RESPONSE OF NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY
BOROUGH COUNCIL TO ‘SCHOOL ORGANISATION –
POTENTIAL CHANGE TO THE PROCESS’
PROPOSALS
Q1. Is the current list of circumstances in which statutory proposals are
required appropriate? If not, what would you want to add, remove or modify?
In instances where there is a proposal to combine an infant and junior school
to create a primary school and where there is support for the proposal from
the schools concerned together with evidence of established close working
relationships, there is a case for adopting simpler and speedier change
processes, as reflected in the approach proposed for small schools.
Q2. Do you think that the following amendments proposed are suitable?
a) prescription about reduction in capacity; b) prescription about transfers of
school site (for all schools including special); and if not, what would be
preferable?
Yes, the amendments are suitable.
Q3. Do you agree with the current division of responsibilities in respect of
making proposals for changes to school organisation?
Yes, there is agreement to current division of responsibilities (as shown in
Appendix D). In relation to the reference to foundation schools, it is noted that
the Education Measure currently being consulted upon seeks to prevent the
establishment of new foundation schools or proposals for the change of
category to foundation, the effect of which would be to remove the powers
and responsibilities of local authorities and other proposers in this respect.
Q4. Should proposers be required to publish a consultation document?
Yes. Where decisions are to be taken locally and the decision making
process is to be made speedier and more efficient, meaningful consultation is
key. In such circumstances the publication of a consultation document takes
on an even greater significance. Publication of a consultation document will
also serve to reassure key interests that consultation is meaningful and that
there is sufficient opportunity for interested parties to have their say.
1
Q5. If so, should the content of the consultation document (and other matters)
be specified in a Statutory Code?
Yes, if there is to be consistency across Wales. It will also serve to
demonstrate that meaningful consultation has taken place. However,
flexibility should be allowed so that proposers are able to add information that
will assist the consultation process. In addition, proposers should be able to
determine the style and format of consultation documents to reflect and
reinforce local identity and ownership.
Q6. Is the list of matters to be included, as set out in the template document
appropriate? Should anything else be included?
Yes, in principle. However, the requirement to allow consultees to register
their wish to be notified of publication of the consultation report is not fully
supported as there are additional cost and administrative implications in
meeting this requirement. A practical alternative would be to require local
authorities to have an appropriate webpage where key documents can be
uploaded on a frequent basis, e.g. within 1 working day of publication. Those
consulted could be advised of this arrangement in the information contained in
the Consultation Document. Only those who do not have access to the
internet would be required to register a request for an alternative form of
notification, such as hard copy by post. This suggestion would serve to
promote electronic communications, thereby cutting down on costs and
reducing the administration burden on proposers.
Q7. For promoters: Would the template document contained in Annex E be a
useful tool in producing future consultation documents?
Yes, the template document would be useful to proposers. However, the
template should not be prescriptive and should allow proposers the flexibility
to determine style and format of the consultation document in order to reflect
and reinforce local identity and ownership. NPT has established a style and
format for its consultation documentation which it would wish to retain.
Q8. Do you agree:
a. consultation documents should only be published during term time?
b. consultation should run for a minimum of 6 weeks, with at least half of the
consultation period falling in term time?
c. with the list of those who should be consulted?
If not, what would you wish to change/add?
a. Yes
b. Yes – The use of ‘term time’ as the measure for the consultation period
is helpful and preferred to a specified number of days, as it removes the
issue of whether or not INSET and enforced closure days are to be
counted or discounted
c. Yes
2
Q9. Do you agree that the proposer should publish a consultation report
setting out the issues raised and the responses to them; Estyn’s assessment;
and recommending how to proceed?
Yes, a consultation report should be published. However, if Estyn’s
assessment is to be included, proposers will need to be confident that Estyn’s
response will be available within the timescale. Similarly, for any WAG
concerns raised during the consultation period. (Please also refer to concerns
raised in response to Q6 in respect of notification of publication of consultation
report)
Q10. Should a time limit be set on deciding how to proceed? If so, should that
limit be 3 months from the close of consultation? Should proposers be able to
apply to Welsh Ministers for an extension of time?
Yes, a time limit should be set and a 3 month period seems practical.
However, there should definitely be the opportunity to apply for an extension
of time to cover unforeseen circumstances.
Q11. Are the proposed publication requirements appropriate? If not, what
would you want to change?
Yes, in principle. However, the suggestion that copies of the statutory notice
should be sent to more parties than previously required does not reduce the
administration process and, depending on the number of notices published,
can become an unnecessary additional administrative burden.
Q12. Do you agree with the proposed content for statutory notices? If not,
what should be added or removed?
Statutory notices should be simplified not made more detailed. The
suggestion to include more information in the Notice than is currently required
will create additional costs. Publication in a local newspaper is particularly
expensive. The average cost for the latest statutory notices issued by NPT is
in the region of £3,000. Additional text will significantly increase this cost.
The effect of not including the additional information in the statutory notice
could be mitigated by requiring proposers to include the relevant information
in the consultation document which, together with a detailed Consultation
report, would provide key interests with the information necessary for them to
come to informed view.
Q13. Do you agree that in future all objections should be lodged with the
proposer?
Yes.
Q14. Should the right to object be restricted to those groups identified in
paragraphs 16 and 18 above? If not who should be added to or removed from
the list?
Yes, restricted to groups as stated.
3
Q15. Do you agree that the only proposals automatically determined by
Welsh Ministers should be those attracting objections from a local authority, a
diocesan authority or an FE institution? If not, who would you say should be
included?
Neither agree, nor disagree. NPT would wish to see a more detailed
justification for this suggested requirement.
Q16. Should the trigger point for a local determination be an objection by an
affected governing body, an MP or an AM; or a total of 10 objections from
community/town councils, school staff, pupils or parents? If not, what do you
consider the trigger point should be?
No, on the basis that NPT firmly contends that, apart from those proposals
automatically referred to WAG for determination, where the local authority is
the proposer all objections should be determined at local level by the local
authority’s executive (see Q19 below for a more detailed response). Under
such an arrangement, setting trigger points serves no purpose. Therefore,
the use of trigger points is rejected.
Q17. Do you agree that proposers should be required to prepare an objection
report and submit it to the local decision maker within 4 weeks from the end of
consultation?
Yes, in principle. However, there are circumstances where there maybe
difficulty with the scheduling of meetings of Cabinet, the local authority’s
executive. The effect of which may be to add to the administration process
and lead to convening of ‘Special’ Cabinet meetings. There could also be a
cost implication for the local authority.
Q18. Do you anticipate that local authority decision making cycles could be
adapted so as to make a decision to proceed within 4 weeks from the end of
the objection period?
Please see above.
Q19. Do you agree that where there are local objections a decision making
panel or committee should be established to decide whether the proposal
should be implemented, modified or rejected? Should the committee consist
only of those who do not have an interest in the proposal under scrutiny?
No. NPT is firmly of the view that where the local authority is the proposer,
apart from those proposals automatically referred to WAG for determination,
all objections should be determined at local level by the local authority’s
executive.
NPT welcomes and supports the view taken by Ministers that decisions
should, in the vast majority of cases, be made at the local level.
The principle of a local authority determining proposals that attract objections
is endorsed in this consultation document, albeit in the context of proposals
4
involving fewer than 10 objectors. Applying this principle, there is no
justification for restricting the decision making role of a local authority by
imposing a threshold limit or for keeping decisions “….. at arms length from
the executive”.
Therefore, NPT contends that this principle should be applied to the
determination of all objections to a local authority’s proposal submitted by
MPs and AMs, governing bodies, school staff, children and young people,
parents and community and town councils. In the case of NPT, all such
decisions should be determined by Cabinet, the local authority’s executive, as
Cabinet is a democratically elected body that has responsibility for planning
and providing school places; improving standards in education; and financial
management. In addition, at local authority level, the decisions of its
executive are subject to rigorous cross party Committee scrutiny.
Within NPT it is also the case that its Cabinet is likely to have considered a
proposal on as many as 5 separate occasions. At each stage of a proposal’s
development, Cabinet will have received and will have scrutinised a detailed
report. As a consequence, it will be fully conversant with the central issues
and be well placed to make an informed decision.
As to the suggestions that a separate statutory body, independent of both
proposers and Welsh Ministers, or a decision making committee set up by the
local authority could be responsible for local determination, these are rejected
for the reasons set out in paras. 22 and 24 respectively of the consultation
document.
The suggestion that the body responsible for local determination could be a
decision making Panel constituted by the local authority but with a separate
legal identity is also rejected. The fundamental objection to the establishment
of an independent Panel is that such a Panel, whilst having power to decide
the future of any proposal, would not carry responsibility for the budgetary
consequences of its decisions or, indeed, responsibility for any resulting
educational consequences. The decisions of such a Panel could result in a
financial commitment or educational outcome that would be wholly
unacceptable to the proposer (the local authority in the case of NPT) which
would result in the proposal being rejected. The consequent delay could even
result in a financial loss being incurred. Both WAG and local authorities are
legal entities with statutory duties and accompanying responsibilities relating
to educational provision and public finance.
There are likely to be significant issues in recruitment to such a Panel. Local
Authorities throughout Wales have difficulty in attracting appropriate
candidates for this type of role. Experience in NPT suggests that it is
extremely difficult to recruit candidates of the appropriate calibre. Added to
which, people who are in employment can find it very difficult or even
impossible to take ‘time off’ work for public duties, and retired people are often
reluctant to serve in onerous positions which may attract adverse public
attention and criticism.
There is also concern over advice to the independent panel. It cannot be
assumed that the local authority will provide the advice as in many instances it
5
will be the proposer. As such, questions will arise as to whether (a) the panel
would be content to derive educational and legal advice from the proposer
and (b) whether a decision taken on the basis of such advice could be subject
to legal challenge for bias.
It would be extremely difficult and probably impossible to find panel members
locally who could determine these matters without advice and, in any event, it
would not be in the interests of the local authority or of any other party if
decisions were taken without advice and were found to be legally
questionable. External legal advice is notoriously expensive in these
specialist areas and procuring such advice could very well run into tens of
thousands of pounds. As such, a Panel is highly unlikely to provide a more
streamlined, cost effective process of decision making.
NPT welcomes and supports the speedier resolution of proposals with the
removal of delays and uncertainty for local parents and children. It is also
mindful of legal and democratic accountability, and the efficient use of public
funds and resources. To this end, NPT maintains that responsibility for local
determination of local authority proposals should fall to the local authority’s
executive in all cases apart from those automatically referred to the Welsh
Ministers as outlined in this consultation document.
Q20. Should the decision making panel/committee have membership broadly
as set out in paragraph 23 or, alternatively, as in paragraph 25? If not, how
should a decision making body be constituted?
No, please refer to issues raised in response to Q19
Q21. Do you agree that the decision makers should have 4 weeks within
which to make its recommendation? If this is not considered sufficient time,
what timescale would be more appropriate?
Yes, but as previously stated in relation to the local authority’s executive,
there may be issues in the scheduling of meetings.
Q22. Do you agree that if the proposer did not accept a recommendation to
modify the proposal, then the proposal would be considered rejected?
No. This would not occur if the decision maker were Cabinet, the local
authority’s executive. Please refer to issues raised in response to Q19.
Q23. Do you consider that if the decision makers failed to make a
recommendation a proposal should lapse?
No. Please refer to the response to Q22
Q24. For local authorities: What costs might be incurred by local authorities in
establishing and supporting a decision making panel/committee for school
organisation proposals?
As stated in response to Q19, NPT is firmly of the view that objections should
be determined at local level by the local authority’s executive. The cost
6
associated with establishing and maintaining a Panel reinforces this position.
For such a Panel, there will be costs in relation to advertising, recruitment and
training, which may be ongoing as existing members leave and new members
require training. Similar retraining costs arise where members do not sit on a
panel/committee for some time. In addition, there will be likely costs
associated with administration; expenses for panel/committee members;
meeting room/accommodation hire; external advice (legal or other
appropriate); indemnity insurance; and constitution set up.
Q25. a. Should Welsh Ministers have a fall-back power to call-in proposals for
determination? b. If so, should this only be used in exceptional
circumstances? c. What do you consider those circumstances might include?
a. Yes, but the call-in process should be earlier in the proceedings than
proposed in this consultation document. It would be more appropriate to
alert a proposer to the intention for a ‘call-in’ after the consultation report
has been produced and to exercise the ‘call-in’ power if the proposer
determines to proceed with the proposal without appropriate amendment.
This would avoid the need to proceed to the publication of a statutory notice
until the issues giving rise to the ‘call-in’ had been resolved.
b. Yes, for wholly exceptional and justifiable circumstances, such as those
identified in para. 30 of the consultation document.
c. The call-in should be used only where there are concerns that have a clear
evidence base. Its use should be restricted to concerns relating to:
i) a proposer that is acting outside its powers; and/or
ii) a proposal that is unreasonable and if implemented would have a
detrimental effect on the education of children and young people, or
would represent an inefficient and/or inappropriate use of public funds.
Q26. Should modified procedures be available for proposals for closure of
mainstream small schools?
Yes, in respect of primary schools. The pupil threshold option set out in Q27
implies that the modified procedures relate specifically to primary schools (the
suggested thresholds are far too small to have relevance at secondary school
level). Secondary schools, even small secondary schools, usually serve a
wider community with a greater range of key interests than primary schools.
Separate procedures would need to apply a secondary school level.
Q27. If so what should the pupil threshold be? Should it be 15 or 20 or
higher?
Less than 30, in line with the Estyn definition of very small school as set out in
their publication: Small Primary Schools in Wales: Estyn 2006.
Q28. Should simplification take the form of omitting the statutory notices and
objections stage? Or in the event of objections should the local review or
determination by Welsh Ministers stage be omitted? Would any other
modification of the full process be appropriate?
Yes, there should be modification of the full process. If meaningful
consultation is proved to have taken place there should be no need for the
7
publication of a statutory notice and the receiving of objections. As previously
stated (see Q19 above) NPT would wish all cases which require local
determination to be referred for decision to Cabinet, the local authority’s
executive.
Q29. Should the requirement for statutory proposals for closure be removed
when a school has no pupils, to be replaced by notification of closure by the
local authority or governing body?
Yes.
Q30. Do you agree that proposers should be able to give notice of a change
of timing of a proposal by up to 3 years or the abandonment of a proposal
without reference to Welsh Ministers?
Yes.
Q31. Do you agree that Welsh Ministers should continue to have fall-back
powers to address rationalisation of school places for use in cases where
local authorities or governing bodies have failed to take action to match
supply and demand? If not, how would you suggest this problem should be
addressed?
Yes.
8