, we should be allowed to keep them. We simply hope that it will be possible for our arrangements to continue. If, by chance, we cannot continue and the Greenwich judgment has to apply, will the Minister have power to do anything about the appeal to which he has referred? Will he be able to say to Southend that despite the judgment, it can carry on as before? I assure the Minister that the issue is of real significance and could have a serious impact on Southend borough council.
439 If, by chance, my fears are right, the impact on Southend unitary authority will be significant. It will have to make provision for many additional secondary school places. Children who at present go to our grammar schools will have to go to other schools, and there simply is not room. There will be an impact on areas, such as Rochford, round about the Southend area, although, at present, only a limited number of children from that area go to the Southend grammar schools. If the numbers were more substantial, there would be a dramatic impact on schools such as the King Edmund school and others in the area.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue carefully. I appreciate that I have thrown it at him without giving him notice, and I apologise sincerely for that. If there are still difficulties, will the Minister simply look at the matter? The fundamental point is that I hope that he will not, in consequence of making one change, make other changes without being aware of them. Will the Minister assure me, first, that he will look at the issue carefully and, secondly, that if an appeal were made by Southend, he would have some power to do something about it? If he can do so, we shall be very grateful in Southend-on-Sea.

§ Mr. Byers
Although I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, I know that he does not raise silly points, and that he makes representations and argues on issues that are relevant to the people of Southend. I take the points that he raises very seriously. I will, as he has requested, look again at the implications of the amendments for Southend. I assure him that if the amendments affect Southend—I am not sure that they do and I will write to him on the issue—and it is felt that an appeal is appropriate, not only do I guarantee that Southend will have the right to an appeal, but I shall be more than happy to meet him and representatives of Southend to hear at first hand their views and concerns as part of that appeal process.
I had in mind in relation to the amendments a number of other parts of the country and individual schools that might be affected, but I did not have schools in Southend in mind. I will revisit the matter to make sure that I was correct in my first view. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know precisely whether the amendments cover the position in Southend. As I said, I think that they do not, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that.

§ Mr. Byers
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 30, 32, 33, 37 to 39, 51, 91, 156, 161, 163, 167, 176, 190 to 193, 208, 233, 356, 357, 359, 360, 406 and 410.

§ Mr. Byers
I am tempted to go through each of the amendments in some detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, 440 you will be pleased to hear, I shall not. I notice that, on the Speaker's selection list, the amendments are referred to as "technical amendments"; in the brief from my civil servants that I read last night, they are referred to as "highly technical amendments" and I have to admit that they are.
I apologise to the House for the large number of amendments included in the group. They cover four main issues in respect of the new framework. First, they clarify various definitions contained within the Bill in matters such as "appointed day", "community or foundation school" and land held on trust for the purposes of the school". Secondly, they ensure that rights and liabilities will transfer with property, which is wholly appropriate. Thirdly, having received advice from the Charity Commission, we have clarified the charitable status of schools. Fourthly, we have ensured that the necessary regulation-making powers are in place in relation to group foundations and the choice of category process.
It is appropriate that the House of Lords raised and dealt with these matters and I hope that the House can agree with the Lords in these highly technical amendments.