|
|
 |
| |
Artist’s impression of how the new Camden academy could look |
Academy sponsor ‘chosen to boost election chances’
Council is accused of favouring university bid to help win votes
THE decision to appoint University College London as sponsor of Camden’s first academy school was steamrollered through the Town Hall for political reasons, the High Court has heard.
Barrister David Wolfe argued in the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday (Wednesday) that Camden Council acted “unlawfully” in naming UCL as sponsor last July, ignoring “huge interest” from the Church of England and the education charity, Absolute Return for Kids (Ark).
It was claimed the motive of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative administration was winning the next council election in 2010.
The case has been brought by two parents who claim the academy project, which will be built in Swiss Cottage, failed to follow correct consultation rules.
Mr Wolfe argued UCL was named sponsor in a “backroom deal” following a series of “senior level” discussions with heads of the Bloomsbury university which accelerated after the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives seized control of the Town Hall two years ago.
He said: “Up to May 2006, there was a dialogue over a partnership with UCL and other schools in Camden. It was not limited to an academy scheme, but with all schools. It was all very much at arms length.
“The May 2006 election was an intervening event. A different stance was taken by the new administration. There was a huge shift in tone of the enthusiasm.
“Camden’s discussions with UCL were at the very highest level. There was no parallel with the Church of England or Ark. Any other discussions were shut down at the outset. They were distinctly frozen out of the process.”
The court heard that the collapsed bank, Lehmann Brothers, had also expressed an interest in a joint venture with UCL, but had pulled out in June 2006.
In a race to build a popular new school in time for the next election, Mr Wolfe said, Camden Council deliberately sidelined competition guidelines for the contract.
He produced an email from Liberal Democrat councillor John Bryant, a former member of the council’s cabinet, stating that opening an academy in time for the 2010 elections would be “helpful to both parties [Lib Dems and Conservatives]” in control at the Town Hall.
Mr Wolfe said that Cllr Bryant had also argued at a council meeting that “it was not appropriate to assist the formation of a Church of England school” because of his personal concerns over Christian worship and the curriculum.
Mr Wolfe said: “The council was aware that other sponsors were interested in the school. But the competition route was seen as a risk because of the delay.
“The Church of England was seen as a threat to that.
“The council deliberately side-stepped the competition process because the school might be built in time for the next election. There are concerns that there has not been a level playing field and that the decision was a backroom deal.”
Mr Wolfe argued that Camden flouted strict government guidance ensuring “all new schools”, where the council exerts influence, are subjected to a rigorous and open competitive bidding process. For academy schools, competitions are not required.
Mr Wolfe said that on November 27, 2006, Cllr Bryant met with Ark. Reading an email from Cllr Bryant, obtained by the legal team for the court hearing, he quoted: “They wanted to be independent of the council – that was not what we wanted.”
Mr Wolfe is arguing that during the series of meetings with UCL, Camden negotiated a deal where they would continue to co-run the school with the university.
Crucially, he said, the application to the secretary of state to open the new school was a “joint venture” – with both Camden and UCL named on the expression of interest legal document – meaning the guidance on holding a competition process should apply.
He said: “The guidance is that if the local authority has input they have to go through the competition route. This regime was put in place to ensure that when a local authority has influence over a school there is some degree of transparency in the process through clear and open competition. When the local authority made its choice not to have competition it was wrongly trying to thwart this guidance.”
The academy is planned for the current site of Frank Barnes school for deaf children which has been closed to make way for the scheme.
Mr Justice Forbes is expected to reach his decision early next week after hearing evidence from Camden and the Secretary of State’s legal team.
The hearing continues. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
