Response by Stephen Twigg
The response of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Mr. Stephen Twigg, to my address regarding the Hertfordshire County Council’s Review and Consultation on Primary Provision in Stevenage.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on securing this debate and on her tireless work in campaigning on behalf of her constituency for higher educational standards. That is reflected in her work in securing this debate and in the petition that she said that she will present in the presence of a number of parents and governors from Stevenage here.
My hon. Friend's commitment to raising standards in education matches the Government's commitment. As she said, the county council has stated in respect of its aims for the review that it wishes to raise achievement in Stevenage. I am well aware of the high levels of interest and concern that people living in Stevenage have shown in respect of the review of primary school provision in the centre and south of the town. I appreciate the anxieties that are involved when school closures and reorganisations are considered. My hon. Friend made the important point that falling rolls can provide not only a problem, but an opportunity. That is a good starting point and I hope that today's debate will enable the strength of local feeling and parental concern about the issue to be placed firmly on the record.
I reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents that we believe that we have good arrangements in place for taking forward any significant changes that follow the review that Hertfordshire has undertaken. That is to ensure that the concerns of her constituents, which she has expressed so clearly today, are given due consideration. I must make it clear from the outset that any decision on reorganising school provision as a result of such a review will not be taken by me or my ministerial colleagues. The decision will be made locally, as it would be anywhere else, by the local education authority. Such decisions were devolved to local level in September 1999, because they are best decided locally, where the full range of factors and issues can be considered in context. That view not only is held by the Government, but has widespread agreement.
Each local education authority is responsible for looking at the needs of its area and ensuring that there are sufficient school places. That responsibility involves the need to balance the supply of places, to ensure that schools serve the needs of their local communities, and to provide good-quality education in a cost-effective way. Often, with population changes over the years, there will be an imbalance or a need for new provision. Local education authorities can propose to make changes. When the proposed changes are significant, as is the case in Stevenage, a number of stages must be gone through before the changes can be implemented. There are safeguards involved in that process to ensure that changes are made in an open, democratic way.
The first stage is consultation, with all interested parties being consulted before formal proposals are published. The local education authority has a duty to allow adequate time and must provide sufficient information to those involved. The second stage is publication. If the outcome of consultation is a decision to proceed, a formal notice detailing proposals must be published widely, including in a local newspaper and at the main entrances of the schools that are named in the proposals. People usually have a minimum of six weeks in which to submit their representations in support of or against proposals. An LEA may make the final decision on proposals that it has published only if there have been no objections. In all other cases, the proposals must be passed to the local school organisation committee. If that committee cannot reach a unanimous decision, the proposals must be passed to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
On consultation, and on the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend in respect of Hertfordshire's handling of the review of primary provision in Stevenage, the Department does not specify precise arrangements, such as a timetable to be followed, or how options should be set out. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that LEAs have statutory responsibility for school place planning. Therefore, in the first instance, it is for them to consider options, taking into account specific local circumstances and their judgment as to the feasibility of a range of options.
We allow maximum flexibility, so that consultation can be tailored to local needs. Nevertheless, our guidance on school organisation arrangements makes it clear that the formal consultation prior to any publication must set out what is proposed in such a way that those affected understand what is involved and how they can make their views known. Furthermore, if proposals are to be taken up following consultation, the school organisation committee must consider whether the consultation undertaken was adequate before accepting formal proposals for consideration.
Of course, the arrangements for the work of school organisation committees fall under the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman, who can investigate complaints of maladministration. I note my hon. Friend's plans to refer this case to the ombudsman. Beyond the ombudsman, there is the option to go to court and to seek judicial review. My hon. Friend has placed on record the possibility that that route will be used.
I understand that, while Hertfordshire County Council has decided to revisit options for the south of Stevenage, it has also been decided to proceed with plans for the centre, in particular, to close Pin Green primary school and nursery. In order to proceed, the LEA will need to move to the second step of the process I described earlier-to publish formal proposals. That will give all interested parties the opportunity to raise further, formal objections. If that happens, those will have to be considered by the local school organisation committee before a final decision to close the school can be made.
It is important to understand that the school organisation committee operates independently of the LEA. It represents the main education stakeholders in the area and consists of five or six groups, each having one vote on each proposal -- there is an LEA representative, one each from the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and the learning and skills council, and a schools group representing school governors and head teachers. In deciding on proposals, the school organisation committee takes into account their effect on educational standards and their contribution to school improvement, and the need for places in the area and any financial implications, alongside the views of interested parties, including parents and the wider community, to which my hon. Friend has given voice today.
My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the possible outcome of the process in terms of the size of a planned new primary school. In our guidance, of which account must be taken, we make it clear that there should be no blanket assumption that a certain size of school is good or bad. She referred to an example in Enfield, in my constituency -- Wilbury School, which has 900 pupils. It is one of the largest schools in the country. Clearly, the school that is being considered in her constituency, with 842 pupils, would come into the same category. There is no firm evidence one way or the other as to whether bigger or smaller schools can be considered to be better. We have many examples of schools that do well and happen to be very large, and others, also doing well, that are very small. We believe that those matters are best decided locally by those who know the area best. That is clearly the issue of contention that will move forward following today's debate.
We believe that decisions on changes to education provision in an area are best taken in that local area. Only then can everything be considered in its full context. We believe that the arrangements that have been made allow that, and work well. I nevertheless appreciate the real concerns that my hon. Friend and her constituents have expressed about primary education in Stevenage, and, in particular, about the handing of consultation on the review. I am convinced that there are safeguards, and that arrangements for the remainder of the process should ensure an outcome that will best serve the interests of everyone-higher standards for the pupils of Stevenage, for which my hon. Friend argued powerfully.
I thank my hon. Friend for placing the concerns of her constituents, and parents in particular, on the record. On behalf of the Department, I express the hope that a full process will be followed through, enabling everyone concerned with the education of children and young people in Stevenage to have their say, and have their say respected.
