🤔 Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

• The Committee discussed amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, focusing on Clauses 48 and 49 about local authority powers to direct school admissions.
• Neil O’Brien proposed amendment 90 to require statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest in local authority decisions on school admissions. This was debated but ultimately withdrawn.
• Clause 48 extends local authorities’ power to direct admissions to both maintained schools and academies, aiming to quickly secure places for vulnerable children.
• Clause 49 aims to streamline the admission process by enabling local authorities to intervene when the fair access protocol fails to secure a place for a child.
• A new clause was proposed to ensure admission decisions do not consider whether a school is maintained or an academy, but it was not supported.
• Testimonies from education experts at an Education Committee meeting were referenced, supporting the idea that the proposed provisions could lead to fairer school admissions but suggesting further action might be needed.
• The discussion moved to Clause 50, regarding the powers of the schools adjudicator in setting published admission numbers (PAN).
• Neil O’Brien expressed concerns about Clause 50, arguing it could undermine school choice and potentially lead to school closures due to demographic changes and surplus places.
• Amendments were proposed to consider school performance and oversubscription when adjudicating PAN, and to restrict objections to stable or increasing PANs.
• The Minister, Catherine McKinnell, defended Clause 50, highlighting the need for local authorities to manage school capacities effectively and ensure sufficient places for all children.
• There was debate about the adjudicator’s role in managing school capacities and the potential impact on new school openings.
• Concerns were raised about the democratic accountability of decisions made by an independent adjudicator.
• The Minister confirmed plans to amend regulations to allow objections to PAN increases or stability in response to local needs.
• Amendments and new clauses related to Clause 50 were not supported by the Committee.

Overall, the session focused on balancing local authority powers in school admissions with the need to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making, especially in the context of changing demographics and school place availability.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 out of 5. The disagreement primarily centers on concerns raised by Neil O’Brien about clauses 48, 49, and 50 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, especially regarding the powers of local authorities over school admission numbers (PANs). O’Brien expressed apprehensions about potential conflicts of interest and the impact on parental choice and school improvement, suggesting amendments to address these issues. However, the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell, countered these concerns by emphasizing the necessity of the clauses for effective school place planning and ensuring that all children have access to suitable education. The disagreements are clear but are expressed in a constructive manner with both sides articulating their positions with substantive arguments and evidence.

Examples of disagreement include:

1. Neil O’Brien’s amendment 90: O’Brien proposed this amendment to address potential conflicts of interest when local authorities direct admissions to schools. McKinnell responded by assuring the committee that existing legislation and processes are sufficient to manage such conflicts, suggesting the amendment was unnecessary.

2. Neil O’Brien’s amendment 84 and new clause 46: These proposals aimed to mandate considerations of school performance and parental demand in setting PANs and to allow high-performing schools to expand. McKinnell argued that the adjudicators already consider such factors and that schools should work collaboratively with local authorities, diminishing the need for these amendments.

3. Debate about closing schools and setting PANs to zero: O’Brien expressed concerns that local authorities could use their new powers to close schools by setting PANs to zero, which McKinnell deemed hypothetical but promised to consider further.

The session also included interventions from other members, such as Damian Hinds and Munira Wilson, questioning the implications of the clauses and the role of the schools adjudicator in managing school openings and numbers. These interventions added to the debate but did not escalate the level of disagreement to a higher rating. Overall, the disagreements were substantive and centered on policy impact and implementation rather than personal or adversarial disputes.