Catholic school debate will go to the High Court (From Your Local Guardian)

Catholic school debate will go to the High Court

3:41pm Friday 24th August 2012 in Richmond

Risc: Jeremy Rodell will take the battle to the High Court

Opponents of the council’s proposed new Catholic school will get their day in court.

Judge Ockleton said the British Humanist Association (BHA) and the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign (Risc) should be allowed to challenge Richmond Council’s plans for the site in Clifden Road, Twickenham.

The BHA, whose supporters include comedian Stephen Fry and author Salman Rushdie, said the case could have huge national implications.

Campaigners claimed the Government’s new Education Act meant the council first had to consider proposals for an academy or free school, which can only enrol a maximum of 50 per cent of pupils based on their religion.

Lord True, leader of Richmond Council, said he was disappointed by the High Court’s decision to grant a judicial review, which will look into whether the authority acted lawfully when it approved the Diocese of Westminster’s plans for a new Catholic primary and secondary school on May 24.

He said the council’s own survey found 67 per cent of parents and residents supported the move.

Lord True said: “I am disappointed that despite the clear, democratic decision that has been taken by our community, the national BHA and its local acolyte, have moved forward with their campaign.

“This delay and uncertainty will also be of huge concern to a large number of parents who have already started applying for places for their children at either of the schools.”

The council’s plan for a new Catholic school, which would prioritise admissions to children from Catholic families, has sparked huge controversy amid concerns over a shortage of classroom places across the borough.

Jeremy Rodell, spokesman for Risc, vowed to push ahead with the legal battle as long as it can secure a limit on court costs.

He said: “That’s good news for the thousands of people in the borough who think that it’s wrong to use the only currently available site for a state-funded school that can turn away local children simply because of their parents’ beliefs, especially when there’s so much competition for high quality secondary school places.”

He also hit back at Lord True’s claims that members of Risc were acolytes of the BHA.

He said: “Lord True knows full well that Risc supporters come from right across the spectrum, even including some Catholics.

“Most supporters don’t care about religion or humanism but simply want good schools open to all.”

The BHA said the hearing –expected to start in October – will be the first case in which campaigners have legally challenged a proposed faith school because of religious discrimination.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the BHA, said: “When proposing to establish new state-funded schools, religious groups largely avoid competition with other proposals and instead usually arrange directly with councils to open schools ‘by the back door’, leaving the public with no other choices.

“When such an arrangement has been reached, proposed faith schools have had a 100 per cent success rate in subsequently opening.

“It is time to challenge this practice and attempt to redress the imbalance in the routes through which faith schools and other schools can open.”

Lord True said the High Court case would come at a huge cost to taxpayers in Richmond.

He added: “As I have said before, the council will defend our local decision against legal action confidently and vigorously, seeking to recoup any costs.”

Comments(24)

ruggabugga says...
5:31pm Fri 24 Aug 12

If the Council was prepared to listen to residents concerns they wouldn't be facing Judicial Review over the Catholic school or the high-rise residential development of Twickenham station.

Lord True may be disappointed that he hasn't been able to steam-roller his way over thousands of residents in each case. His unpopular decisions should be investigated because they have resulted in the lengthy and costly legal actions for both the Council and its residents.

It appears that Twickenham's Big Society is giving him a kick up the backside. I hope he takes note and starts listening to the people he was elected to represent.

Report this post »

richste says...
10:46pm Fri 24 Aug 12

In accepting the application for a Judicial Review, Judge Ockleton of the High Court decided that “Despite what the defendant says it seems to me that it is arguable that the consultation was based on a decision that provision was necessary…. If that is right, section 6A was engaged.” Section 6A refers to the requirement introduced by the Education Act 2011 that a Council that thinks it needs a new school must first to seek proposals for an Academy/Free School. He also said that “A claim based on the legality of a decision taken on 24 May 2012 does not appear to be out of time given the steps taken since, if section 6A applied, or if the consultation mis-stated the Council's position, decision was arguably unlawful.”

Report this post »

sirarthurbliss says...
11:28pm Fri 24 Aug 12

To defend his position and achieve his exclusive school Lord True has to demonstrate how he's spending millions of taxpayer pounds on a school that simply isn't needed.

You'll remember that's not at all what his consultation (and the Diocese) argued.

What a farce.

Report this post »

lottieprosser says...
11:54pm Fri 24 Aug 12

This is a great relief to the many parents in the Teddington and Twickenham area who are worried that Richmond Council is mismanaging educational provision so badly that there will be no secondary school places for their children in a couple of years time. We don't need this exclusive Catholic school open to only 10% of children: we need new secondary schools that are open to all local children. The improvement in GCSE results at Twickenham Academy and other local schools will add to the pressure on places as more families will opt to stay in the state system. It really is time for the arrogant Lord True to admit he can't have his way on this. The expenditure of council taxpayers' money on trying to justify this Catholic school when it is clearly illegal is disgraceful.

Report this post »

gaurav says...
6:02am Sat 25 Aug 12

RISC is an “acolyte” of the British Humanist Association is a highly offensive and derogatory remark from Lord True. Over 3000 local RISC supporters are from a diverse background. A more dignified response would have been to humbly accept the Judge's interpretation of the law ( that he passed in the House of Lords!). Perhaps its an angry and frustrated reaction from Lord True who is now really nervous about losing this case. I hope he as well as everyone (irrespective of which side of the debate they have been) have respect for the law of the land.

Report this post »

alandl says...
12:42pm Sat 25 Aug 12

Am I alone in thinking that Lord True - an interesting name - sees the foundation of Catholic Primary and Secondary Schools in Richmond as the legacy of his Leadership of the Council. If he had the interests of the whole electorate as his priority, he would give up now and save a lot of council-tax payers money and council officers time. Even if the council eventually wins their case - unlikely given the words of the judge - they will never recover all the money spent and the disruption to more important council business. Give up now, gracefully, and get on with running the council for the greater good of the people of Richmond.

Report this post »

Copthall resident says...
12:58pm Sat 25 Aug 12

alandl, no you are not alone, although I think defending the interests of his friends in the Catholic Church also rank highly in his priorities. He is certainly adopting the tribal rhetoric of a hopefully small number of Catholic school supporters who seems to percieve that "Humanist" is a derogatory label (whilst ironically complaining of prejudice against Catholics). His comments make it quite apparent that he didn't actually listen to the arguments put to him by a diverse group of local people, as I recall at the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee meetings they included an Anglican and someone married to a Catholic as well as many who spoke primarily as concerned parents.

Report this post »

akhanw says...
1:49pm Sat 25 Aug 12

Lord True has no democratic mandate to use the taxpayers funds to contest an illegal position. The Council has acted illegally - either it has violated the Education Act or run an illegal consultation and mislead the entire borough. This is the height of irresponsibility and abuse of power ! Lord True must be feeling very lonely standing there on his own - I doubt even his own councillors or Catholics will support him to break the law. Perhaps Zac Goldsmith who is an advocate of True Recall and Direct Democracy (http://www.zacgolds
mith.com/article.asp
?contentID=191&newsI
D=649) should put into practice what he preaches here in Richmond.

Report this post »

seamus joyce says...
3:30pm Sat 25 Aug 12

As always the Rodell and Twickenham Times show one side of the story.Here are just a few facts that make this story more balanced.

1.In an open consultation on the new school over two thirds of parents in the borough wanted a Catholic Secondary.
2.The council decision by backed by the Overview and Scrutiny Commitee
on education who returned a majority vote on the decision last May.
3.Richmond is only one of two London boroughs that are denied a Catholic Secondary School.
4.By going ahead with a Catholic Secondary School it will free up several places for non Catholic children in the borough.

In my view Lord True has listened to the parents of Richmond and has made the correct decision on the new secondary school.I look forward to a more balanced debate when the primary schools of the borough reopen next week.

Report this post »

Copthall resident says...
4:07pm Sat 25 Aug 12

Seamus, when and how exactly did two thirds of parents in the borough make their views known? Perhaps what you mean is that two thirds of those who responded to a consultation, many after being urged to from the pulpit and handed a form to fill in and hand back to be submitted en masse and who were overwhelmingly Catholic, were in favour of a Catholic School. If you look at the parents of primary age children who responded to that consultation those for and against were roughly equal, and 75% of non Catholics, including the majority of Anglicans, were against it. If you were stupid enough to assume that the respondants to the consultation were in any way a representative sample of the parents in the borough then it is easy to see that with Catholics only being 10% of the population and 75% of non Catholics opposing the proposal you would be more likely be drawing the conclusion that two thirds of parents in the borough were not in favour!!! Of course in reality it would probably be nearer the mark to say two thirds of parents don't really care enough to express a view because it doesn't affect them or they don't see the point because Lord True is going to plough on regardless whatever they say.

As to the scrutiny committee you may recall the decision really came down to the views of unelected Church representatives.

I personally wouldn't begrudge the Catholic community in Richmond a school if it wasn't delivered by using a quite possibly illegal process to ensure it is exclusive and that it is becoming increasingly clear that the borough is heading for a school place crisis. You probably haven't noticed but the assumptions underpinning the Council's forecasts have been falling like dominos, no new school in Kingston, no drop in out of borough pupils with Richmond schools once again outperforming schools in neighbouring boroughs at GCSE, fantastic results at Richmond Park Academy which will surely see their spare capacity disappear faster than forecast, continuing recession etc. etc.

But above all it's the issue of legality. A High Court judge says it is possibly illegal, surely we have a right to expect our Council to at that point to at the very least act quickly to clarify the law, not to use our tax payers money to intimidate RISC and to "vigourously" defend it's dodgy actions?

Seamus, when and how exactly did two thirds of parents in the borough make their views known? Perhaps what you mean is that two thirds of those who responded to a consultation, many after being urged to from the pulpit and handed a form to fill in and hand back to be submitted en masse and who were overwhelmingly Catholic, were in favour of a Catholic School. If you look at the parents of primary age children who responded to that consultation those for and against were roughly equal, and 75% of non Catholics, including the majority of Anglicans, were against it. If you were stupid enough to assume that the respondants to the consultation were in any way a representative sample of the parents in the borough then it is easy to see that with Catholics only being 10% of the population and 75% of non Catholics opposing the proposal you would be more likely be drawing the conclusion that two thirds of parents in the borough were not in favour!!! Of course in reality it would probably be nearer the mark to say two thirds of parents don't really care enough to express a view because it doesn't affect them or they don't see the point because Lord True is going to plough on regardless whatever they say. As to the scrutiny committee you may recall the decision really came down to the views of unelected Church representatives. I personally wouldn't begrudge the Catholic community in Richmond a school if it wasn't delivered by using a quite possibly illegal process to ensure it is exclusive and that it is becoming increasingly clear that the borough is heading for a school place crisis. You probably haven't noticed but the assumptions underpinning the Council's forecasts have been falling like dominos, no new school in Kingston, no drop in out of borough pupils with Richmond schools once again outperforming schools in neighbouring boroughs at GCSE, fantastic results at Richmond Park Academy which will surely see their spare capacity disappear faster than forecast, continuing recession etc. etc. But above all it's the issue of legality. A High Court judge says it is possibly illegal, surely we have a right to expect our Council to at that point to at the very least act quickly to clarify the law, not to use our tax payers money to intimidate RISC and to "vigourously" defend it's dodgy actions? Copthall resident

Report this post »

akhanw says...
4:47pm Sat 25 Aug 12

Seamus - Are you saying that you do not care whether the Catholic school is legal or not ? Even Gove recently said that he will not budge the 50% rule for Catholic schoolshttp://www.ca
tholicherald.co.uk/n
ews/2012/07/26/gove-
i-wont-relax-rules-o
n-catholic-free-scho
ols/ .
Do you want to be above the law?

Report this post »

JeremyRodell says...
5:15pm Sat 25 Aug 12

Seamus - of course it's fair for you to put your side of the argument, though, as akhanw says, hopefully you're not saying that the Council should go ahead with an illegal action. All that's happening is that the court will decide whether their decision was legal or not.

But taking your points in turn:
1. Copthall resident has dealt with the point about the consultation. Lord True and Geoffrey Samuel also made clear in advance that, if the result had been the other way around, they would still have gone ahead on the basis of protecting a downtrodden minority. You win or everyone else loses.
2. I'm surprised you raise the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The majority of one vote there was only achieved as a result of the votes of the 5 Conservative councillors and the diocesan reps from the Anglican and Catholic churches. None of the three non-party-political Parent Governors voted in favour. It was astonishing that the Catholic Diocesan rep failed in his duty under the Council's Code of Conduct to declare a prejudicial interest - which would have meant he could not vote - despite representing a Diocese which will enjoy huge benefits, including financial benefits, from the decision. (I understand that the Council has engaged an independent adviser to assess his action following a number of complaints.)
3. The fact there there are no Catholic secondaries within the borough's boundaries is pretty irrelevant when (a) there is no other group that claims a (non-existent) "right" to its own exclusive schools at taxpayer expense (b) Richmond is a small borough and there are a number of good Catholic secondaries nearby (Bromley is the other borough without one, and it's 150% our size).
4. You know as well as I do that the number of places freed up in local community secondaries by a new Catholic secondary is likely to be negligible. The best figure I've seen is around 15.

But none of that makes any difference to the key point: how can it be right to set up a new local state-funded school that will be able to turn away local children simply because of the religion or beliefs of their parents? The growing pressure on places only highlights that unfairness.

Seamus - of course it's fair for you to put your side of the argument, though, as akhanw says, hopefully you're not saying that the Council should go ahead with an illegal action. All that's happening is that the court will decide whether their decision was legal or not. But taking your points in turn: 1. Copthall resident has dealt with the point about the consultation. Lord True and Geoffrey Samuel also made clear in advance that, if the result had been the other way around, they would still have gone ahead on the basis of protecting a downtrodden minority. You win or everyone else loses. 2. I'm surprised you raise the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The majority of one vote there was only achieved as a result of the votes of the 5 Conservative councillors and the diocesan reps from the Anglican and Catholic churches. None of the three non-party-political Parent Governors voted in favour. It was astonishing that the Catholic Diocesan rep failed in his duty under the Council's Code of Conduct to declare a prejudicial interest - which would have meant he could not vote - despite representing a Diocese which will enjoy huge benefits, including financial benefits, from the decision. (I understand that the Council has engaged an independent adviser to assess his action following a number of complaints.) 3. The fact there there are no Catholic secondaries within the borough's boundaries is pretty irrelevant when (a) there is no other group that claims a (non-existent) "right" to its own exclusive schools at taxpayer expense (b) Richmond is a small borough and there are a number of good Catholic secondaries nearby (Bromley is the other borough without one, and it's 150% our size). 4. You know as well as I do that the number of places freed up in local community secondaries by a new Catholic secondary is likely to be negligible. The best figure I've seen is around 15. But none of that makes any difference to the key point: how can it be right to set up a new local state-funded school that will be able to turn away local children simply because of the religion or beliefs of their parents? The growing pressure on places only highlights that unfairness. JeremyRodell

Report this post »

wheelnut78 says...
11:15pm Sat 25 Aug 12

I applaud the local work and support provided by faiths across the world, including those active in this borough. However, I am one of the group of residents who take a quiet decision not to follow any of them. Therefore I find it very disappointing when some try to describe this as a Catholic v non-Catholic debate.

To sprinkle a bit of honesty onto this debate, we all want is best for our children – and top of everyone’s list is their own offspring. Mother Nature is responsible for that. But to live in a civilised society we have to accept dispassionate decisions taken to ensure fairness and equality.

Who has the greater need, the Catholic or the non-Catholic child? Assuming fairness and equality, there is only one answer – neither. The High Court will have to take this decision. Richmond Council cannot permit exclusivity based on an individual’s religious belief.

This does not mean non-Catholics want their Catholic neighbours to suffer. It simply means there are not enough secondary-school places in the borough. If there were a surplus of places, this debate would not be taking place. The fact that other London boroughs provide Catholic secondary schools does not obligate Richmond Council to assist the local Catholic Diocese to build a new one.

The Leader of the Council, Lord True, has been given a democratic mandate to take local decisions and be judged on them. Those of us who disagree with his decisions should vote against him in the next local elections. But as a politician he should do his best to avoid representing the people of one faith over any other. Politics and religion are best kept apart so that we can get the best from both of them.

Report this post »

JeremyRodell says...
12:04am Sun 26 Aug 12

Hear hear! Inclusivity means equal rights for everyone, including people who see themselves as Catholics, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, humanists or nothing at all.
No-one's perfect, but we should all do our best to empathise with others in our plural community as fellow human beings - including those with whom we disagree.

Report this post »

LizzyJ says...
3:03pm Sun 26 Aug 12

The Catholic community have been badly let down by the council, who should have advised them to propose a Catholic Academy instead. A lot of angst could then have been avoided.

Report this post »

metis says...
4:13pm Sun 26 Aug 12

Why bother with the courts? We appear to have judge, jury and executioner right here on this page.

Report this post »

ChrisSquire says...
5:20pm Sun 26 Aug 12

The judicial review will only look at the lawfulness - or or not - of the way the Council made its decision. It will decide exactly how the Education and Inspections Act (2006, with Education Act 2011 schedule 11 amendments) should have been applied.

The Council says that this new school falls outside the scope of the Act because it is 'wanted' but not 'needed', so it is free to give the Catholics for a Voluntary Aided school. They may be proved right.

I suggest therefore that there is no point in rehearsing the arguments for and against a Catholic-only school yet again - they have been aired several times at great length in these pages and elsewhere, notably on Mumsnet Talk Richmond upon Thames, where a conversation has been running since February 2011: it is nearly 2700 posts long. It is not necessary to be a mum to join in.

Report this post »

Dr James Murphy says...
11:33pm Sun 26 Aug 12

I don't understand why Lord True is adamant the school must be VA/exclusively Catholic - he even expressed disquiet about 'dilution'.

As LizzieJ points out, if a Catholic Academy had been proposed the plan would be welcomed by all and both the Council and Catholic church would be seen in a far better light.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
6:16pm Mon 27 Aug 12

Just a slight clarification on Dr Murphy's point. When he mentions 'Council' perhaps 'Administration' would have been the better choice of word. This is not the will of the entire council.

As a Lib Dem councillor and, in the interests of openness, a Catholic with children attending a Catholic Primary School in the borough I have always been broadly in favour of some form of Catholic Secondary provision. I have always argued, however, that this should not be at the expense of denying places to other children who aren't Catholic. The 50/50 academy approach would seem, to me, to be the most ideal solution.

What I am afraid Nick True has done is split the opinions of many people down narrow religious lines; as I have said before, who would have thought 21st Century Richmond would become the new hotbed for Wars of Religion in England?

Those people who blame Nick True for this must also look to his Conservative party colleagues on the council. Not one has taken a stand on this though I know for a fact that many have grave reservations, some even oppose the move.

Report this post »

gaurav says...
11:04pm Mon 27 Aug 12

Chris - Apart from the education act, the judge is considering the legality of the Councils Clifden Road consultation "....it is arguable that the consultation was based on a decision that provision was necessary .....or if the consultation mis-stated the Council's position, decision was arguably unlawful"
Gareth - All our Councillors should be open and frank and more vocal about their views. It was also dissapointing to see majority of them not speak at all at the crucial O&SC and Cabinet meetings. Its a real shame when our representatives, take cover behind party lines.

Report this post »

richste says...
11:35pm Mon 27 Aug 12

Metis - you have a point and like you I am concerned about why my Council tax money is being spent in courts. Especially when the Council is on thin ice on this one. I just cant understand that when the policy is to convert all our schools into academies, why could the Council not go for a Catholic academy. A new Catholic academy plus the great improvements we are seeing in our academies - should it not be good to meet the needs of Catholics and non Catholics ? Paul Hodgins should give us a morally and legally fair solution

Report this post »

ChrisSquire says...
12:57am Tue 28 Aug 12

The Catholic Church, I understand, made it clear that it did not wish to sponsor a 50/50 academy: for then it is a VA school, 100 % Catholic, or nothing. I imagine they regard the recent Acts of Parliament limiting faith-based admission to 50 % as no more than temporary aberrations which will soon be repealed. They are confident they can easily fill a 100 % Catholic school so why settle for less? the Church didn't get where it is today by compromising with 'humanists' - for them a derogatory term = atheists.

Lord True thought he had found a lawful way to give them what they wanted: now we must wait for a High Court judge to tell us if it is lawful or not.

Report this post »

ruggabugga says...
12:17pm Tue 28 Aug 12

The broader question remains over Lord True's leadership of the Council into not one but, TWO Judicial Reviews at great potential cost to LBRUT Council Tax payers.
If he had consulted and listened to the many thousands residents who opposed his school and station plans he wouldn't have led the Council into the mess its currently in.

Report this post »

sirarthurbliss says...
12:17am Wed 29 Aug 12

Time for a reminder that Lord True and his wife are trustees of a charity "To benefit such Roman Catholic Charitable purposes as the Trustees shall in their absolute discretion from time to time think fit". Latest figures show it has assets of over £30million: http://www.charities
direct.com/charities
/sir-harold-hood-cha
ritable-trust-225870
.html

I don't recall Lord True making a declaration of interest before council debates about the Catholic school.

Report this post »

Catholic school debate will go to the High Court (From Your Local Guardian)

Richmond RSS Feed

Catholic school debate will go to the High Court

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies