Orders of the Day — School Standards and Framework Bill

House of Commons, 15 July 1998.

POWER TO SET LIMITS ON INFANT CLASS SIZES.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 108, 150, 151, 327, 331, 332 and 408.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I shall try to be as brief as possible so that the House can spend longer on the issues where there is clearly disagreement about the approach adopted in the House of Lords. The amendments seek to implement the recommendations of the Deregulation Committee that a class size limit of 30 should appear in the Bill. The amendments achieve that objective, which the Government support. They also provide that the time limit by which the class size pledge should be introduced should be the year 2001–02. That is the legal deadline, as it were, by which the class size pledge should be introduced. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said this afternoon, we intend to introduce that pledge from September 2001, although, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we will be able to provide resources to local education authorities and Church authorities to allow them to implement the pledge from September 2000, if that is their wish. The amendments meet the requirements of the Deregulation Committee, and I commend them to the House.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I assure the Minister that I do not intend to delay proceedings on technical matters, although there are a number of groupings of amendments—where it is proposed not to disagree with the Lords—where we will wish to make some comments. We have had lively debates about class sizes on a number of occasions, and I will not reopen the issue as a whole. I note in passing that there are no fewer than 260 Government amendments from the Lords. The Government have been amending the Bill right up to the last minute—they have constantly had to make changes—which suggests that they did not think through all its practical implications. I have two questions on class sizes. They have been put to Ministers and to the Secretary of State in various debates, but we have not yet received answers to them. The first is technical; I was asked it by a head teacher when I visited a school in my constituency on Monday. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked the same question in the Opposition Supply day debate on class sizes, but, as I recall, he did not receive a response. It concerns the definition of a class that contains mixed ages. When does a class of five and six-year-olds or of six and seven-year-olds—or, after the infant stage, of seven and eight-year-olds—count as one to which the 30 limit applies? When a class contains a mixture of seven and eight-year-olds, will it be the majority of children's ages that count in determining whether the limit applies? The second question is not technical; it goes to the heart of whether the Government can implement their class size pledge. The Minister will know that many people have raised the matter of parental choice. The Local Government Association has made it clear that the class size pledge can be implemented only by a reduction in parental choice. Will the Minister reassure the House—he and the Secretary of State were asked this in the Opposition Supply day debate—that children will not be turned away from a school that their parents want them to attend because of the class size limit of 30?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The 260 Government amendments have improved the Bill; very often, they were tabled as a result of the comments made by Opposition Members. We make no apology for that, as we believe that the Bill is now far better because of the changes that we have been prepared to make along the way after listening to Opposition Members, to the Churches and to parents. By working in partnership, we now have a Bill that will introduce a new school structure framework that has broad and popular support—that is why I very much commend the Bill to the House. The Bill will create a legal requirement on local education authorities to produce plans to reduce class sizes. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will know that we have sent out regulations for consultation; if she looks carefully at them, she will see that there is a clear requirement that local authorities will have to give regard to the expression of parental preference in bringing forward their plans for the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State will not approve plans that do not give regard to parental preference. Conservative legislation never stipulated parental choice; it provided for an ability to express parental preference. We have made it clear that the expression of parental preference, which we are retaining, will not be hindered in any way by the introduction of the Bill's measures on class sizes. The hon. Member for Maidenhead also asked what constituted a class for five, six and seven-year-olds. The definition is contained in the Bill; I cannot lay my hands on it immediately, but I shall write to her and give her the reference. With those comments, I hope that we can agree to the Lords amendments.

PREPARATION OF EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. In Committee, many hon. Members expressed the desire that the Bill should require express provision in education development plans for children with special educational needs. I made the point both then and on Report that it was not technically necessary, as there was a requirement on local authorities to address the needs of all children in their area in their EDPs 4.45 pm However, several peers felt that the needs of SEN children would be better protected if provision were written into the Bill. We are happy to agree, and to state beyond any possibility of doubt that we expect local authorities to state in their EDPs how they intend to address the needs of every child, including SEN children. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

How will local authorities describe categories of special educational needs, or will a generic term be used? For example, will SEN children be only those who are statemented or will those who are unstatemented but for whom classroom assistance has been provided be included? How will the categorisation be written in the Bill?

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in the subject, and she will know that there is no standard definition of SEN. Each local authority interprets it in its own way. We are investigating that in our consideration of responses to the Green Paper. I would expect local authorities to use their own definition of SEN and, as a rule of thumb, I would want them to provide an explanation of what they are doing to raise standards for all the children, for example, on each of the five stages in the code of practice. There is no way out, because, however a local authority chooses to define SEN, it is still answerable for raising standards for every single child. The reason for the amendment—and why we are happy to accede to it—is merely to remove any fear that SEN would be a bolt-on to local authorities' thinking. However local authorities define SEN, those needs and that local definition must be addressed in an annexe to their EDP. I accept the hon. Lady's signal that there is a real need for a discussion of the legal definition of SEN. We will do that at a later date.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her comments. We had a debate on this subject in Committee, and it would have been nice if the Government had accepted the point then, but we are grateful that they have done so now. It is important that there should be a specific requirement on local education authorities to include provision for children with special educational needs in their education development plans. The Minister's answer concerns me somewhat. I recognise that there is a practical difficulty, in that different definitions are used by different local authorities, but it would be unfortunate if the inclusion of the amendment left some children out and did not ensure that they were properly covered in the plan. I wonder whether the Government have any intention of examining EDPs when the LEAs submit them, to ensure that all categories of children with special educational needs are being properly catered for, regardless of the definition used, and that no children fall out of the net.

ESTABLISHMENT OF EDUCATION ACTION ZONES

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

This group of amendments covers three broad areas. The first group deals with clause 10, as a difficulty may exist with schools that were created once an education action zone had been established. A school may close or schools may merge and, as the regulations and the Bill stood before consideration in the Lords, such new schools would not be part of the zone. Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 remedy that potential weakness and would allow a new school that is created within the zone to be fully a part of it, which is an appropriate way forward. The amendments to clause 13 deal with the procedure and means by which disapplication of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 will take place. The amendments ensure that all governing bodies, including those that are not the legal employer of the teacher, have the power to disapply a teacher's pay and conditions document, if they wish. It is appropriate that all governing bodies should have that important power. We commend those amendments to the House. The final group deals with the accounts of education action zones being audited and made available to the National Audit Office, which is an appropriate way forward, and the amendments would also ensure that education action forums have charitable status. That is particularly important because such status will act as an incentive to private companies making donations in cash or in kind to the forums. Obviously, certain tax concessions will be available as a result of the forums having charitable status. Those three groups of amendments are important, and I commend them to the House.

CASES WHERE LEA MAY EXERCISE POWERS OF INTERVENTION

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The prime responsibility for improving a school that is failing must rest with the school. We will all have failed if we allow a school to drift into failure. It is far better for the school and the individual children concerned for intervention to be early and light before the school fails, rather than waiting until it is underperforming, needs special measures and intervention has to be heavy. Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 would give the local education authority a responsibility to put in writing its view that a school was drifting towards failure. That power of intervention is important before a school needs to be put under special measures. Because of the importance of that approach, the amendments would ensure that the local education authority has to give notice of its concerns in writing, which is an appropriate course. Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 to clause 16 put right an omission. They allow Church authorities to take action at voluntary-aided schools on the same footing as local education authorities do at their schools. The Church authorities raised the matter, and we are pleased to meet their concern. Amendment No. 18 was tabled in the other place to meet representations from the Church authorities about the appointment of additional governors to voluntary-aided schools when they enter into special measures. The Secretary of State has the power to appoint additional governors in those circumstances, but it is appropriate that he should consult relevant diocesan authorities, particularly about which individuals should be appointed to such a governing body. The Church authorities have welcomed the amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The major amendments in this group are our response to the publication of the report on truancy and school exclusions. That was much discussed in Committee, and we said that we might return to it. We have amended the Bill to give the Secretary of State a new power to require the governing bodies of maintained schools to set targets for reduction in unauthorised absence when their attendance levels are below average. All evidence shows that children who miss school—for short periods or long—are more likely to leave school without formal qualifications and without making the most of their abilities. They are most likely to become socially excluded in adult life as well as in childhood. We have introduced new safeguards to ensure that schools cannot too readily exclude pupils. A balance is needed on exclusions. We are not taking away from schools the right to exclude, which is sometimes necessary, and which must be a decision for the head teacher and the governing body. However, we are determined to reduce exclusions and to ensure that schools do not use them as a weapon when other tools might be better. The amendment would require head teachers and governors to have regard to guidance on exclusion. Previously, the guidance could be considered if heads and governors wished, but there was no legal requirement on them to have regard to it. We hope that that will bring coherence to reasons for exclusion. One explanation for the vastly different numbers of children excluded by different schools is the criteria in use. There was strong support in the other place for a specific reference in the Bill to bullying. No one would disagree with our requiring schools, ourselves, local authorities, parents and communities to ensure that children are neither bullied nor bullies. We are happy to accept amendment No. 74, which requires head teachers to determine measures as part of a school's discipline policy to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 make life easier for local authorities that want to invoke clauses 61, 60 and 70. The amendments will allow local authorities to use powers flexibly without having to serve different types of notices, as that would be confusing as well as unnecessarily bureaucratic. Amendments Nos. 279, 280 and 281 make minor changes to the process for hearing parental appeals against permanent exclusion of their child. Amendments Nos. 78, 80 to 83, 129 and 375 are technical and deal with flaws in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

NEW CATEGORIES OF MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I am always surprised when a relatively small change requires so many amendments, but that is the way of parliamentary counsel. It will normally be the case under the new framework that a grant-maintained school, in moving into the new framework, will be maintained by the local education authority in whose area that school is situated. However, there may be isolated cases where schools are located within a particular local education authority area where, perhaps for historical or traditional reasons, the bulk of the children attending the school may be resident in a neighbouring local education authority. In those circumstances, the local education authority with the majority of children attending the school may feel that it is the appropriate body to take responsibility for maintaining the school. This may apply to only a handful of schools, but we must ensure that clause 20 is amended to allow a local education authority in those circumstances to appeal to the Secretary of State and make representations so that it can take responsibility for maintaining the school. The amendment provides that, by 30 November 1998, a former maintaining local education authority, or the local education authority in whose area the school is situated, may appeal to the Secretary of State. We feel that that is an appropriate course of action and agree with the amendments.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Will the Minister consider a small issue relating to amendments Nos. 20 and 21 that is of great significance to my constituents? He said that an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State. Southend-on-Sea has four grant-aided grammar schools that provide for 25 per cent. of its children. We are entitled to keep that arrangement as long as the local people support it. Additional places go to children from other authorities. As a result of our 25 per cent. rule, the standard demanded of a Southend child is different from that demanded of a child from outside. This has been our situation for some time. We support the arrangement because the 25 per cent. rule gives an opportunity for children to break through. Our education results are better than those for the rest of Essex. As is the case for Northern Ireland, our results are better overall than those of England, Scotland and Wales. Will the amendments and the change of category from grant-aided to community or foundation school status change other things of which the House is not aware? The change that we have in mind is the Greenwich judgment, which resulted from legislation passed by the previous Government, and undermined the provision for an authority to make a special demand, such as the 25 per cent. rule for children in Southend-on-Sea. We escaped the judgment because we were able to argue that it should not apply to grant-aided schools. If the judgment applied, it would mean that Southend's grammar schools would be open to applications from anyone who wanted to come to them from other parts of Essex. As the Minister well knows, many people from places near Southend would like their children to go there. I appreciate that there is an argument for the Greenwich judgment, I appreciate that there is an argument for grant-aided schools and I appreciate that there is an argument for abolishing grant-aided schools. But it worries me that, in passing the amendments, we could be changing something without being aware of it. Am I raising just a silly fear? I honestly am not. I know that a paper put forward by Shoeburyness county high school, which was considered by Southend-on-Sea borough council, gave the impression that the new status of that school, which has a small selective intake, would change the whole arrangement. Does the Minister believe that, as a consequence of the amendments and the change in the classification of a school, Southend's educational system will be changed significantly? Will it mean that people who are willing to bring their children from all parts of Essex and further afield will have equal admission to those schools? If we are to make such a change, the House should consider it in detail. It is not something which should slip through. I have raised this point not to hold up proceedings—I appreciate that we have many amendments to consider and I have no wish to detain the House on other amendments—but because I hate the situation that often arises in the House, when we make one change in something and create a rather dramatic consequence of which we were not aware. In Southend-on-Sea, we appreciate not a change of policy by the Government, but the fact that the Government have kindly, despite what they said previously, indicated that where grammar school arrangements are acceptable to the local community, we should be allowed to keep them. We simply hope that it will be possible for our arrangements to continue. If, by chance, we cannot continue and the Greenwich judgment has to apply, will the Minister have power to do anything about the appeal to which he has referred? Will he be able to say to Southend that despite the judgment, it can carry on as before? I assure the Minister that the issue is of real significance and could have a serious impact on Southend borough council. If, by chance, my fears are right, the impact on Southend unitary authority will be significant. It will have to make provision for many additional secondary school places. Children who at present go to our grammar schools will have to go to other schools, and there simply is not room. There will be an impact on areas, such as Rochford, round about the Southend area, although, at present, only a limited number of children from that area go to the Southend grammar schools. If the numbers were more substantial, there would be a dramatic impact on schools such as the King Edmund school and others in the area. I hope that the Minister will consider the issue carefully. I appreciate that I have thrown it at him without giving him notice, and I apologise sincerely for that. If there are still difficulties, will the Minister simply look at the matter? The fundamental point is that I hope that he will not, in consequence of making one change, make other changes without being aware of them. Will the Minister assure me, first, that he will look at the issue carefully and, secondly, that if an appeal were made by Southend, he would have some power to do something about it? If he can do so, we shall be very grateful in Southend-on-Sea.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

Although I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, I know that he does not raise silly points, and that he makes representations and argues on issues that are relevant to the people of Southend. I take the points that he raises very seriously. I will, as he has requested, look again at the implications of the amendments for Southend. I assure him that if the amendments affect Southend—I am not sure that they do and I will write to him on the issue—and it is felt that an appeal is appropriate, not only do I guarantee that Southend will have the right to an appeal, but I shall be more than happy to meet him and representatives of Southend to hear at first hand their views and concerns as part of that appeal process. I had in mind in relation to the amendments a number of other parts of the country and individual schools that might be affected, but I did not have schools in Southend in mind. I will revisit the matter to make sure that I was correct in my first view. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know precisely whether the amendments cover the position in Southend. As I said, I think that they do not, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I am tempted to go through each of the amendments in some detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, you will be pleased to hear, I shall not. I notice that, on the Speaker's selection list, the amendments are referred to as "technical amendments"; in the brief from my civil servants that I read last night, they are referred to as "highly technical amendments" and I have to admit that they are. I apologise to the House for the large number of amendments included in the group. They cover four main issues in respect of the new framework. First, they clarify various definitions contained within the Bill in matters such as "appointed day", "community or foundation school" and land held on trust for the purposes of the school". Secondly, they ensure that rights and liabilities will transfer with property, which is wholly appropriate. Thirdly, having received advice from the Charity Commission, we have clarified the charitable status of schools. Fourthly, we have ensured that the necessary regulation-making powers are in place in relation to group foundations and the choice of category process. It is appropriate that the House of Lords raised and dealt with these matters and I hope that the House can agree with the Lords in these highly technical amendments.

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The whole issue of school organisation committees and adjudicators is one with which all hon. Members currently present in the Chamber are thoroughly familiar, as we have discussed it previously. Let me start by saying that there is general agreement that decisions on those important issues should be taken at local level wherever possible. We reached that agreement during our many discussions, so let us start from that point. Nobody pretends that the present system, which we want to replace, is the best way in which to deal with the business in question, as many proposals for change to school organisation are currently considered here in Whitehall by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State currently takes decisions on all proposals relating to voluntary and grant-maintained schools, and on all local education authority proposals to which there have been objections; in addition, the Secretary of State may call in any LEA proposal for his own decision. Local education authorities lose no powers under the arrangements that we want to put in place of existing arrangements. Local authorities will still be responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient school places in their area; and they will draft the important school organisation plan that must underpin all decisions about schools in the area. LEAs will retain their powers to publish proposals for all types of change to community schools and to decide any of their own proposals that do not attract objections. Where our proposals do introduce change is in the making of decisions on those proposals that local education authorities have never had the power to determine: proposals of their own that attract objections, and proposals made by voluntary schools and by foundation schools. Under our proposed arrangements, those decisions will be made jointly by all the partners in the local education service, with each having a direct voice in the decisions that are taken. 5.15 pm We have to recognise that, even under the best of arrangements, there are bound to be occasions when the essential partners in the local education service cannot agree. That is why we propose the appointment of independent adjudicators. Adjudicators will consider cases in the light of principles set out in guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, will take into account the information in the school organisation plan. Judgments will be made on the relative merits of each case, and adjudicators will be required to set out reasons for their decisions in formal letters. The focus of the new arrangements that we propose is that there should be local decision making. I believe that school organisation committees will reach decisions on the majority of proposals and that our objective will be achieved, but we have to make sure that there is a mechanism for resolution of organisation and admissions cases that cannot be decided locally. We see great strength in establishing an independent means of reaching such decisions. We greatly regret that the Lords did not accept the strength of those arguments, but, having considered what they said, it remains the Government's view that our proposed approach represents the way ahead for local decision making on changes to local organisations. We have, of course, listened to other points made about the Bill's provisions by members of the House of Lords. The majority of other amendments in the group are a response to suggestions made by Members of the other place and by other organisations, to whose views we have continued to listen. In particular, the provisions for school organisation committees and adjudicators had been amended before they were removed by the Lords amendments, and, in inviting the house to disagree with the Lords amendments, I invite it to agree the changes that we had proposed before they were removed by the Lords amendments. Those changes respond particularly to discussions with the Churches and suggestions made by the Equal Opportunities Commission. As a result of discussions with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we introduced amendments that make it clear on the face of the Bill that decisions by school organisation committees on school organisation plans and on proposals for change to school organisation must be unanimous. At the same time, we provided for it to be possible for unanimity to be reached within a school organisation committee even when one or more groups chose to abstain or were not present at the meeting. The group includes amendments that make it clear that, when reaching decisions, school organisation committees and adjudicators must have regard to the duties placed on local authorities and on school governors by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. That is an important safeguard to support equal opportunities and it is one which we had always intended should exist. We are happy to see it on the face of the Bill, so that there cannot be any shadow of doubt about whether it is intended. During Committee stage in the House of Commons, we introduced amendments that established a clear timetable for consideration of proposals by school organisation committees. Those amendments give a proposer discretion to require the committee to refer a proposal to the adjudicator, if it has not come to a decision within a specified period. Members of both main Opposition parties expressed concern in. Committee that there might be a loophole whereby proposals could be sat on so that when decisions were eventually made, there were no alternatives to choose from because so much time had elapsed. The length of the specified period that we are introducing will be set out in regulations, but it might help the House if I say that we intend the limit to be about two months from the end of the objection period. The special educational needs consortium made several suggestions, including some that will be covered in the discussions on other groups of amendments and one on education development plans to which we have already agreed tonight. On our proposals for school organisation, we have always made it clear that a school organisation committee will need to have access to appropriate SEN expertise, covering provision in special and mainstream schools. There are several ways of achieving that, so we propose to cover that in regulations. This group includes an amendment to make it clear that school organisation plans must refer explicitly to provision for pupils with special educational needs. There is no new intent, but there are new words that confirm that intention beyond any doubt. The group also contains technical drafting amendments, all of which make helpful changes and improve the Bill. We disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35, 198 and 199, but we agree with Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40, 41, 201 to 207, 213 to 232 and 235.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House to disagree with the Minister in her request that we disagree with the House of Lords. Whether or not I am successful, I acknowledge that the Minister was right to say that a number of amendments have been made to the arrangements for school organisation committees and adjudicators which will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I hope that, if I cannot persuade the House to disagree with the Minister about the two key clauses, 23 and 24, hon. Members will nevertheless accept the amendments relating to the way in which adjudicators and school organisation committees should work. The Minister was right to say that this issue has been aired at great length in the House and in another place. On 10 February, the Under-Secretary first uttered the immortal words that the current system is unacceptable. It does not work well and there is room for improvement…our underlying principle is that it is better if such decisions are taken at local level."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998; c. 367.] She was right to say that there is total unanimity in the House on those words. The current system of school organisation arrangements having to be decided by the Secretary of State is simply unacceptable and does not work well. There is certainly room for improvement. The Minister is right to say also that it is far better for decisions to be made at a local level. However, that does not mean that we have to accept the Government's proposals for making those decisions at a local level. I make my argument against those proposals on two key fronts: first, the bureaucracy that underlies them and, secondly, their democratic accountability. On bureaucracy, the two clauses that the Lords want to delete propose an extremely lengthy and bureaucratic procedure. The local education authority would be required, in developing its school organisation plan, to hold a review on the issue and produce a consultation paper containing not one but several proposals. It would then have to hold public meetings and involve staff, parents, governors and other interested parties. It would then produce a report not only on its findings, but on the consultation process itself. It must consider the representations that it has received and decide on the appropriate action to take. The LEA must then go through the whole process again and, having done all that, it must pass its final considerations to the school organisation committee, which will have to go through the whole procedure again. A unanimous decision must be made. If it is not, the issue will be taken on to the adjudicator, who will have to go through the whole process all over again. There is a potential for four tiers to come to a conclusion on the issue. That takes a great deal of time and involves a great deal of bureaucracy. Will those decisions be made by people who are democratically accountable? They will not. Two days ago, in the debate in another place, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, who waxed lyrical on this issue, was critical of local government and the way in which it sometimes makes decisions. He went on to point out that at least you can chuck the rascals out".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 17.] The point about decision making at local level is that decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable and who can, if the decisions do not please the local community, be chucked out of office. I should have thought that on the crucial issues of school organisation arrangements, the Government would have thought it important that the decisions were made by a democratically accountable body. In the House, only 48 hours ago, the Secretary of State enunciated that principle when we were discussing Scottish tuition fees. His main argument against Opposition parties' proposals was that it was totally wrong for the decision to be made by an unelected Chamber—the House of Lords. He stated his principle in terms of the supremacy of the elected body over the unelected body. If we do not accept the judgment made in the Lords, we shall allow to remain in the Bill a set of arrangements in which an unelected body will be allowed to make decisions that are vital to the education arrangements in a particular area. There will be nothing that people in the local community can do about those decisions, which will be final. They will have no redress—not even the ability to ensure that the adjudicator or the members of the school organisation committee are never allowed to make such decisions again. For those reasons—our concerns about bureaucracy and the undemocratic nature of the arrangements—we hope that the House will agree with the Lords and delete clauses 23 and 24.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I sincerely hope that the House will not pass the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendments. The Lords have done a good service to democracy in removing clauses 23 and 24 from the Bill and in proposing that there should be different arrangements in determining the structure of the school organisation within any particular area. We had a lengthy debate on this issue in Committee, and several amendments were tabled and rejected by the Government. Those amendments aimed to improve the arrangements that the Government are proposing. I shall rehearse our concerns about the proposals for the school organisation committee and, in particular, the role of the adjudicator. Decisions on school organisation are made primarily by the local education authority, which knows the area and its requirements. There are processes for public consultation. Councillors are elected and, in debates on school organisation, they are able to put the views of the electorate whom they represent. The decision is then taken by another elected person, the Secretary of State. Throughout that process, elected Members of Parliament may make representations to the Secretary of State regarding proposals for school organisation in their areas and lead constituency delegations to meet the Secretary of State in order to make further representations about the proposed structure. Although many people recognise that the present arrangements have some inadequacies, the emphasis is currently on elected representatives taking decisions and making representations about the proposals at every stage of the procedure. The Government make much of the need for local accountability. In introducing this group of amendments, the Minister referred to local decision making and local accountability. In a note under cover of the Minister that was produced on 18 February during the Standing Committee's deliberations, the Minister referred to the school organisation and admissions adjudicator. She stated: It is the Government's aim that decisions should be taken at local level reflecting agreement between the partners. 5.30 pm I believe that we should agree with the Lords amendments and disagree with the Government on that issue because they propose taking decision making away from the local level and from those who are accountable to the general public, and placing it ultimately in the hands of an adjudicator who will be appointed by the Secretary of State and who, by definition, will not be local. On 10 February in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) moved an amendment to allocate an adjudicator to a specific area. In rejecting that amendment, the Minister replied: It would he better not to have locally based adjudicators because consistency will be produced throughout the country if adjudicators operate in several geographical areas."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998: c. 378.] That comment appears to be contrary to the Minister's statement about the importance of local decision making. Adjudicator appointees will not know the local area. They will be appointed to cover several areas and will not have the local knowledge that is held by the local education authority, elected councillors, elected Members of Parliament and by those who live in the district and wish to make representations. The adjudicator will not be expected to take representations from local delegations. The document issued by the Minister during the Standing Committee states: The Adjudicator will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case…We expect Adjudicators to consider most cases on paper. That is what the Minister said: the adjudicator will look at the proposals that have been put forward.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Would the hon. Lady care to refer back to the document from which she has quoted and complete paragraph 23? It states: Adjudicators may wish to receive oral representations.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but she is looking at a different paragraph. The document to which I refer makes no mention of adjudicators receiving oral representations. However, I note the Minister's point in reference to another document. If adjudicators will take oral representations, that is a step forward. However, it does not get past the fact that the adjudicator will not be a local, elected person. The adjudicator will be appointed by the Secretary of State; he or she will not be from the local area and will not be familiar with it. That point was made clear in our discussions in Standing Committee. Before the decision reaches the adjudicator, it will have passed through the school organisation committee. As the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the structure of the school organisation committee runs counter to the Government's comments about the need for local accountability and democratic accountability. The school organisation committee will comprise one representative from the local education authority, and its other members will be appointed. Unlike the local education authority, its members will not be elected representatives of the people in that area. The committee's process will duplicate that of the local education authority. Under that process, elected representatives examine the school organisation structure in their area and reach decisions based on what they believe is right for that area, applying their local knowledge. If there are objections, the matter will go to a school organisation committee, which—apart from one member from the local education authority—will not comprise elected representatives. Its members will represent different groupings, some of which are identified in the Bill. In introducing her objections to the Lords amendments, the Minister referred to differences in the proposed structure of voting within school organisation committees. I listened to the Minister carefully in case her comments changed my understanding of that situation. Judging from those proposals and the Minister's comments about them, decisions must be unanimous, but it does not matter whether groups are absent from the committee meeting when the vote is taken or whether representatives choose to abstain. Let us say that there are six groupings and each has a single vote within the school organisation committee. If two groupings are not represented, two abstain and two vote in favour of a proposal, the decision is considered to be unanimous. I am sure that most people would contend that two votes out of six is far from a unanimous decision. Rather than improving the situation, I suggest that the Government's proposals generate more concern about the definition of unanimous voting within school organisation committees. According to the nature of the voting structure that will be put in place, some groups may be significantly affected. If they are absent from a meeting for perfectly valid reasons, decisions may be taken that affect them, but they will not be able to make representations and contribute to the debate. In Standing Committee, we discussed the role of Members of Parliament in school organisation committee decisions. Several hon. Members argued strongly that, under the current system, they are able to lead local delegations to meet the Secretary of State before a final decision is taken if there is considerable disagreement about what is proposed. That opportunity for Members of Parliament to assist and to represent the views of their constituents in that way will be removed. However, we were led to believe that the process would be different in one area of decision making. At the time of the countryside march, the Minister for School Standards announced that the process for rural schools would be different. Far from suggesting that the Secretary of State would not take the final decision regarding rural schools, the Minister's statement implied that the Secretary of State would remain the final arbiter of such decisions. That was welcomed at the time. Since then, the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards have refused to put that proposal in the Bill and to prove their good intentions. It appears, from the way in which the Minister and the Government have chosen to handle that issue, that the statement was made with no intention of improving the process for decision taking on the potential closure of rural schools, and with no intention of helping to restore to the process rather more democracy and an opportunity for elected representatives to comment on that proposal, having recognised the genuine needs and concerns of rural communities. Far from that, the Minister was simply trying to make a statement on television before the countryside march, to try to take the sting out of the representations that were being made by the people who were marching through London.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I remind the hon. Lady that I have clarified the Government's position numerous times— most recently, in an Adjournment debate last week. The position is that, until the new framework is in place, there is a presumption against closure of rural schools, which applies at this moment—as a result, some schools have been saved that would not have been saved under the Conservative Government—and that, when the new framework is adopted, the adjudicator will need to comply with guidance set by the Secretary of State. That code of guidance will include the crystal clear presumption against closure of rural schools serving their communities. If an adjudicator fails to follow that code of guidance, remedies will be available to the aggrieved rural community.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

That was not what the Minister implied when he made his statement before the countryside march. The assumption by the people who took part in that countryside march and others, which was raised in the House, was that, far from it being a case of having "due regard"—a phrase which the Government love to use on numerous occasions as a way of getting out of agreeing to do something—to the issue of rural schools and an assumption against school closure, the decisions would still be taken by the Secretary of State, not by the adjudicator. Decisions will be taken by an unelected person, in the shape and form of an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State—an adjudicator who does not know the local area, but whose decision will be final. That is what causes people concern. They are worried about the fact that, by these proposals, far from encouraging local decision taking, as the Under-Secretary straightforwardly said when she opened the debate, far from giving precedence to local decision taking, the Government are taking powers from local decision takers in the local education authority, removing from constituency Members of Parliament any role or ability to make representations to the Secretary of State, and placing the power in the hands of the unelected official called the adjudicator. When the Lords debated the issue, they were especially concerned about the adjudicator's role. As a result, and because of their anxieties about the structure of the school organisation committee, they agreed that clauses 23 and 24 and schedules 4 and 5 should be removed from the Bill. The Government should listen more carefully to the message that the Lords have given them on that issue, because it shows genuine concern about the proposals. The Minister mentioned discussions that the Government had held with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on the way in which the decisions would be taken. However, as I understand it, it is possible that the final decision on, for example, whether a Church school should remain open will now rest with the adjudicator. The Churches will not have a final say; the final decision as to whether a Church school will remain open or will close will remain in the hands of an unelected official, appointed by the Secretary of State, who is not from the local area and knows less about the local area than those who serve on the local education authority do. The Lords got it right. I sincerely hope that the House will get it right tonight and support the Lords amendments. The Under-Secretary is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the House when she talks constantly about local decision taking. The Government make constant references to local decision taking. Their proposals in the Bill remove power from local decision takers and place them in the hands of people who are not from the local area and are not aware of local issues. For those reasons, I trust that the House will see the importance of retaining accountability by involving elected representatives in the process of determining school organisation, and of making it possible for local interests to be well served by retaining the essential powers of decision taking on those issues within the local education authority, and then within the democratically elected processes of reference up to the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will realise how important it is that decisions are taken, not by placemen on a school organisation committee, and not by the Secretary of State's placeman in the form of the adjudicator, but by those who know the local area, know the interests of the local area and wish decisions to be taken in the interests of that local area.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am pleased to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in support of the House of Lords and the decisions that it has taken. It is not the only time during the Bill's passage that the Government have sought to remove powers from the local decision-taking process. The most worrying aspect of that is not the increased aggregation of powers to the Secretary of State, but the loss of accountability. Not only may an unelected placeman take critical decisions of importance for local education, but that person is not answerable through the electoral process to the local population, and will not be accountable for the decisions taken. I can well understand why Ministers may lack confidence in some Labour-controlled local education authorities taking reasonable decisions on those matters, and I suspect that that is among the things that have driven their thinking in formulating the Bill's wording. However, they are effectively removing the opportunity for local people to judge those very LEAs for the bad decisions that they may take. It is vital that the local democratic process should be able to operate in that area, and it should operate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, in co-ordination with the activities and views of the local Member of Parliament.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

So that it is clearly on the record, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is of the opinion that the decision-taking body regarding school organisational arrangements should be the democratically elected local education authority?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I think the important thing is that local communities should run their schools and their schools' affairs. I have long supported that principle. Of course there are instances when it can be effective for decisions to be taken at an even more local level—one instance being in the case of the successful grant-maintained schools, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he asked the question. A critical point is that local parents—local people in their communities—should decide how their schools are run, for the benefit of their children. They should have the critical say in how local schooling is organised.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting twice, but he is now somewhat losing me in his argument. I was totally with him because he was arguing that the people who take those decisions should be democratically accountable bodies and organisations. The only such organisation that I know of that could take the decision is the LEA. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that parents should take the decision. I was not aware that it was possible to chuck parents out.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that parents should be removed from their position on governing bodies of schools; perhaps he is now losing me in his argument. I am sure that it is a good one, but he may not be making it as well as he is accustomed to do. We are witnessing a shift away from parents, away from local communities and away from elected politicians—local councillors and local Members of Parliament. The latter will lose the ability to represent the interests of the communities that they represent, and to represent the importance of those schools to them. That thread runs through the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State vastly increased powers over local schools and local education authorities. It will certainly have the effect of reducing the amount of local decision taking—the local input into the way in which schools and education are run. The shift also has implications for the Church schools. The Bill has prompted the headmaster of a Roman Catholic school in my constituency to remark that the Bill would give the Secretary of State more powers over Roman Catholic schools than the trustees, the governors, the local diocese, the cardinal or even the Pope. The Roman Catholic community in my constituency is distinctly unhappy about that prospect, and is worried that the powers taken by the Secretary of State will result in a loss of choice to local communities. Particular regard must be paid to the denominational schools and the rights of people representing those groups locally to have an input into the decision-making process. That is not to say that the Pope should not have an input, but the critical point is that the local Roman Catholic community feels that it is losing its say in the running of its schools, and fears that those schools will be less responsive to the community's needs. The measure takes power away from local councils, the local Member of Parliament, local people and interested local groups. The adjudicator may have considerable powers and be answerable to no one except the Secretary of State. We are told that he will have powers in rural schools, but we hear little about how he will exercise his powers in relation to good, popular schools in suburban and urban areas. In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what consideration would be given in the school reorganisation and class sizes measures to the travel distance between schools. We await further details about what might be considered an unreasonable distance for a child to travel from one popular school to another in a suburban or urban area, and what travelling time would be considered reasonable, given that many of us represent congested areas where people may experience problems getting their children to and from school. There is a related issue that will no doubt arise this evening in relation to amendments concerning grammar school ballots. If there is a ballot on the future of grammar schools and an area votes to end selection, considerable reorganisation of its education system will follow. There will not be same number of schools in an area that is currently selective and decides to go comprehensive. In my constituency, I have eight secondary schools. It is a small area, and I find it hard to believe that, if it went comprehensive, we would still have eight secondary schools. Important decisions about school reorganisation would have to be taken, should that happen. It is a distressing prospect for the communities concerned that power would not be exercised through the local decision-making process or vested in those who are accountable to local people.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The world seems to be turning upside down when Conservative spokespeople defend local authorities' right to make decisions on everything that comes before them, and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats quotes the Lords in defence of democracy. If those are the best arguments that can be advanced, they have confirmed in my mind, if ever I needed confirmation, that the Government are right on the matter. I took seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about bureaucracy. Inevitably, when any Government seek to build in checks, balances and procedures, and to ensure that the rights of the weak and of minorities are protected, one can make that sound like bureaucracy. I expect that I could make the existing system sound like a bureaucracy. When I advise the Secretary of State on school closures, there is a lengthy procedure involving objections, responses to local authority objections, local authority reflections on objections and so on. Similar comments could be made about that, but bureaucracy is not always bad. Sometimes structure and procedures exist to defend decisions. I would never claim that what we are putting in place is not a bureaucracy. Whether it is more bureaucratic or less bureaucratic, and whether we agree or disagree about it, we shall not know until we see the system in practice. The hon. Gentleman quoted my words at me. If we want local decision making, we must make some changes. If the Opposition do not support our motion to disagree with the Lords amendment, we shall be left with what we have, which every party is unhappy about. We cannot set up a new structure and a new system for schools and for decision making, and leave local authorities and others with the status quo. No proposal or amendment would result in a different outcome. The choice before hon. Members tonight is to go along with the school organisation committee and the adjudicator, or to stay with what we have. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that what we have is not good enough. We have sought to put in place a form of local decision making. It contains layers to ensure that we get the balance right and that the partners are protected. The second point made by the hon. Member for Bath, which was also referred to by the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is about who has the right to take decisions. We are trying to create true partnership in the education service. People other than locally elected members of councils have a right to be part of our education system and have a vested interest in it. They are governors, they run schools, they are teachers or head teachers, they are members of diocesan boards or they are parents. They have a right to express an opinion and take part in decisions about what happens to their schools. It is not good enough to leave such important decisions to members of local councils, although they have a large part to play. By drawing up the school organisation plan against which all recommendations will be made, they will firmly entrench their role in the process. I repeat that they will retain the power to decide on their own proposals where there are no objections. Our proposals for school organisation committees reflect what we have tried to do over the past 18 months—that is, to anchor into the committees the partnership we need to make our schools good. They will make decisions based on proper guidelines, plans and accurate statistics. Decisions will be made in the interests of local people, not sidestepped to Whitehall through the Secretary of State. The quality of decisions will be better, because they will reflect the wishes of local people and local circumstances. Partners in the education service will know that they have had their say. The hon. Lady spoke about the position of the Churches and referred to a letter to The Times on 24 June from Mr. John Hall, the general secretary of the board of education of the Church of England. He stated: Such decisions will be taken by school organisation committees, on which the Churches will have a veto. Assurances were given by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone in another place that there will be guidelines from the Secretary of State to the adjudicators, which will make it clear that, where the relevant Church group on a school organisation committee has voted against closure of a denominational school, an adjudicator taking the final decision shall not reduce the proportion of denominational places within the authority. Such assurances in the House and in another place led the Bishop of Ripon to say on Third Reading: I believe that the structure and character of Church schools has been both preserved and enhanced."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 73.] Not only the Churches, but the other partners in the education service are now taking their proper place as parties to decisions about the organisation of schools in their locality.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

This is an important issue. The Churches have expressed concern. I acknowledge that a statement was made about the existence of a Church veto, but perhaps the Minister could explain something to me. Will she confirm that, in the voting circumstances that I described, when the Church has a veto and the matter has gone to the adjudicator, that Church will have no veto over the closure of a particular school?

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

As I have already made clear, if the Church section on the SOC votes against the proposal, it will go to the adjudicator, and the adjudicator will not be able to make a decision that reduces the proportion of denominational places. If the hon. Lady is not happy with that, I assure her that representatives of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are entirely happy.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As the Minister will recall, I mentioned in Committee that St. Bede' s college in the borough of Trafford—an independent Roman Catholic grammar school—draws pupils who are funded by the local education authority, and has done so since the war. Would the power of veto prevent the local authority from removing such funded denominational places, in an independent school?

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

We are talking about decisions relating to the framework for maintained schools, not independent schools. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the whole issue of whether local authorities can buy places in the independent sector has been dealt with on numerous occasions. It appears in other parts of the Bill, and I will not go into it at this stage. We have made it clear that our commitment to local decision making is backed up by a structure that will deliver exactly that. I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the Lords amendment.

GOVERNING BODIES

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

It is important that each school should have its own governing body. It would be inappropriate to group school governing bodies as the Lords amendments propose. We do not want to stop governing bodies co-operating with each other. Many hon. Members have infant and junior schools in their constituencies that co-operate on joint matters. There is nothing to stop them co-operating on matters to do with site maintenance or school buildings, for example. We are not impeding such beneficial co-operation, which should take place between schools on the same site. However, each school should have its own governing body because governing bodies have a particular responsibility for raising standards. We do not want them to be distracted from that task, and their lines of accountability should not be blurred. We are concerned that grouping governing bodies will blur the necessary accountability for raising standards. Each school should have its own governing body that is accountable for its standards.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Will the Minister refresh my memory about the situation in education action zones? Do the Government's proposals not allow education action zones to do what the amendment asks? In an education action zone, a group of schools could decide to form a mutual governing body and disapply their individual governing bodies. The Minister claims to be serious about standards. Why would that affect standards in the maintained sector, but not in education action zones? Will he clarify his thinking on that matter?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The position in education action zones is different because of the overall powers that we intend to give the zones. It is not just a question of allowing governing bodies to cede their powers to the education action zone forum, which they can do if they want. The important point is that the governing body can decide to hand over all or some of its powers to the forum. That is different from individual schools having grouped governing bodies. The education action zone will have a range of other provisions to do with disapplying national agreements on teachers' pay and conditions or the national curriculum if that is felt appropriate. The point of the action zone is to enable all the initiatives to come together. That will not be the case with the grouping of governing bodies. Most important, the education action zone forum will be responsible for laying down the standards and targets to be achieved by schools in a zone. We are not comparing like with like. The grouping of school governing bodies is separate from the powers that we intend to give schools and governing bodies in education action zones. It is true, though, that we intend to give new powers to governing bodies. It is because we are doing so, particularly in the raising of standards, that we feel that each school should have its own governing body. There will be a new duty on governors to run the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement. Governing bodies will need to set targets for their schools and agree them with the local education authority for inclusion in the education development plan. Obviously, a governing body will have to have due regard to the new code of practice that we want to be established between LEAs and individual schools. All those new responsibilities can be effectively discharged only if a single governing body is responsible for driving up standards in the way that we expect. In addition, it is important that parents should have a greater say on school governing bodies, which is why we have provided for greater emphasis on and a greater role for parents in the new membership of governing bodies. Our concern is that grouping governing bodies will reduce the number, and therefore dilute the proportion, of parents serving on them. It is not in the interests of parents to group governing bodies as the House of Lords has suggested. It is not just the Government who feel that it is appropriate to have a single governing body for each school. The National Association of Head Teachers, which I think most hon. Members would agree has a legitimate view to express on this item, fully supports the Government's proposals to reject the proposal to group governing bodies. It understands that, if one governing body is responsible for two schools and two head teachers, there would be confusion about which head teacher is responsible. The House should disagree with the Lords amendment in order to cut through that uncertainty and such blurred lines of accountability. Governors have a key role to play in the standards agenda. That is why, for the first time this year, we have provided funds to enable governors to attend literacy training courses so that they know how teachers should be delivering the literacy strategy in primary schools when it starts in September. We also intend to ensure that, next year, when we launch the numeracy strategy, governors will be able to take part in training.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister clarify the type of circumstances in which he would envisage that the view of a single governing body on how to raise standards would be overridden by a local education authority?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Gentleman tries to take me down an avenue that is not incorporated in the amendments. Provided that it is in order, I shall try to address the issue to which he has referred. In the context of the education development plan, a school and the LEA will have to agree targets. If there is disagreement, it will be registered in the plan and sent to the Secretary of State, who can then agree either with the school or with the LEA. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to reply to that intervention. The Government take the view that it is important to have a single governing body for each school. Grouping governing bodies may be convenient for matters that can be dealt with in co-operation, such as those concerning buildings and premises and site management, but such matters are not key functions of a school governing body. The key task and role of a governing body at the present time must be to raise standards in the schools for which they have responsibility. That will occur only if each school has its own governing body. It is for those reasons that I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I can scarcely claim to rise in the House as an expert. Anybody who knows me well appreciates that I am an expert in nothing whatever. However, I am an enthusiast for certain things, and one of them is individual success stories in my constituency—not least that of St. Alphege Church of England school. While I have the opportunity of discussing the school, which provides nursery, infant and junior education, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Curran, the head teacher of the junior school, and to my very good friend Councillor Ron Herd, who has been the chairman of governors for a little while and a governor for some time longer. I also express my appreciation to Baroness Seccombe, who successfully moved the amendment in another place. I pay tribute to the staff, parents and friends of St. Alphege school, and particularly to Mrs. Elaine Winterbottom, the headmistress of the infant school, who is shortly to retire after 25 years as headmistress. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to extend that tribute. Mrs. Winterbottom trained as a nursery and infant school teacher at Kingston-upon-Hull training college, and taught at schools in Lancashire and Hull before moving to Solihull. She has been teaching for 30 years in the borough of Solihull, beginning with one year as a home tutor and three years at Ulverley infant school. Twenty-six years ago, she was appointed deputy head of St. Alphege Church of England junior and infant school, and one year later became head teacher of the infant school, when the junior school moved to its present site in Widney Manor road. Those 26 years were quite interesting, because, at material times, I was then a relatively new borough councillor in Solihull—as indeed was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is not in his place; he is about his silent duties in connection with this debate. The infant school rapidly expanded from three to six classes and opened one of the first purpose-built nursery units in the borough. As head of a Church school, it is not surprising that Elaine Winterbottom has been particularly involved in the standing advisory committee on religious education—SACRE. In 1989, she became a member of the Church of England committee on SACRE and was involved in writing the handbook for religious education in infant and junior schools. Under her leadership, St. Alphege infant school has developed strong links with parents, the community and the Church. Parental involvement in the school has thrived with the formation of the Friends of St. Alphege Schools and the growth of parental support in the classroom. Regular events involve the wider community, such as the very popular songs of praise for local elderly people and the St. Alphege festival. Mrs. Winterbottom retires with the utmost good wishes and gratitude of the people of Solihull. Turning to the merits of this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that that graceless intervention by Labour Members does not signal any detraction from the tribute that I have paid. St. Alphege is a Church of England aided school which has a single governing body. As far as we can tell, in one form or another, there have been sole administrators of the parish school since Elizabethan times—certainly since 1862. At various stages, there were separate schools for boys and girls, but on other dates they were amalgamated. In 1973, the original one-form entry site became too small for an expansion to two-form entry, and the junior department moved to another site half a mile away. The walk through parkland between the two sites is one of the most pleasant in Solihull. Through all those changes, one governing body has represented continuity and an attachment to St. Alphege parish church. That governing body wishes to remain one single body, for what we consider to be one school—albeit on two sites, with two heads—for the following reasons. The first reason is to retain continuity, and the second is that any child given entry at the nursery stage is given the right of attendance through to the end of junior school; the admission rules are administered as for one school. Thirdly, actions in the nursery and infant schools affect the junior school. For instance, because of the enormous parental pressure for entry to the school, and the need to accommodate classes of 30, the lower school is considering expanding to take a three-form entry. That means that the junior school will have to follow suit. Fourthly, two school governing bodies, although one might contain the same foundation governors, would inevitably drift apart. Two bodies would increase administration difficulties and costs. St. Alphege is the school of one parish; we wish it to be administered as one. Fifthly, the governors of an aided school are responsible for 15 per cent. of certain costs, and as a single body we administer moneys that we have accrued for that purpose. Sixthly, and not least, there is, I am happy to say, one parent-teacher "friends" organisation. 6.30 pm Their Lordships, in their wisdom, were addressed on the matter by Lady Seccombe, and as we are now allowed to quote from the Hansard record of the proceedings of another place, I shall dip briefly into her speech. She reminded their Lordships: the school has been administered by a single governing body, probably since Elizabethan times…The school caters for infants and junior pupils and, because of its success, outgrew its site. It was therefore forced into locating the junior department to a site half a mile away. In reality it continues as one school on two sites. Continuity has been an essential ingredient throughout the years and its attachment to the parish church has been a much-valued focal point in the area. Further changes are possible as there is parental pressure for a three-form entry". I am not surprised by that, because St. Alphege is one of the most successful schools in Solihull, which has many successful schools. Baroness Seccombe continued: The chairman of the governors tells me that the board is deeply concerned about the Bill as it would disallow the way that it has organised the school for centuries. The governors fear that with two boards administration costs would escalate and there would be duplications in many areas. They also worry that there could be conflict and that the two boards would drift apart. There are other matters which concern them. At present any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of admission through to the end of junior school. Certain monies administered by the governors for capital projects at both schools are administered as one. They fear that they would have to set up a foundation to cater for such funds".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 833–34.] I appreciate the fact that you have been most indulgent to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to pay a tribute to a greatly respected lady from my constituency. You have also enabled me to talk in some detail about the schools group of St. Alphege. I shall finish by saying that St. Alphege school in Solihull has got it right, and their Lordships got it right too. Even now, the Government could get it right, and if they had the grace to reconsider, I would heap praises on their head.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

After today's performance, it would be interesting to hear a Conservative heaping praises on the Government's head. We wait to hear that. I do not wish to pay tribute to the lady that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, although it is good to hear tributes paid in the House to former colleagues and to teachers who have given their lives to education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's tribute will be well received. We support the way in which the Government are investing powers in governing bodies and giving them, together with heads, the ability to run schools efficiently and effectively, making decisions as locally and as swiftly as possible. Indeed, we do not think that the exception to the rule will be needed in many cases. It amazes us that on such a small detail the Government wish to force the issue and insist that every school have an individual governing body. I do not believe that that is necessary. The vast majority of schools would want their own single governing body anyway, because they would want the special relationship with the parents and the community—and, indeed, with their local education authority representatives, when they turn up. To force that on everybody seems a little over the top, and goes against the thrust of the rest of the Government's policy, which is based on standards, not structures. Here we are told that the structures come first and the standards will follow later. I must admit that in my time in teaching I have had only one experience of being on a joint governing body. When I first moved to Leeds, the high schools were all grouped together with a single governing body. That system was an utter disaster. All that happened was that, once a term, the home economics departments, as they were then called, vied with each other to provide the best tea for the governors. Little business was done, except that a report was presented. The whole thing was not only a sham but a shambles. I am not arguing for the Lords amendment on the basis of having had any good personal experience of joint governing bodies. However, the hon. Member for Solihull has given us an excellent example of a single governing body, operating for what are now two schools, working effectively.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I declare an interest as the president of the Institute of Home Economics? I hope that, with his passing reference to the excellent teas that the home economics departments provided, he will not leave the House with the impression that those departments are somehow ancillary to the teaching in our schools. We need more home economics teachers, and a greater appreciation of their work.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

When the hon. Lady left the Opposition Front Bench, it was a great loss to the House. Her intervention is most timely. It was a disgrace that the home economics departments should have had to make the tea for the governors. They had far more important things to do, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that their job should have been in the home economics classrooms—but I digress, down the path along which the hon. Lady has led me. Although I had a poor experience of a joint governing body, I can see occasions when it would be advantageous to have a single governing body overseeing a group of schools. The hon. Member for Solihull has given us an example of a junior school and an infant school with a long tradition, now on different sites but with a real sense of association. There are many examples. For instance, many Church schools throughout the country have expanded, and are now faced with the same scenario as the hon. Member for Solihull described. Of course, there are also junior and infant schools on the same site that were built and intended to operate as separate schools, yet have come together to form a single governing body because that is the most effective and efficient way to run the organisation. All that we are arguing for, and all that their Lordships were arguing for, is not to defeat the Government and create a crisis—heavens above, I hope that this does not become a constitutional crisis. We are simply saying that there are exceptions, and that it is important to allow flexibility. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned education action zones. She was right. The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats supported the introduction of those zones. We feel that they have much to offer, provided that they are successful. A new way of looking at school organisation and bringing schools together with the business community is an exciting experiment, which we hope will work. If it is a good idea to have a single governing body for a group of schools in an education action zone, it cannot be argued that it is not a good idea to have a junior and an infant school continuing with a single governing body on the same site. That is illogical. Furthermore, the Minister said that that would dilute the parental or community involvement. That is exactly what is happening with a single governing body in an education action zone, where sometimes there are as many as 20 schools. That may be a price worth paying in this brave new world of moving away from traditional structures. Clearly, that issue must be examined. I wish to refer to beacon schools. On Monday, I went to the beacon school in my constituency, St. Aidan's—one of the finest schools I have ever had the good fortune to be involved with. I talked to the head, the staff and the governors about the other schools that the school will support, and it was exciting to see how the new system would work on the ground. However, it was clear then—it is clear again today—that there may be a requirement for those governing bodies to work together. It might be perceivable that it would be worth while to have a single governing body—particularly, as in this case, where one of the schools that St. Aidan's is going to work with is another Church school. I can see advantages in that. If we throw out the Lords amendment, we will cut off a route—that is all. The vast majority of schools will want a single governing body, and that is right and proper. There will be few exceptions to that rule, but let us leave in the Bill an opportunity for that to happen.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who, to those of us who are junior Members of the House, gave an excellent example of how a Member of Parliament can show up a vital issue in his own constituency. It is a timely reminder of the vital link between Members of Parliament and our constituencies—one which we would be well advised to retain in the future. The Education Select Committee recently commenced a study into head teachers. One of the ideas that we intended to look at was whether there could be one head teacher for a number of schools: the corollary of that would be one governing body for a number of schools. It is frankly perverse that the Government oppose the Lords amendment while Labour Members have actively toyed with the revolutionary concept—some are rather in favour of it—of one head for a number of schools. There are a few cases where that happens already. I believe that there are a cluster of schools in Dorset where one head has overall control. I am not aware of whether there is one governing body that might be affected by the changes that the Government are seeking to put back in the Bill. The thrust of the Government's approach to the amendment is typical of their approach almost from day one of the Bill. It is the approach of a party that is hungry for power. Once it acquires that power, it becomes consumed with the determination to accrue as much of it as possible for the centre and for the Departments, and to take away as much discretion as possible from every other aspect of the education system—particularly from the local education authorities. It should not be a matter for central Government whether a number of governing bodies that are responsible for more than one school exist in a particular education authority. That should not detain the House, but it does when the Government elevate it above its normal importance. Recently, as part of the study into head teachers, the Education Select Committee visited Zurich. We were told by the canton of Zurich that, in Switzerland, there are 26 cantons, so there are 26 education systems. One can imagine the brainstorm that the Minister would have if he had to contemplate 26 different education systems in this country, yet for the people of Switzerland, that is par for the course—it is part of their way of life. Out of that flexibility, they have managed to develop a fine education system. One of the features of the Swiss education system is that the country does not have schools at all—it has "school houses". The canton of Zurich does not, at present, have head teachers, but those concerned were talking about proposals to introduce them and to move towards the UK model, which was developed very much by the last Government. We asked how big the schools would be. We were told that that would depend on how many school houses they decided to include under the umbrella of one school. 6.45 pm Clearly, a flexibility and imagination exist there that are totally lacking in the Department for Education and Employment, under the auspices of the Minister. We are on rigid tramlines in this country, where the idea that there might be some joint enterprise on two sites is dismissed out of hand, it would appear from the Minister's comments. The other aspect of the Swiss system which illuminates this debate is that the local community is in charge of all the school houses. It would make far more sense if there were to be a local power to determine whether a governing body should have authority over a group of schools, rather than over just one. It would make far more sense if that decision were downstreamed to the local council or to the local parish council, where the needs of the particular area and the history of a school—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—could illuminate the decision to be made by local people who understood the circumstances. Later this evening, we will have a debate about the partnership between the independent and private sectors, when we will hear just how little—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a future debate. I should say that Lords amendments are always narrow. He must address his remarks to the Lords amendment, and not to Switzerland or any other part of the world.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am bound—without going beyond the thrust of the Lords amendment—to mention the research by the Committee into the school system in the United States, where there are also schools on more than one site run by a single governing body. The other day, we heard from—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I cannot allow that. Lords amendments are even tighter than our own amendments. We cannot go wide of them. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Lords amendment. If he is finding difficulty, that is fine—he can sit down and let another hon. Member speak.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as always, your advice is both pertinent and brief. I shall certainly take it before too long. When I was a local councillor in Paddington, one of the schools in my area was an amalgam of two secondary schools, and it had reinvented the American system of the lower high and upper high school. I heard from the headmaster the other day about how successful that has been for the two schools, and how much it has helped to develop the full potential of each pupil. What would happen if a local education authority wanted, for sound local reasons, to run two schools as a lower and a higher secondary school, rather than in parallel, and, to make the scheme work, determined that it would make perfect sense for only one governing body to oversee the entire administration of the two sites? I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that issue before we vote on this important issue.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Given your advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief and address my remarks strictly to the amendment. When he was speaking, I was reminded of that old maxim that St. Aubyn's speech is to the amendments what London is to Paddington, which I hope was apposite given that Paddington was mentioned. The Minister has made four points of false logic. The first concerns the Government's version of the classic dilemma between control and diversity. This lies at the heart of the amendments. They want central control to maintain coherent, consistent standards through what the Minister has called a single line of accountability school governance, but that contradicts the desire for diversity and for a flexible system that respects local traditions and needs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. He said that he spoke as an expert on nothing; if that were so—given his wide experience and expertise, which is so greatly admired by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I should hate to think where I count on a scale of expertise from one to 100. The second point of false logic, which was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), is the contradiction between the policy on schools in education action zones and the policy on other schools. The Government are arguing that a single governing body should be responsible for one school but that the opposite should apply in education action zones, where one governing body will be answerable for several schools gathered together. The third problem relates to the notion that the Government's proposals will create a simpler system. Several schools may have been closely knit or even seamless in their practical organisation for decades or even centuries, when they have been united by a single governing body. Under the Bill, those schools will have to create several governing bodies, so to argue that that is clearer and more straightforward is nonsense. The fourth and most profound criticism of the proposals is that the Government are claiming that they want to simplify the system of accountability, despite the fact that, under the Bill, accountability will be shared among governing bodies, education action zones, local education authorities and the Secretary of State. The Bill will create several points of power and accountability, leaving the management of education in a state of confusion. If the Government reject the amendments, they will cut across the thrust of the Bill; I believe that the House should support the flexibility that the amendments would allow.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I commend the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I regret the fact that cackles of laughter greeted his tribute to St. Alphege school, as he was genuinely supporting a member of staff who has clearly contributed a great deal to the life of the local community.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as I want to put on the record the fact that the disagreement, which will be recorded in Hansard, had nothing whatever to do with Mrs. Winterbottom and the excellent service that she has given over many years to St. Alphege; the disagreement was about the amendment.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

That was not how it seemed at the time, although I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. The Government's attitude to the issue of single governing bodies was summed up in the Minister's response to the pertinent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She reminded him that, elsewhere in the Bill, the Government had accepted the concept of grouped governing bodies in the form of the education action forum in an education action zone. He tried valiantly to defend the Government's position by suggesting that there was a difference between governing bodies coming together in an education action forum and the grouped governing bodies that are the subject of the amendments but, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, he failed to show that there were any real differences. That betrayed the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments, which is plain mean. We are considering the amendments because the example of St. Alphege was raised in another place by Baroness Seccombe, who spoke eloquently of the excellent education provided in that school, which has a tradition of having a single governing body. That arrangement has worked well, resulting in a popular school that produces excellent results, and the governors and all those involved with the school want that tradition to continue. The Government, however, are saying, "No. We know best." We have heard today about how the Government believe in the importance of local decision making. However, in the case of St. Alphege, although everyone in the local community is saying that the school should be allowed to continue to have a single governing body, the Minister is saying no.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Opposition spokesman, can answer this simple question: if grouped governing bodies are so important, why has not the House of Lords insisted that foundation schools be allowed to have them?

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

In considering the issue, the House of Lords had very much in mind the example of the school that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull mentioned. The Lords wanted to give such schools the opportunity to have single governing bodies. Is the Minister now suggesting that he is willing to take the matter further and allow all types of school to have grouped governing bodies?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The Government disagree with the principle of grouped governing bodies. As the hon. Lady has made a very strong case in favour of grouping governing bodies, will she explain why the amendments that she supports would not extend that advantage to foundation schools?

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

If the Minister thinks that I have made a good case in favour of grouped governing bodies, he should join us in voting to agree to the Lords amendments. The Government are being mean in trying to prevent schools such as St. Alphege from having a single governing body, although that arrangement has been shown to work extremely well. They have deployed two arguments against single governing bodies, both in another place and in the House of Commons. The first was that, in grouping governing bodies, one would have to reduce the number of parental representatives. We are all in favour of parents taking an active role in schools, and especially on governing bodies. The Conservative Government put a significant emphasis on parental choice and the role of parents in decision taking in their local schools. The issue of the number of governors from any particular grouping does not preclude the Government from accepting the concept of a single governing body. Baroness Blackstone said: Governing bodies are there to promote higher standards and provide accountability for the school's performance. They should be looking at the strategic direction that the school should be taking."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 835.] That was given as a reason for not having a single governing body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, and as Baroness Seccombe said in the other place, the need for strategic direction is precisely one of the reasons why the governing body of St. Alphege Church of England school wants to remain single. Its members believe that the school on two sites is more properly guided by a single body that can take into account issues of concern to both sites. 7 pm The Government merely pretend to be interested in flexibility and local decision taking. I am very disappointed by what the Minister said, because the press announcements issued immediately after the Government's defeat in the Lords implied that they would reconsider. As we have seen all too often, when a microphone or press release is put in front of Ministers in the current Government, they say something entirely different from what they do in the Chamber. The Government are being just plain mean. They should accept their own comments on flexibility and local decision taking, and allow governing bodies to decide that, where it works in local circumstances, local people should be allowed to have a single governing body.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

This may become known as the St. Alphege group of amendments. As Minister for School Standards, I join the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in offering congratulations and thanks to Mrs. Winterbottom, who has given many years of loyal and devoted service. She is a credit to her profession, and I am sure that many thousands of children have benefited from her endeavours. I assure the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we considered the consequences of the Lords amendment, and rejected it as wrong-headed and foolish. It fails to recognise the important role that school governors play in raising standards: not the old approach that governing bodies used to have, but the new approach outlined in the Bill, giving every governing body the responsibility to raise standards. The Bill introduces a range of new duties for governing bodies: to monitor the performance of head teachers; to respond to a warning notice from a local education authority; and to agree their aspect of the education development plan. We believe that the lines of accountability will be blurred if there is not a single governing body for each single school. That is why we intend to resist the Lords amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Surely the Minister would not argue that the new responsibilities are greater than the extra responsibilities produced by the changes to the structure of governing bodies in 1986 or, indeed, the implications of local management of schools in 1988. Surely those were greater transfers of power to governing bodies, yet the situation as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) prevailed in those periods of change and worked very well.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Gentleman reveals the Conservative party's great weakness on education. The powers given to governing bodies under Conservative legislation were all about structure and did not give responsibility for standards. The Bill is about driving up standards, which is why we need a single governing body for each school. There can be co-operation where there is a tradition of it, and there can be joint working between individual governing bodies, but there is no doubt in the Government's mind that it is wholly appropriate that each school should have its own governing body. There should be no flexibility to fail, and under our proposals that will not be the case. Accordingly, I must ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, we may consider the Government amendment thereto, Lords amendment No. 52 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

We take seriously schools' responsibilities for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Our motion to disagree with amendment No. 52, on which the Government were defeated in the other place, does not mean that we do not share the view that those are proper responsibilities for schools. We want schools to carry out those responsibilities as well as they can. As well as disagreeing to amendment No. 52, we want to amend amendment No. 50, on which we were defeated in the other place. The Government originally resisted Baroness Young's amendments because they were too detailed and prescriptive a package. We did not dispute the content or her wish that schools should address the issues concerned. However, the amendments placed demands on schools. We have considered her comments carefully, and have examined her amendments. We offer a compromise that acknowledges the importance to parents of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—matters which parents have a right to discuss. However, other significant concerns deserve equal treatment. We want to remove from governing bodies onerous requirements that run counter to our policy of lifting unnecessary burdens and reducing bureaucracy. We propose to extend the list of items that parents are able to discuss under clause 42. Our proposal includes Baroness Young's intended issues, but the clause would go wider to cover pupils' entire educational experience including standards of achievement and the schools' contribution to their behaviour, discipline and general well-being. We want to signal that those are matters of importance to parents. We hope to encourage more parents to go to annual meetings that are often poorly attended. The list of matters to be discussed includes matters on which parents rightly take a view. We propose to remove clause 43, which places extensive duties on governing bodies. That removes the requirement that governing bodies should maintain a statement of the aims of the school's secular curriculum. In sum, we are removing one amendment, but incorporating the provisions of the second into a wider amendment of our own. We value these matters highly. We have already announced that we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider that area for our review of the national curriculum for 2000, and to suggest how children's moral, cultural, spiritual and social development and work on citizenship can be more firmly placed within the curriculum and given the support it has lacked hitherto.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I agree with what Lady Young said about these important amendments when they gained substantial support in the other place after a wide-ranging debate. I welcome the Government's movement and their willingness to advance in a spirit of compromise. I welcome their acceptance of the importance of using annual meetings for a discussion between governors and parents of the aims and values of a school and how it will promote development of the whole child, including his or her spiritual and moral development. In their compromise, the Government acknowledge that such development is closely linked to education for adult life and citizenship. However, a close reading of Lady Young's amendment and of the Government's amendment to it reveals little difference between them, unless it is that the Government want to water down Lady Young's proposal. I cannot believe that that is the case, and I hope that it is not. The Minister for School Standards knows, following meetings with me in his office, that I am passionately interested in these matters. I have two children at a Church primary school, and the values of that school are important to its successful development and to propelling it to being one of the best in the country, irrespective of the fact that a large proportion of its pupils come from backgrounds in which they speak foreign languages. Research shows that schools that are explicit and self-conscious about spiritual and moral development achieve higher educational standards than those that are not. Every recent Ofsted report tells us that the superiority of Church schools is noticeable in their effectiveness as communities, in their quality and in their spiritual life. It is clear that Church schools, which make a habit of promoting spiritual and moral development, do better not only in promoting those values, but in developing educational values, too. I am worried that the Government's focus on cognitive development—numeracy and literacy in particular—takes some emphasis away from spiritual and moral development of pupils. The Government will deny that, and will rightly argue that there should be a balance between educational skills and wider moral and spiritual values. We need them to acknowledge the importance of moral and spiritual values. A school framework for moral, spiritual, social and cultural development, such as that being developed by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, is a significant and underrated means of increasing schools' effectiveness and raising standards. Pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is closely linked with both the espoused values and the lived values of their schools. It would have been more consistent to retain the wording of Lady Young's amendment, and to add subsequent amendments to bring in citizenship, educational achievement and pupils' behaviour. We are debating a narrow difference in wording, and I should like to know why Lady Young's amendment could not be left alone.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

There is a difficulty with the means of assessing the whole business of moral development. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he explain how spiritual, moral and social development would be assessed and monitored under Lady Young's amendment?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I shall come to that later, because these matters were widely discussed in the other place. It is true that Ofsted found that this is a confused and difficult area. These are philosophical matters rather than simple skills, such as numeracy or literacy, which can be measured. The fact that there are difficulties should not prevent us from trying to promote moral and spiritual development. It is an important point. I may accept that what I propose is wrong and what the hon. Gentleman says is right. If so, we would have had a useful debate. 7.30 pm The Secretary of State is simply trying to overturn Lords amendment No. 52. The other place suggests that there should be not only an annual meeting, where the way in which moral and spiritual development was being promoted by the school could be discussed, but an annual report. The Government's rejection of that proposal is short-sighted and wrong, or reactionary. It partly relates to what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was saying. The perceived difficulties with targets for monitoring spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and anxieties about teacher work load, may mean that this important matter will continue to be neglected by schools because there will be no requirement to mention it in their annual report. Ofsted inspection reports show that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils and schools is a weak and confused area. That is surely all the more reason for schools to be encouraged to be explicit about developing policies, targets and means of assessment. The many examples of good practice and the lead given by the voluntary aided sector show that it is possible to develop specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related targets in this area, which the Government are developing through the QCA. The obvious connection between a school's vision and values and educational achievement make this an area that needs as much attention and resourcing as any other. We should not wait for the next tragedy, such as the recent murder of a headmaster in London, to stir us into giving consistent high priority to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of young people. Literacy and numeracy can provide basic skills—personal, social, educational and citizenship—as part of the curriculum. That can provide a great deal, but they all need to cohere with an explicit whole-school framework that provides the why as distinct from the what and the how of education. In opposing the Lords amendment and thus seeking to wipe it off the Bill, the Government are emphasising the what and the how at the expense of the why. Those are not my words or concepts. They come from the QCA's draft guidance in November 1997 which stated: The promotion of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development provides the 'why' (as opposed to the 'what' and the 'how') of education: it is an essential ingredient of school success. I am worried that we will get loose talk based on Professor Barber's speech to the Secondary Heads Association. He highlighted the moral agenda in education, but believed that the ethic based on religion or communism should be replaced by one based on global citizenship. I do not agree. Being a citizen of the world is far too woolly a concept and does not provide the rigorous education that I believe in. That is my personal opinion. If other people want to promote that sort of ethic and tell our children that we are members of the global community, that is fair enough, but I think that things go much deeper. However, at least Professor Barber is trying to address the issues. I want to deal briefly with the debate in the other place, because it is important that hon. Members appreciate that there was a high-quality, wide-ranging debate. Members in the other place, from a wide range of backgrounds, debated the matter raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The Lord Bishop of Ripon said: spiritual development, along with moral, social and cultural development, is not confined to schools but is a part of family and community life. Equally, these are not separate aspects of education to be placed in compartments. They are a dimension of all education. The bishop said that moral and spiritual development is part of family life. There were interventions from atheists who said, "That's all very well. You may be religious, but we do not want to force religion down the throats of all our children." I accept that. Not all schools are Church schools, and children should not be forced to be little Christians or little anythings. However, they are entitled to as wide ranging an education as possible, and one that delves into areas other than strictly educational ones. In reply to people such as Lord Dormand of Easington, who said that he was an atheist and could not see how we could simply promote religious values, there were several interesting interventions. Lord Dearing, who was not stressing the religious aspects of moral and spiritual education, said: I recall using phrases like 'to go beyond', and making it broader than spiritual values based on religion. We wanted to incorporate a sense of wonder; a sense of awe; beauty; respect for one's fellow human beings; and appreciation of courage, both physical and moral. The Earl of Halsbury said: If the noble Lord, Lord Dormand requires a definition of 'spirituality', I can give him…one. If you wish to be a better person than you are, or if you feel ashamed of something which you have done, or admire beautiful music, or admire courage and courageous action in other people, or admire the way in which they attend to the sick and the invalid, and so on, that is a spiritual exercise. That is the only definition that one can give."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 477–83.] People have been talking about these matters for thousands of years. Xenophon asked a contemporary Persian educationist what the Persians taught children. He was told that they were taught to ride hard, shoot straight and speak the truth. That was what moral and spiritual education was all about in Persia some 2,000 years ago. We have a more up-to-date report in the QCA's recently published advice on the scope of such education. There is a strong case for recognising the central place of citizenship, personal, social and health education and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the education of all young people by introducing more explicit provision into the statutory framework. That is all I am asking for. Whether hon. Members have religious convictions or are atheists, we all believe that education goes far wider than simply instilling strictly educational requirements in children. All studies and all our experience tell us that, when schools try to involve the family and the local community in the wider discussion of moral and spiritual development, it creates successful schools. I am sure that the Government accept that. I believe that the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have much respect, is personally committed to such a concept. I hope that the Government's treatment of the Lords amendments does not water down the excellent work of the other place.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I should like to clarify how Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 will be interpreted. I hope that it can be interpreted in such a way that the school's annual parents meetings could include discussion of the school as a collective rather than just individual pupils. The wording of the amendment is good on the various aspects of the development of individuals, but the school is a community and it exists within the wider community. I hope that the phrase from the Lords amendment that the Government have retained— the aims and values of the school"— will cover discussion of how the school operates as a community and matters such as how young people can help each other, how they can deal with bullying and how the school can make a contribution to the wider community. It would be helpful if the Minister could make it clear that such discussion, as well as discussion of how the school helps each pupil to develop, is part of what the Government intend.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I wish to make a practical point about the amendments. I do not wish to go over the ground laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I agreed with every word he said—the House would do well to listen to him—and that includes his admiration for the Minister. The substantive Government amendment is an improvement on the original Lords amendment. I thank the Minister and the Government for the amendment. I draw attention to the word "citizenship". One of the most important tasks that our schools are fitted and equipped to do is to help our children develop their sense of citizenship. We desperately need people to have a sense of citizenship if we are to engage them in the political process, apart from anything else. The House probably has a vested interest in agreeing with that. As I understand it, in essence the Government's position on the amendments is that they are happy to have the issues discussed at meetings that parents will attend, but not to have them put in writing. Presumably, although the Lords amendment does not make it clear, it would be perfectly acceptable to put the expression of spiritual, moral, social and cultural values in the school's prospectus. I do not see that a new document would be required. The expression could be part of the current document to comply with the Lords amendment. I have two conflicting views that I must express to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about the issues in the amendments, but I know that teachers are concerned that too much responsibility is dumped on them by the rest of society. They are asked to pick up the pieces of all sorts of problems that are the fault of bad parenting or whatever. I know that they feel that burden heavily, and we must think carefully before we accept the amendments. I respect the Minister's desire to resist imposing additional burdens on schools. As I understand it, the motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 52 is effectively a deregulatory measure; the Government are worried about the regulatory burden that the Lords amendment may impose. Obviously, Conservative Members have sympathy with that proposition, but it is incontestable that the best schools have the clearest view of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development that they should offer children. I suspect that they also have a clear view about preparing people for adult life and developing citizenship; that they want to boast about their educational achievements; and that the governing body is anxious to promote good behaviour and discipline. The best schools do those things already, and, as my hon. Friend said, they are often, but by no means always, denominational schools. 7.45 pm We know that spiritual and moral development is easy when the leadership in a school is good. At my grammar school—a subject to which we may return later—such matters were very much at the forefront of the leadership of the school team. They flowed naturally into the ethos of the school. To have a debate about the issues at an annual meeting, or to put them in the prospectus, would have been easy for that school. I heard the Minister say that including in annual school meetings the issues set out in the amendment would encourage attendance at those meetings. I wish that that were the case. Sadly, I suspect that schools that already have these matters best developed in their curriculum attract the best attendance at their annual meetings and are already prepared to discuss them, without legislation obliging them to do so. I fear that, even at those schools, one group will be debarred from such meetings. Working parents often find it difficult to juggle their conflicting responsibilities and get to meetings. I declare a personal interest, because the obligations imposed on me by the House mean that I can never attend meetings at my daughter's and my son's schools. The Government are behaving strangely in accepting and even going beyond the principle of Lady Young's amendment, but not daring to have it put in writing. I have been reading the Department for Education and Employment's mission statement in the comprehensive spending review. I have done a rough count of the words and it is just a little over 200. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the CSR or the educational policies, aims and objectives of the Government, the statement expresses rather well what the Department wants to do. It explains the means by which the Department intends to fulfil its objectives, and sets out the Department's targets—all in 200 words. I bet that the process of developing that written statement of the purpose was important within the Department. I bet that it focused minds clearly. That is what the process of discussion about the aims and objectives of the school will do in the governing body. Discussion has that purpose, too, but it also sends a signal to parents of children at the school or those who aspire to send their children to that school. That is important. Aspiring parents will not attend annual meetings; they will have only the prospectus and perhaps informal chats with the teaching staff to rely on. I cannot understand the Government's opposition to a written statement. It would not take for ever to write 200 words. It would not be a huge regulatory burden. I should have thought that it would comply with the spirit of the Lords amendment. I see no earthly reason why the Government should resist it. The Government get two cheers for what they have done so far. They will get a third if they drop their opposition to a written statement.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said. For many years, I have been a governor of a school that has formulated just such a policy statement, which is in the prospectus and which the governing body reviews. There is no problem with it. The pupils of the school are a broad range of Anglican, Catholic, Muslim and many other religions, but the policy statement of the school is a Christian one. If parents are to have choice, they ought to know from the prospectus precisely the policy of the governing body on important matters that go beyond pure academic education to allow them to assess the schools for which they want to enter their children. Given the supportive spirit of the Government, I cannot understand what objection they have to Lords amendment No. 52. The amendment does not say that the policy statement has to be Christian. It does not define what is wanted in a narrow way. It is surely part of the responsibility of the governing body, in reflecting its community, to focus on such matters. I ask the Government to reconsider whether they have any basis of opposition to Lords amendment No. 52. I should have thought that it was precisely what we should like to see operate in all our schools.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). They showed how serious we are about ensuring that schools take into account and promote the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of their pupils. We place high importance on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made well the point that the Government seem to be half doing one thing and not doing the other. It appears from their amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 that they have accepted that the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of the school and the pupils is important, yet they will not go that bit further and say that the school shall be required to make a statement to that effect and provide that information in writing to parents. The Minister will have to work hard to explain why, having accepted the principle of the importance of those aspects of pupils' development within the school and of their educational life, the Government are not prepared to say why parents should be denied the opportunity to have it set out in a written statement or report. We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the need for moral and spiritual development and have been willing to go some way towards accepting the principle of the amendments moved in the other place by Lady Young. However, the noble Lady's amendments made it clear that the school should put those values in writing and ensure that parents had access to that document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, those who do not attend school annual general meetings of the governing body—we all know that the number of those who do attend tends to be small—need to have something in writing. That way, parents will know where the school stands on an important issue.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I want to establish at the outset my belief that, for too long, the part of the curriculum that deals with moral, spiritual, social and cultural development has been ignored. I also want to emphasise the agreement in the House on this subject, because we are under an obligation to show leadership in this matter. I should not like anyone who reads the debate to think that there is not strong agreement in the House that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is an issue which schools ought to address. I know that there is a difference of opinion about how that should be done and about how far we should go, but it is right that we should give a clear lead and not allow anybody outside who does not think that that is an important role for schools to quote disagreement in the House as a reason for not taking action. I gather from the nods on the Opposition Benches opposite—it is difficult for anyone reading Hansard to detect nods of agreement—that we are broadly agreed on that point. The Government have already taken action, and I shall go over the steps we have taken. We have ensured that the next review of the national curriculum will require schools to teach spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and citizenship. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). It is one of the Secretary of State's main concerns that we should do better in training our young people to be active participants in their community and in democracy and politics when they grow up. In our first year, we have steered the review of the national curriculum in that direction. We have to remember that, when changes have been made and there is a proper framework for this part of the curriculum in schools, which is properly inspected by Ofsted, those will act as levers, mechanisms and messages to the school that the subject should be valued. The problem is that, although the subject is the only part of the curriculum that appears in primary legislation—everything else in the national curriculum appears in secondary legislation—and so already has a place in English education law, it is ignored because of the lack of other forms of pressure on teachers and schools. All the additional levers that Governments can use—the review of the national curriculum, the work that Ofsted can do and the curriculum now being set down for initial teacher training—will add to the force of what the previous Government put in primary legislation and ensure that it is carried into practice. I do not disagree with the Opposition on any of those points. The disagreement, if disagreement there is, surrounds how far we go in making demands on schools and governing bodies. There is a danger that, every time a Government think that something is important, they make their feelings clear by putting a responsibility on someone else to do something. There are times when that is right, but when the all those demands combine, the result is sometimes onerous responsibilities and demands on head teachers, governing bodies and teachers which do not allow them the flexibility they need to run schools. We are giving a clear message and ensuring that it is reflected in the curriculum, properly reported to parents in their child's end-of-term report, and properly inspected. Those are the levers that achieve our objective. Let me explain why we disagree with Lords amendment No. 52. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a legitimate point about setting targets. For the area of the curriculum that we are discussing, and not for many other important areas, we want to set targets that describe what means of assessment will be used to monitor this development; and…report on the achievement or otherwise of those targets. I accept the importance of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils as part of the curriculum, but I accept the importance of many other parts of the curriculum as well—the importance of physical education, music, drama, numeracy, physics and so on. If we set down in primary legislation the same demands on governing bodies for everything we thought important, we would create a straitjacket for schools, and they would spend their time abiding by the letter of the law, but not thinking about how to do their job and deliver the goods for children. We desire not to weaken the overall message. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough wants to hear that assurance, I am happy to give it. However, like the other work that we are doing in the Department, the Bill is designed to rationalise the requirements on schools in primary legislation. I know that the issue is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart, and I take it seriously. I know that he cherishes the subject and thinks that schools need to teach it and to teach it well, but that can be multiplied for almost every area of knowledge. We have to take into account whether schools and governing bodies can manage the requirements we impose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that it is better to set in place the other mechanisms that I have described, which have more to do with the normal day-to-day management of schools and will be incorporated better in the annual ebbs and flows of school activity, than to insist on a bolt-on extra that has to be done for reports and school meetings. We do not want someone cobbling together some sort of report when the annual meeting comes along. We want to get this part of the curriculum embedded in day-to-day life. It should be something that schools do because it is important and as natural as teaching literacy and numeracy. That is our aim, and that is why we choose to work via a review of the national curriculum, monitoring and reporting to parents. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's argument about the diversity that will always exist in people's ideas of what values and morals underpin their community. One of the things I have learnt since becoming a Member of Parliament and having had the opportunity to visit schools in my constituency and beyond is that there is a commonality of values in Church schools that holds the community and the school together. I attribute the success of many Church schools to those common values—that binding together by shared values is incredibly important. I want all school communities to feel that sense of belonging through having shared values; I want pupils to understand those values and abide by them because it is right to do so and wrong to disobey them. We asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to produce a framework, which has already been produced, so that schools have a structure to adopt when drawing up their own values system. Such a structure is already available to Church schools—the values system is given in the religion followed by that school; but in non-Church schools the task can be more challenging. All schools need a system of common values. I should be happy to let the hon. Member for Gainsborough have a copy of the document on values now being piloted by the QCA. We hope that, by the time the review of the national curriculum takes place, the important aspect of the curriculum and of pupil development that we have been discussing will have become embedded in our school communities. I hope that the House accepts my assurances.

DETERMINATION OF LEAs GENERAL SCHOOLS BUDGET AND AGGREGATED SCHOOLS BUDGET

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The amendments are grouped under the heading "Local management of schools", although they are narrowly drawn in the issues that they address, which relate to the delegation of budgets to individual schools. They fall into three broad categories. The first category of amendments relates to the names to be used in the new procedure that the Government want to adopt in delegating budgets to individual schools. They replace the general schools budget and the aggregated schools budget—most people could not understand what those terms meant, and the definitions and descriptions added to the confusion—with the local schools budget and the individual schools budget. That makes the distinction between the local education authority's responsibility, which will be the local schools budget, and the element that will be devolved to schools, which will be the individual schools budget. The second category of amendments reflects the debate in Committee and confirms that the financial arrangements will start in the new financial year—April 1990. I mean 1999; my numeracy is letting me down again.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Never mind, it will soon be the reshuffle.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I hope so. The new framework will start in September 1999. The amendments will put in place the procedures that will be needed to cover the interval between April and September. They particularly reflect the concerns expressed by the grant-maintained schools sector about its position in the new arrangements. The third category contains technical amendments. The important one allows local education authorities to reclaim value added tax. It will apply also to VAT paid by the grant-maintained sector and former grant-maintained schools, which already receive that benefit. I hope that I have adequately explained the consequences of the Lords amendments, which make considerable sense. I ask the House to agree with the Lords in these amendments.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I shall speak only briefly to the amendments, because, as the Minister has made clear, they partly reflect an earlier debate on this issue. They also put in place the technical changes for the local management of schools scheme, which the Government proposed in May in their "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" paper, by replacing the general schools budget and the aggregated schools budget with the local schools budget and the individual schools budget. The Minister's explanation seemed to suggest that suddenly a light will shine and that changing the terminology will make the definitions extremely easy to understand. We know that reference has been made outside the Chamber to the wonderful new world in which schools will have 100 per cent. of their budgets delegated to them. In this last opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill, it is important to put on record that the reality is far from the rhetoric. The names of the budgets will be changed, but far from schools having 100 per cent. of the budget delegated to them, they will receive 100 per cent. of what is left of the budget after the local education authority has top-sliced however much it wants to remove in certain categories. Far from making matters simpler, there are four categories for which the local education authority will be able to retain blocks of expenditure: strategic management, access, LEA support for school improvement and special educational expenditure. Missing from the consultation document, which I fear will cause concern when the proposals are put into practice, are the definitions of those blocks of expenditure that the LEA will be able to retain before delegating the individual schools budget.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters because of her background in local education authorities. The critical issue, and the point that she is seeking to make, is that there is a great difference between the potential schools budget and the amount that is devolved to schools. It would be more honest of the Government to publish those precise figures, so that people would know the potential amount and the amount that is actually devolved.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right, although by referring to me as his right hon. Friend, he erroneously promoted me. It is important to enable people to know what amounts could have been delegated to the schools and what amounts are held back by the local education authority, so that they can make judgments about how the LEA is managing its education budget. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to that point when he sums up. I shall not go into the details of all the amendments in the group. I simply wanted to point out that far from all schools suddenly having a delegated budget that is much larger and gives them much more flexibility than before, the position will be exactly the same—the local education authority will be able to top-slice funds out of the overall education budget and determine the sum that will be delegated to schools. We certainly welcome opportunities for schools to manage their own budgets. The previous Conservative Government introduced such measures. I have always been in favour of as much decision making and flexibility over budgets as possible being at local school level. However, the Government are not introducing such flexibility, but setting up, in the four blocks of expenditure that the LEAs can retain, categories that I fear LEAs will be able to manipulate to determine how much they will delegate to schools. The proposals will give LEAs the flexibility not to pass money down to schools if they so wish. That is a worrying proposal, and its real impact will be far from the Government's rhetoric.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has a great deal of experience from her local government background. However, we get far too hung up on what percentage of budgets should be delegated to schools. The issue is the quality of service that schools and the local education authorities provide, and the resources that they each receive to enable them to do so. Before I spoke, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded me that we want the LEAs and the schools each to receive 100 per cent. of their funding so that they can all carry out their allotted tasks. I was intrigued, before I came to the debate, to read the Minister's letter of 9 February on the percentage of budgets delegated to schools by LEAs. I picked out two LEAs: North Yorkshire, which is the excellent LEA for my constituency, and Leeds, which was my LEA when I was a practising headteacher just over a year ago. Leeds delegated 93.9 per cent. of its budget and was one of the table's top seven or eight authorities. It is a very good, innovative, Labour-controlled local education authority and has decided to delegate services such as music and special needs education. I then looked at North Yorkshire. That LEA is in the top five virtually every year in terms of GCSE, A-level and standard assessment tests results, truancy rates and any other measure that one would care to name. However, it comes very low down the table, delegating only 90.5 per cent. of its budget in 1997–98. That is because it is a different sort of authority; it has a different organisation. The LEA has a large rural catchment area and many small rural primary schools that depend on it to provide services. It does so in agreement, not in competition, with those schools. Baroness Blatch asked a question of the Secretary of State, which appeared in the House of Lords Hansardof 15 June 1998 at column 2161. In replying, Baroness Blackstone made it clear that consultation funding could create exactly the same problem. The hon. Member for Maidenhead has asked what services the LEA is expected to deliver and what budget it will receive, and what schools are expected to deliver and what their budgets will be. We do not want to spend a great deal of time arguing about the delegation issue. That argument has been won: it is acknowledged that schools require as much flexibility and as many resources delegated to them as possible. The whole House accepts that fundamental point. Equally, LEAs have some important duties to perform and it is essential that we make their responsibilities clear as soon as possible. We must give them a clear budget that is open and transparent, and then we shall see which LEAs and schools deliver good services. I hope that the debate about delegation will then cease.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I shall reply briefly to this debate. I state at the outset that the whole purpose of the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document, on which we are consulting, is to provide opportunities and real choices to individual schools through the delegation of even greater sums to individual school level. We believe that the prime responsibility for raising standards rests with individual schools, and particularly in the relationship that is established between a teacher and a class of pupils. That is the reality of the situation. If we are to raise standards, a school-based initiative will be necessary. That is why the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document seeks to devolve as much as possible to individual school level. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is absolutely right: the consultation document refers to four areas remaining the responsibility of individual local education authorities—strategic management, access, school improvements and special educational provision. However, there is clarity in that. On completion of the consultation exercise, we shall make clear what we expect will fall within those four categories. In that way, the confusion and the funding fog that currently exists in relation to the delegation of budgets will be lifted. Local education authorities will know—and people and schools will see—what they can retain at the centre and what they will be required to delegate to school level. The Bill provides an additional power that did not exist previously under legislation introduced by the Conservatives: we will have the power to cap spending levels. If a local education authority abuses its position and holds back unfairly money that should go to individual schools, as a result of the measures in the Bill, we shall have the power to cap that LEA's spending in each of the four blocks referred to in the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" consultation document. We are sending a message to every local education authority: yes, LEAs need the resources to promote high standards in schools and we are giving them that welcome new duty. However, they cannot abuse that position by withholding more money than is necessary for the delivery of those four specific areas. That is how we shall push more money to school level, which will allow schools to raise standards and provide a higher quality of education. 8.15 pm That consultation is continuing, and it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome. In considering the responses that we have received, we shall seek to provide greater opportunities and choice for schools. They should have the choice to select local education authority provision when it is of good quality and is attractive to them. However, if a school decides that what is on offer is not appropriate, it should have the opportunity to look elsewhere. That is what we intend to do through our "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document. The Lords amendment reinforces that point, and I invite the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

STAFF AT FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL WITH RELIGIOUS CHARACTER

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

These amendments fall into a number of groups. Amendments in the first group are rather technical; they ensure that registration under the General Teaching Council is effective and that an individual can be removed from the register when he or she has been dismissed from a school. The other group of amendments is particularly important as it reflects consultations that the Government have had with the Church education authorities—in particular, on head teacher appointments at voluntary-controlled and foundation schools with a religious character, the religious opinions of staff, the advisory rights of diocesan authorities on the staffing of schools in their area, head teacher appointments at Roman Catholic and religious order schools, and selection procedures involving the whole governing body at some voluntary-aided schools. The aim of the amendments, which were carried in the House of Lords, respects but does not go beyond the 1944 settlement. The amendments basically roll forward the historic agreement reached in 1944 between the then Government and the Church education authorities. We seek to do no more than was provided in the Education Act 1944 on the religious character and the staffing of schools. We use the opportunity to update and clarify some of the wording, and we ensure that existing powers in articles of government of certain classes of school are carried forward into the new framework. The amendments recognise and meet the Churches' concerns about staffing. They reflect the Government's belief that Church schools make a valuable contribution to the education of our children, and our belief that it is right and proper that those schools should be allowed to carry safeguards into the new framework. The amendments agreed in the House of Lords do precisely that. They ensure that there is a roll forward into the new framework which protects the interests of Church schools, and which allows them to retain their religious character and distinctive ethos. Church schools are popular with parents, and I believe that many hon. Members present tonight understand why. The amendments reflect the important role that Church schools play. They protect and preserve their position in relation to staffing matters.

DUTY TO SECURE DUE PROVISION OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The Bill makes no substantive changes to the law on religious education and collective worship. By and large, the Bill is worded in such a way that it will be in order to apply the provisions of the existing law to the new school framework. Many of the amendments in the group are minor Government amendments. I draw the attention of the House to what is probably the most significant amendment in the group, amendment No. 284. It was introduced in response to concern expressed by the Church of England, and I believe it to be non-contentious. It clarifies the statutory position on the nature of collective worship in foundation and voluntary schools with a religious character. The amendment confirms that worship in such schools, and in voluntary schools without a religious character, should be in accordance with any provisions in the trust deed, as is widely accepted and the current position. However, the amendment then specifies that, for schools with a religious character which have no provision in their trust deed, the worship should be in accordance with the tenets and practices of the school's designated religion or denomination, as set out in the order required by clause 66. That brings the treatment of collective worship in schools into line with the treatment of religious education. I commend the amendments to the House.

TRANSFER OF LAND ON APPOINTED DAY

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

This is another highly technical group of amendments. They concern the provision and disposal of school premises, a variety of different situations in which such provision and disposal might occur, and the respective rights and responsibilities of the interested parties. The amendments are detailed. I believe that they were agreed without great controversy in the House of Lords.

MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS MAKING GOVERNORS OF FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL EX OFFICIO TRUSTEES

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I get to move all the most exciting groups of amendments. This group is another largely technical one, this time concerned with matters related to school governance. The amendments cover, for example, provision for transitional arrangements, for reconstituting governing bodies to enable them to operate from an appointed day, transitional regulations to allow for certain governors to remain in post even when they do not comply with the requirements of the new definition, and removing reference to instruments and articles of government contained in previous legislation. They were agreed without any great controversy in another place.

CODE OF PRACTICE

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

Once again, many of the amendments in the group are technical, but I bring to the attention of the House one major new provision, which goes beyond the purely technical and has potentially significant implications. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill contains a new provision for dealing locally with admissions. It sets up an adjudicator who will decide between admissions authorities if there is any conflict about the way in which admissions procedures locally are to work. That will operate under the new code of practice, which will be submitted to the House some time in the new calendar year for debate and approval. As the Bill stood when it went to the House of Lords, the only body that could refer a matter to do with admissions to the adjudicator was an admissions authority. When we originally drew up the Bill, I thought that that would be sufficient to protect the interests, in particular, of parents in the local area. If the responsibility rested with an admissions authority, the views and needs of parents could be reflected. However, as a result of consultation and representations made, it became clear that parents should be given some mechanism and some route whereby an admissions policy affecting them locally might be referred for consideration by the adjudicator. The Bill as it went to the House of Lords did not provide that opportunity for parents to refer a matter to the adjudicator for consideration. With hindsight, I must say that that was an omission. The Lords agreed with a Government amendment that provides the power to parents to refer the admissions policies as they apply locally to—

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, which sounds like a good addition to the Bill, but what will the mechanism be? Parents often have rights in legislation, but they are not always informed of their rights. If parents are to be given the right to refer an admissions decision to an adjudicator, can the Minister assure the House that, when the LEA or other body informs the parents of that admissions decision, it will be incumbent on that body to inform the parents in the same document of their right to appeal to an adjudicator, so that that information is fairly disseminated?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I am not unsympathetic to that approach, but I want to go away and consider the mechanics whereby we can ensure that parents locally are made aware of the new power that we intend to give them through these amendments. I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure whether it should be the responsibility of the admissions authority or whether there may be some other way in which parents can be made aware of the new power. I shall go away and consider what might be the best way forward.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When people apply for a benefit or grant through the Benefits Agency and their application is turned down, it is usual for them to be informed at that time of their right of appeal and the mechanism and time scale involved. The formula that is already used by other Departments could be used by LEAs.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

As the hon. Lady will know, it must be in the guidance on procedures for Ministers that we never agree automatically to something that is raised in debate, even though it may seem to have great merit. I have a great deal of sympathy with the overall approach of informing parents of their right. I want to reflect on whether the mechanism that the hon. Lady outlined would be the best. I shall give proper consideration to how we might make the information available to parents so that they can exercise a new right. That is the main item of substance in this group of Lords amendments. The remainder are effectively technical amendments. I commend them to the House, including the amendment giving parents a new power to refer admissions policies to the adjudicator. I ask the House to agree with the Lords amendment.

PERMITTED SELECTION: PUPIL BANDING

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 112 to 114.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

There will probably be great interest in this group of technical amendments, which is headed "Partial selection" in the marshalled amendments before the House. Amendment No. 111 simplifies the reference to the way in which proposals under schedule 6 may fall to be implemented. The amendments to clause 97 and 98 make it clear that, unless otherwise specified, the provisions in clauses 84 and 85 will apply to any selective admissions arrangements permitted under clauses 94 to 97. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know precisely what those clauses contain, so I am confident that they will agree with me that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment.

DESIGNATION OF GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The amendments fall into three broad categories. Amendments Nos. 115, 117, 122 to 124 and 374 are technical and tidying-up amendments. Two groups of amendments have greater substance. Amendments Nos. 116, 118 to 120, 125, 126 and 128 would give effect to the recommendations that were made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords. That Committee recommended that certain measures should be written into the Bill. The parents who will be eligible to a vote in a petition or to take part in a ballot and the fact that there should be 20 per cent. or more of eligible parents at the relevant school signing a petition were matters that the Committee thought should be recorded in the Bill. The amendments meet the Committee's recommendations. We were pleased to be able to agree with those recommendations. The second significant group consists of amendments Nos. 121 and 127. Those relate to what are known as the gagging provisions in the Bill. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that the Government were concerned that local education authorities and school governing bodies might abuse their positions, particularly in relation to the use of public money, in arguing for or against one side of the argument in relation to the retention of selective schools. In Committee, the Government stuck to their original view, which was that it would be far better to impose a blanket ban on governing bodies and local education authorities embarking on any campaigning issue. A number of hon. Members who are present this evening, including me, engaged in a heated debate about whether that was the right way in which to proceed. As always, the Government proved to be a listening Government. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition began his listening tour yesterday, and I wish him well; but this Government have been listening for a long time. As a result of their listening, they felt that this part of the Bill should be changed. Opposition Members asked why governing bodies should be restricted. If governing bodies felt strongly about an issue, should they not be allowed to articulate their view? Some of my hon. Friends feel that local education authorities should be able to articulate particular views as well. The Government have decided—and their decision is reflected in the Lords amendments—that it is appropriate for local education authorities, and school governing bodies, to be able to express their views on important issues. However, we continue to claim that they should not be allowed to use public money to pursue a partial argument. That is where we draw the line. If a school governing body holds a fete or summer fair to raise money to argue for the retention of the grammar school system, that is perfectly right and proper; if a local education authority seeks to raise money, it will probably be in difficulties. I am not sure that such action is within LEAs' powers. No doubt, in due course, there will be interesting legal arguments about whether it would be ultra vires. In any event, it would not be possible to stop an elected member of a local authority from campaigning openly in favour of a specific argument; but we are drawing a line in the sand in regard to the use of public money. The Lords amendments permit public bodies—grammar school governing bodies, secondary modern school governing bodies and local education authorities, if they wish—to argue their case. We do not wish to restrict their activities in that regard; what we are saying is that they should not be able to use public money to support their campaigns. I think that the amendments strike the right balance between the two competing arguments. Having considered the issue, I recommend that the House agree with the House of Lords.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As reshuffle fever grips the Government Benches, we should all be aware that each occasion on which we are privileged to hear the Minister speak on the Bill may be the last time that we hear him speak from the Front Bench. Let me begin by thanking him for the small mercy of the slight move that he has made on the gagging provisions. I am relieved to discover that the Government have not yet got into the mode of trying to dictate what school fetes should raise money for, although it must be said that that is only a small step forward. The Lords amendments relate to one of the more distasteful parts of the Bill—and, as evidenced by the number of amendments that the Government have been forced to table in the House of Lords, one of the more intrinsically incoherent parts. The plethora of amendments to this part of the Bill demonstrates the difficulty of turning blind prejudice into good legislation. The Minister referred to the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee that more details of the ballot should be included in the Bill, and that less should be left in regulations. The Committee is right, of course, and we should be grateful for the moves that have been made; but I hope that the Minister will explain what coherent principles he is using to decide what should be in the Bill and what should be left in regulations. That question is particularly important in this context. Apart from the over-arching point about the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly, there is the question of the time scale. Given the point at which the consultation period will end, we assume that the regulations will be published in the recess. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on that. I know that several of my hon. Friends have specific constituency points to make, so I shall be fairly brief. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that parents throughout the country are worried about the clauses to which the amendments refer, and in many respects they are right to feel betrayed. Any number of quotes from the current Prime Minister before the election illustrate the point. During the by-election campaign in Wirral, South, he said: A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee. Parents of children in grammar schools throughout the country will know how much that guarantee is worth when they see the Bill. Even more strongly, he said in Birmingham in April 1997: Our task is not to change anything that works or any good school that is doing well. Our challenge is to change what is not working in the education system. The amendments are designed to make it easy to change something that is working well in the education system, so they are unnecessary and damaging. The amendments show how difficult it has been for the Government to enforce the betrayals that the Prime Minister is inflicting on those parents. Amendment No. 126 refers to parents eligible to vote. I was fascinated to receive a written answer confirming what I had suspected—that each child can have an unlimited number of parents eligible to petition and vote. That shows the arcane lengths to which the Bill going. One might naturally think that any child could have a maximum of two parents.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have simply rolled forward the definition of eligible parents contained in the Conservatives' legislation on grant-maintained school ballots and petitions. That is the definition that has traditionally been used.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

That had to be on a narrower basis, because it affected parents at individual schools rather than across local education authorities. I do not remember the Labour party welcoming those ballots, so I am not sure that the Minister's argument washes. Many people will find the 20 per cent. rule peculiar. The Government have decided that, when they are dealing with matters that they care about, such as trade unions, 40 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. For schools, which they do not care about, they have decided that 20 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. Parents across the country will observe the difference and note where the Government's real interests lie. The Minister will be aware that various local Labour parties are trying to organise campaigns against grammar schools. He told the Social Market Foundation on 1 July this year: One of our priorities over the next few months is to identify new ways in which excellent schools can simply be allowed to get on with what they do well without undue distraction. I commend those words. The Minister is right and he should put his words into action by encouraging his hon. Friends and many Labour councillors throughout the country not to try to cause undue distractions to good schools by campaigning for their destruction. The amendments say nothing about the cost of the ballots. Ministers refuse to answer the question when they are asked. One assumes that many thousands of pounds will be spent. I am sure that the House would be grateful to hear any figures that the Minister has. Whatever the cost, it is inconceivable that the money available for education is best used by spending it on ballots. The wasted money is bad enough, but that is not all that will be diverted from better purposes. A great deal of energy will also be expended. I have two excellent grammar schools in my constituency—Highworth school for girls and Norton Knatchbull school for boys. They are already having to look over their shoulders at what may be coming. Inevitably, the energy of senior staff, other staff and those parents who are most involved is being distracted from their normal work of helping the schools towards thinking about what is likely to happen in the ballots. The net result of that uncertainty will be a reduction in the amount of creative time and energy devoted to improving the education of children. I cannot believe that the Minister thinks such ballots are a sensible use of time.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the effect that the uncertainty is having on parents who are contemplating the best schools for their children? The proposals are already having the perverse effect of pushing parents towards independent schools rather than excellent grammar and secondary schools which they might otherwise choose.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

My hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise, makes an extremely good point. I cannot believe that it is one of the Government's intentions to drive more children into the independent sector. They must know that that is one of the possible effects of the policy. Although we on the Opposition Benches have no problem with that, because we believe in parental choice, ideologically the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. Amendment No. 115 refers to clause 99, which states that a grammar school is a school that selects all (or substantially all) of its pupils…by reference to general ability". It is interesting that, although the Government have quite sensibly taken up the previous Government's idea that schools should be allowed to select certain skills—a percentage of pupils can be selected for sporting or artistic ability—they are still hostile to the idea of selection on academic ability. As the Minister will know, there are those who argue that part of the problem faced by sports and arts colleges is that they are not allowed greater specialism and a higher percentage of selection. Had grammar schools not provided a good service for centuries, it would have been typical of the new Labour Government—indeed, I commend the idea to the Minister—to suggest that specialist academic colleges would be a good idea, too. The proposed policy does not even fit their own purported ideology. Trying to damage grammar schools in such a way is atavistic, and unworthy of many of the other things that the Minister is trying to achieve.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Are we not debating the fact that the Government and the Minister are philosophically opposed to education by selection—they have made that very clear—but realise that it would be extremely unpopular among parents whose children attend grammar schools or live in an area where they hope that their children will attend one? They have contrived a balloting system, and the Minister has made an announcement about not using public money, which is right and proper. Having set a policy of hostility towards grammar schools, despite their excellence, particularly in academic subjects, the Government are standing back, wringing their hands saying, "It's nothing to do with us, guy." In practice, the trade unions will be the ones who find the money to drive anti-grammar school campaigns. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) laughs; he has good reason to do so. He knows that, in every ballot on an application for a grant-maintained school, he and his chums from the trade unions found the wherewithal and the ability to run a no campaign. The Minister knows that; the Government know it. They will let the trade unions do their dirty work for them.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

My hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to hide behind others in the campaign because they put out so much soft soap before the election, saying that good schools would not be threatened. We said that they would be, and we have been proved right. Everything that was said before the election, by everyone from the Prime Minister downwards, is proved to have been a deceit on the public. We have spoken of the chaos that will be caused by the ballot process, and is already being caused by the uncertainty. However, much more chaos and expense will, of course, be caused by the consequence of any changes. One key point that the House and people outside will need to realise is that the chaos, the expense and the disruption of children's vital years in education will not be confined to the grammar schools but will spread to all the schools in the areas concerned. I have in different parts of my constituency both extremely good grammar schools and excellent comprehensive schools. The disruption caused by any change to the grammar schools would affect schools right across the board. Damage would be caused to the education of the many, not the few.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about disruption, and of course it will last longer than the duration of the ballots. Relationships will be strained in perpetuity. Imagine the situation during a ballot, with school against school, parent against parent and community against community—hardly a policy to bind together communities and local areas. The disruption will go on in perpetuity and damage the education opportunities of countless children.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

rose—

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments are problematic because, at the margins of the Government's policy, the category of people affected is wider than existing parents and pupils. The amendments deal with the question of who is eligible to vote in the ballots, and the Government are having that difficulty precisely because it is not only the children, parents and governors from the grammar schools who will be affected but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, the whole community. That is one reason why the Government have had such difficulty and have had to bring before the House amendments made in another place. It is regrettable that they are betraying their pre-election promises by introducing those clauses and the amendments to them, because putting good schools under threat is no way to raise standards in all schools. At best, the Government are causing short-term disruption and, at worst, they are engaging in long-term vandalism. However, I am sure that, if and when ballots take place, parents will show more common sense than Ministers have.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I support the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), our Front-Bench spokesman. First, I must declare an interest, in that both my daughters attended the excellent South Wilts grammar school for girls in Salisbury. I put on record the thanks of my wife and myself, as well as those of our children, for that superb education, which was both academic and rounded, and included an education through the community in south Wiltshire. They started in the village school, they progressed to Wilton middle school, and they have both now gone to university. I wish also to put on record my thanks to the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he received a delegation that I brought to see him earlier in the year, which included the heads of South Wilts grammar school for girls and of Bishop Wordsworth's school, together with their respective chairmen of governors. The Minister received us with courtesy, and indeed with spirit. He was challenging in the way in which he listened to our arguments, and then suggested that there might be even better ways in which we could raise educational standards in my ancient cathedral city and the other part of south Wiltshire that I represent. We came away most encouraged, in the knowledge that the Minister and his officials had listened carefully, and we hoped that we had influenced some of the decisions that he would take—although we were a little disappointed in that respect. On many occasions over many years, I have made my views clear on behalf of my constituents, and that was but the latest occasion on which I did so. I might not have tried to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had it not been for the bizarre remarks by Baroness Blackstone when the Bill was considered in another place. She said: this amendment appears to be about fairness and democracy, but I have a suspicion that it is about tailoring the electorate in order to achieve a particular result. If ever logic were stood on its head by anyone, it was by the noble Baroness. She added that a feeder school was defined as a school which has sent five or more pupils in total to the relevant grammar school or schools over the previous three years. That definition was arrived at after consultation with a number of grammar schools."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 54.] I bet that all those schools asked her to do exactly the opposite of what the Government propose. While the Bill is making progress—thanks to the enormous majority that we face—the local Labour party in Salisbury is going around stirring up apathy in a community where education is regarded as an important piece of our social fabric; where the old warfare between comprehensive and grammar schools was, fortunately, ended 15 years ago; where education is so important that, in considering reorganisation to meet the needs of modern Britain, the secondary modern schools are proposing a sixth form; where the comprehensive school has excellent academic results; and where the grammar schools are part of a wide and varied educational fabric. The clauses and the amendments are crucial to the argument. I am disappointed that the Government have not listened to the representations, and seem to be intent on fighting a thoroughly old-fashioned class war, concerned with the battles of so many years ago. It is in sorrow rather than anger that I have made my few remarks in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will have second thoughts.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Ministers know that I have a strong interest in the future of the remaining grammar schools, and of the secondary moderns which are their companions. Ministers have doubtless followed my comments on previous occasions. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is characteristic of these debates that people speak up for some of the best schools in the country. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford stressed that we are not talking about the grammar schools being the best. We stand to lose a system that is working in both the grammar and the secondary modern schools. Last week, the Minister underlined that point for my constituents and the people of Trafford by including the Ashton-on-Mersey school in his list of beacon schools. That is a most helpful gesture by the Government, which underlined to my constituents the fact that Ministers share my view that it is nothing but arrant nonsense to suggest that those who do not go to the grammar schools are consigned to failure at 11. They clearly are not—they are consigned to beacon schools. Last night, I had the privilege of presenting awards at another secondary modern school in my constituency, the New Wellington school. It is achieving magnificent results—often better than many comprehensive schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the telling point that that was the kind of initiative that the Government might have come up with had they not been wedded to a rather old-fashioned hostility towards grammar schools. In the north of Trafford, we have good grammar schools in Stretford and Urmston, which are doing the job of raising the academic standards of all schools—as will the beacon schools, I hope. The Minister referred to the origin of many of the amendments lying with the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The Committee was right to return to many of the arguments of Conservative members of the Standing Committee—that the Bill was too vague, left too much to discretion and subsequent regulation by Ministers, and contained insufficient detail and information for parents and others with an interest. The Minister talked about the technical amendments, and amendments that are required to put a little more in the Bill. Some of them are welcome as far as they go. I certainly welcome the slight relaxation in the gagging provisions. That will be welcome to the governing bodies of schools in my constituency, many of which have been very concerned about the interpretation of the limitations placed on them by the Bill. The Minister rightly accepted that even this Government could not prevent people who happened to be school governors from expressing their views; those people would probably have published their views anyway with "governor of" in parenthesis after their names. He has accepted that the restriction would have been unreasonable and unnecessary. I welcome the fact that no public money can be spent on campaigning, either by the schools or by local education authorities. I particularly welcome the relaxation of the gagging order on LEAs, as I want local Labour parties and councillors to be able to demonstrate their hostility to these excellent schools as openly as possible. It is regrettable that the Government have tried to wash their hands of the implications of their proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I assure my hon. Friend that, certainly in Kent, where some Labour Members are very publicly opposing the grammar schools in their constituencies, parents will not fail to let it be known who is leading the campaign and what effect it will have.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful for that intelligence on what is happening in the south-east. In Trafford, Labour councillors have been more reticent about stating their views, in the knowledge that, certainly for nearly all my life, local elections there have frequently turned on the question of the future of the grammar schools. Labour won control of the council only in 1995, when it came up with a new local formula; it said that it would do nothing to harm the grammar schools, and that future policy would be a matter for a Labour Government if and when one were elected. The council passed the buck to the Government, but the Government are now passing it back. Ultimately, however, the buck will rest fairly and squarely with the Labour party, which is maintaining its hostility to these excellent schools. The amendments leave considerable room for confusion; they are not as good as we may have wanted. However, they would rightly make it more clear which parents are eligible to vote in ballots. The consultation paper on the matter is something of a dog's breakfast; it contains completely different eligibility criteria for different types of grammar schools—those that stand alone, those in groups and those that are in wholly selective LEA areas. The Government must say exactly why they believe it appropriate that only parents of children in primary feeder schools should vote on the future of some grammar schools, whereas all parents of school-age children—primary or secondary—may vote on the future of others. The amendments also deal with the payment of costs that are necessarily incurred not in campaigning, but in the petitioning and balloting procedure. They would ensure that the Bill specified that a petition would have to meet a 20 per cent. threshold before a ballot could be called. That is welcome, although I should prefer a higher threshold. A more important point—whether there should be a minimum majority requirement in any ballot—is left open. It is wrong that vastly important decisions on the future of many schools could be taken by a small number of parents. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I believe that the criteria that apply in ballots on trade union recognition could reasonably apply in school ballots; I do not understand why, in trade union ballots, 40 per cent. of those eligible must vote whereas, in ballots on schools, a simple majority of any number of parents is sufficient. I should like the Bill to be clearer on that. Lords amendment No. 118 is rather worrying. Is my understanding correct—that it would remove the power for Ministers to establish how the result of a ballot is to be ascertained? If so, is the Minister deliberately endorsing a position whereby the Government give up the power to set a minimum threshold for a majority requirement to come into the balloting procedure? This is possibly the biggest issue of concern to my constituents. The onus must be firmly on those who seek to change a system that works so well. In the borough of Trafford, that system achieves the best A-level results in the country, and the 10th best GCSE results; in Buckinghamshire, it achieves the best GCSE results. That should be borne in mind by those who want to introduce a balloting system that could throw away those advantages far too cheaply. Which are the designated areas? Has the Minister given further thought to whether greater emphasis on the truly local might be appropriate in the balloting procedure? For the grammar schools in Altrincham, the catchment area would be a far more appropriate boundary for balloting and parental eligibility than the whole borough of Trafford. Some of the changes are welcome, but some are cause for concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made clear, the changes will cause massive disruption not only through the balloting procedure itself but if a ballot should decide to get rid of selective schools. In any shift towards comprehensive schools, there is a reduction in the number and diversity of schools and in parental choice, and standards generally go down. To throw away the high standards in some of the best schools in the country would be unfortunate at a time when the Government say that they are focusing on the need to raise standards. One of the most unfortunate effects of the ballot campaigns, if and when they happen, will arise from the attitude of those who oppose selection. They talk about the children in secondary modern schools being consigned to failure at 11, and risk damaging and discouraging those children. The Secretary of State regularly visits my constituency, although he has not so far taken the time to visit one of my grammar schools, but when Ministers come to my constituency, they will see that both the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools are excellent. At a school such as New Wellington school, where I was last night—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to emphasise the point that one of the most damaging effects of the ballot campaigns could be the erroneous argument that we are dealing with some pupils who have failed and some who succeed. We are dealing with pupils who are being educated appropriately for their abilities and the way in which they are best able to learn. The system works and those people who detract from it or oppose the retention of a selective education system, where we still have one, are doing a disservice to children in secondary modern schools.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) accused the Government of incoherence in these amendments, which was typically kind—I would accuse them of intolerance. Change for the sake of change is undesirable, but creating the potential for change for its own sake is also deeply undesirable. The technical amendments are not contentious, but funding is more complex and the amendment that deals with it is welcome in the sense that it would free governing bodies to set out a clear and resolute case in defence of their school—or not, if they do not wish to defend it, although I cannot imagine that that would be the case—and because it prohibits the spending of public money. As we have seen with the ballots for grant-maintained schools, the problem is that there are cleverer and more sinister ways to fund extremely negative and dirty campaigns, often perpetrated by the less wise members of the Labour party—not like the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard). The reservation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) alluded is right and proper, and the amendment does not go sufficiently far towards controlling that sort of activity. As I said, I am concerned that there will be dirty campaigns, but I disagree with my hon. Friend, in that I do not think that the Labour party will be able to escape the blame. If there are any petitions or campaigns in south Lincolnshire, we shall nail the blame where it belongs. Indeed, many of us would welcome the opportunity to do so, because the ballot and the process that leads to it, which is implicit in this legislation, will be deeply unpopular with parents of grammar school pupils, parents with children at feeder schools who believe that they will have a chance of getting to grammar school—usually a greater proportion of the children than ultimately get there—and people who have a relationship with the school past and present, in other words, much of the community. Electorally, that would be an undesirable move from the Government's point of view and it would not be in their interests. I must point out two other aspects of the Bill, the first of which has not been mentioned. What will be the effect of the provisions on the discretion of local education authorities? Lincolnshire LEA is Conservative-controlled, but, until the last election, it was under Labour control and, during that time, it chose not to interfere with grammar schools. That may have had more to do with the practical business of trying to remain popular—clearly it failed, as Labour was thrown out—than with any philosophical commitment to selection; notwithstanding that, the LEA had the right to make a decision that was sensitive to local traditions, opinion and needs. The Bill would certainly inhibit and restrict the freedom of democratically elected county councillors or members of LEAs to make decisions appropriate for their areas. That returns us to the contradiction between a centrally controlled, dictated and uniform system, which in fairness may be designed to drive up standards, and the flexibility and diversity from which education benefits so greatly, which gives local people the power to make local decisions that best match the needs of local communities. My final point was dealt with to some extent but needs amplification. Where selection exists, it is good not merely for the children who are selected but for children in primary schools, who try to attain the necessary standard to gain admission to the local grammar school, and for many secondary modern schools. In the past, I have mentioned good schools in Spalding—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

In summary, then, the amendments fail to deal with the maintenance of high standards across the primary and secondary education systems where selection exists. We shall fight to retain not only grammar schools but all good schools where local people want them.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I shall seek to deal only with points raised about the amendments, so I can be fairly brief. I listened with interest to those points. I have met several hon. Members and delegations from their constituencies, including representatives of grammar schools, and head teachers. I have also visited grammar schools to see the quality of the education that they provide. As the Minister responsible for school standards, I should be mindful of all the arguments, but that does not mean that all of them can be incorporated in regulations. The regulations on which we are consulting are better and fairer than they would have been had I not heard those representations. They go nowhere near meeting the concerns expressed by many Conservative Members, but they improve on what might have been had we not heard those concerns. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who made his points well, has said, I met him and a delegation from grammar schools in his constituency. The draft regulations are out for consultation, which will finish at the end of July, and we shall produce the regulations in due course. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about timing. We want the House to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the regulations affecting grammar schools, and we shall produce a timetable that will ensure that hon. Members can do so. We are conscious of the strong views held by Conservative Members and Labour Members on grammar schools. I want the regulations to be as fair as possible, and I want to ensure that people feel that they have had an opportunity to express their views.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful for that commitment. I apologise if I am pre-empting the Minister, but I am keen that he should address the question whether any of the amendments—particularly Lords amendment No. 118 on the possibility of a threshold majority—would limit the scope of regulations to take account of the consultation exercise.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points to which I intended to return. He is right to say that Lords amendment No. 118 removes reference to regulations specifying how the result of a ballot will be determined. It does that because Lords amendment No. 128 ensures that the Bill will say how regulations will be determined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition and impact of designated areas, which are important to his constituency. I intend designated areas to be included in draft regulations, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to debate them and vote on them. There will be an opportunity to revisit the issue in more detail once the regulations specify the designated areas. I hope that that meets some of his concerns. The onus for change will rest on those advocating change. There is no doubt that, in so important a decision as the future of grammar schools and the selective system, there will be a high turnout among parents. That is why we have not been persuaded to specify a minimum turnout in the Bill or regulations. We have provided that a minimum of 20 per cent. of parents should sign the petition to requisition a ballot, but, once a ballot has been called, the nature and importance of the decision will ensure a high turnout among the parents eligible to take part. I do not believe that this is a betrayal by the Government. Our manifesto clearly stated that the future of grammar schools would be a matter for local determination by parents. That is what we are seeking to do in the regulations under the Bill and in the draft regulations that will come forward in due course. Let us be clear: it will not be the Labour Government who close a grammar school, but local parents. That is only right and proper. Where grammar schools have broad support, they have nothing to fear from the Bill. I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues raised by Conservative Members, if not to satisfy them. We will have the chance to revisit the matter when we go through the affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations. I will make sure that the draft regulations are published in a way that ensures a debate in this House and in the House of Lords. The Lords amendments improve the Bill, and I am pleased that they have had a broad welcome from Opposition Members. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in its amendments.

SCHOOL MEALS

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The amendments clarify the powers taken in the legislation on school meals. They extend the Secretary of State's power to set nutritional standards for lunches served in pupil referral units and maintained nursery schools. Part of the reason for that clarification is that the original wording dealt with maintained schools and schools maintained by local authorities. We found that PRUs and maintained nursery schools fell outside the legislation. The amendments place a duty on local authorities to provide paid lunches for pupils under compulsory school age only when those pupils are full-time. Many pupils under school age who attend nursery are part-time. We have not put a duty on local authorities to provide lunches in those circumstances. Where lunches are provided for children under the legal age of starting school, they should abide by the nutritional standards on which we shall shortly consult. The amendments also define what a school lunch is, in case anyone has any doubt or has forgotten the days when we used to partake of them.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Great.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I am not sure that "great" is the adjective that I would apply. School meals can be but are not always a set meal. As we know, the majority of secondary schools and an increasing number of primary schools now have a cafeteria-style system rather than providing the same set meal that every child must eat. The amendment clarifies the meaning of a school meal, so that, when we consult on the nutritional standards, all children benefit from an important attempt to ensure that our children grow up on a healthy diet and are encouraged to eat such.

New clause

Travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Amendment No. 137 allows local authorities to provide transport for those in nursery education. Again, it involves a definition of a school and of early years education—which is of course before the age at which school officially starts. As we move into an era in which all four-year-olds are entitled to early years education—the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made today will double the number of three-year-olds in early years education to 66 per cent. within three years—it is important that we give attention to school transport for this age group. The amendment will benefit parents, providers of nursery education and local authorities, by giving a power to provide transport or help with transport expenses for children travelling to and from settings where part-time education for children under five is provided. I reassure hon. Members that included within the amendment will be all the providers who contribute to the early years development plan. It will be not only for the maintained schools but for the voluntary and independent sector.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Will the Minister say what sort of transport she has in mind for three and four-year-olds? Almost certainly, most three-year-olds travelling on public transport would require a high level of supervision. Few parents would willingly put a three-year-old on a minibus or public transport vehicle without a lot of reassurances. I am thinking of staffing ratios, safety belts and the suitability of the vehicle. Would children of that age be expected to share transport with older children travelling to their separate schools? One can see all sorts of problems if tiny children are mixed in with seven, eight or even 11-year-olds. What exactly does she have in mind?

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The notion of a three-year-old plonked on a minibus with no security or supervision is one with which neither parents nor the Government would be happy. The purpose of the amendment is in this primary legislation is to give local authorities the power to use money to provide transport. That is an important step. I reassure the hon. Lady that I believe that the age group clearly needs special consideration. As we move forward, we shall issue guidance to local authorities, to ensure that young children are protected. We shall consult not only local authorities but parents, traditional providers of school transport and others. I reassure the hon. Lady that I certainly see the needs of this age group as different and special compared to those of secondary age children, who are the bulk of the children who travel to school. I feel strongly that most young children should go to a nursery setting near where they live. I think that that will happen in most cases, but in rural areas or perhaps occasionally to meet parents' demands or preferences, it may be necessary to place a child further away. If we do not take the power to ensure that local authorities can spend money for this purpose, we might be denying places to children who might otherwise be able to have them. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall give proper consideration to the points that she has raised when we draw up the guidance and advice.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister has touched on the point that I wish to raise—the question of distance travelled by very small children. I wanted to flag up my concern about the possibility of the amount of time taken by a long journey to nursery school being considered, by some parents, to be a partial solution to a child care problem. I am not saying that it would happen often, but it strikes me as a cause for concern, because I know of some cases in which children are put on certain types of transport because it takes longer to get to school. I ask the Minister to take that into account when drawing up the guidelines.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I have visions of children in Altrincham and Sale, West being driven around on the bus for an hour before school and two hours after school to fit in with their parents' working arrangements. I am sure that it does not happen often, but I take the point. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, when an early years development plan is sent to the Department for approval, one of the things that we check is distance, because we need to be sure that the children covered by the plan do not have to travel unreasonable distances. That was an issue that we took up with many local authorities when they published their plan, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is something that we shall continue to watch carefully. As a Government who have put an extra £400 million into child care, we do not need to have children riding around on the underground to meet their parents' child care needs. That is not one of our solutions. Amendment No. 367 will allow the Secretary of State to require local authorities to publish details of their nursery transport policy, in the same way as they currently publish school and college transport details. I hope that that will further allay the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). The transport arrangements made will be clear both to parents, so that they know what is available, and—perhaps as important—to local authorities and the Government, so that we can be sure that they are proper.

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR SECURING EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEAs AND MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Members of the Standing Committee, of whom there are several present tonight, will know that one of the issues that received cross-party support was the need to establish a code of practice covering the relationship between LEAs and individual schools. We published the draft code for consultation and I am pleased that it has been widely welcomed by schools in all sectors and by local education authorities and Church education authorities. The draft code managed to strike the right balance between competing, and sometimes conflicting, aims and objectives. However, several hon. Members expressed the view in Committee that, although the code was useful, there should be parliamentary approval for it. Attention was drawn to the admissions code, which will be subject to parliamentary approval, and hon. Members argued that it would be appropriate for the code of practice for local education authority and individual school relations to be subject to parliamentary approval as well. The Government considered that point and moved amendment No. 138 in the House of Lords, which provides that the code of practice will be subject to parliamentary approval. I hope that that arrangement will meet with the approval of the House.

RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO NON-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I remember that, when the Bill returned from Committee for Report and Third Reading, we had this debate at about 3 o'clock in the morning. Given the length of today's debates and the pressure on the House, I do not intend to go over all that old ground. Suffice it to say that we are dealing not with partnership agreements but with an amendment that was understood in the Lords to be determined to remove any objections to the introduction of an alternative assisted places scheme. That would be the effect if we did not overturn the decision of the Lords. The Lords carried the amendment by one vote, with the help of hereditary peers and against the Government's express wishes and our manifesto commitment. The Lords knew exactly what would be the impact of the amendment, and Lord Lucas made no bones about where he stood. The debate is not about reaching partnership agreements. The Bill does not in any way infringe the ability of local authorities to purchase places for special educational needs requirements. It does not interfere with the legitimacy of local authorities in having sensible discretion, but our position on the amendment would stop them introducing assisted places schemes, which the House voted to abolish in a separate Bill, which received Royal Assent on 31 July 1997. A year later, we are back where we started. We simply cannot progress in this way. The atmosphere is entirely different from that of Monday night, but we should not waste each other's time. Enough time has been wasted in this Session putting this and other Bills on the statute book. I do not mind sensible, rational debate, but repeating the same rational arguments time and again and having the Lords making amendments that they know perfectly well will be overturned by the Commons and playing silly political games does not endear people to the democratic process. I want the House tonight to adopt the simple principle that we passed a Bill last summer, we have a manifesto commitment, we know perfectly well what we are doing, and we are not interfering with legitimate partnership arrangements, but we will not have other people introducing assisted places schemes, which we have abolished. What is more, we will not allow public money to be used to purchase provision in the specific circumstances that apply to the operation of assisted places schemes. That money, which is allocated through the taxpayer by the Government, is for reducing class sizes, improving standards and ensuring that children get a decent education wherever they go. That is why we shall overturn the amendments. I hope that we shall not have, as we did ad nauseam until 10 past 5 in the morning on Report and Third Reading, people playing silly devils.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding us that this is a far more reasonable hour than the early morning to consider the important points raised by the amendments. The strength of feeling on the matter could not have been more evident in our previous discussion, but the strength of argument will be greater at this time. The Secretary of State had the gall to suggest that, by abolishing the assisted places scheme, the Government have been able to afford everything that they are doing for the education service. The facts speak for themselves. On their own figures, by the third year, the cumulative saving from abolishing the assisted places would be only £100 million, and we heard only the other day from the Minister for School Standards that the cost of simply reducing class sizes would be £100 million a year. Today, we hear that the Government are spending £150 million of capital on building new classrooms for that project. Regardless of whether one agrees with lower class sizes—we have acknowledged that there is something to be said for that objective—no one can pretend that abolishing assisted places went anywhere near paying for that project, let alone the Government's other ambitions. Labour Members may ask what this has to do with the amendment. That is a very good point. The amendment does not ask the Government to rediscover or reproduce that £40 million a year. It simply asks the Government to accept that local councils, with the support of local schools, parents, charities and sponsors, should be allowed to take advantage of the chance to give some local children for whom the idea is appropriate their best opportunity in life. That chance should not be denied by the prejudice that Labour Members have displayed not only in this House but in another place. I am delighted to report to the House that Surrey county council recently received a glowing report from Ofsted. There can be no doubt that Surrey LEA achieves some of the best results for children of any LEA in the country. Surrey wants to introduce a partnership places scheme with local schools because of local conditions and local ambitions to achieve the best result for every child. 9.45 pm The Secretary of State appeared to be trapped in the past; he appeared to be hung up on the old assisted places scheme. The Conservatives believe that that scheme had a lot to offer, but we want to go one better: we want to build on our experience, not deny it. In developing a new partnership scheme at the local education authority level, we want to build a scheme that will not demand a pound extra from the Department for Education and Employment but will introduce additional resources from outside the local education authority budget. It is ironic that I have been in continual correspondence with the Minister for School Standards concerning the schools budget in Surrey. He tells me time and again how much more he would like Surrey county council to spend on education—and Surrey county council would certainly like to delegate more of its budget to education. However, the Minister's colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have cut the council's funding allocation. In a year when council tax has had to be increased by more than 10 per cent., there is a limit to how much local tax payers can bear.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The problem is that local education authority budgets are constrained by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions at the same time as the Department for Education and Employment demands that LEAs spend more on education. We have identified that we can spend more on local children by introducing money from private sources and the independent sector. It is clear from the comments of the Secretary of State tonight, and from those of his colleagues on previous occasions, that they wish to deny us that opportunity of increasing the amount that is spent on children in Surrey and in other county council areas. I have no more wish than the Secretary of State to cover old ground, so let us consider what has happened since the House last debated the issue. Several schemes involving independent schools and the Government were submitted to the Secretary of State; Only 16 per cent. of them were accepted. More than four out of five of the schemes developed and produced locally have been knocked down by the Department for Education and Employment. What confidence can we have that, under the regulations that the Government are demanding be reimposed by knocking out the Lords amendment, the Department will adopt a slightly more broad-minded approach and allow local education authorities—such as Surrey—which have been innovative and imaginative, to use their initiative to come up with their own schemes, instead of being constrained by the ideological diktats of the Labour party? I quote briefly from the debate on the matter in the House of Lords. Baroness Blackstone, speaking of the clause that the Government are seeking to reinstate, said: The key objective is to prevent LEAs establishing the assisted places scheme at a local level."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1473.] Let us contrast those comments with the words of the Secretary of State, not so long ago, in the autumn of 1995—when he was seeking votes, not merely enjoying power—when speaking to the Independent Schools Information Service, the independent schools' spokesbody. The front cover of its magazine of that period bore the headline: Labour: Ready to be friends? That magazine reports that, in answer to the question, Would that be locally determined or would there be some kind of national scheme? the current Secretary of State said: Primarily we would have to allow local judgments". Primarily, all that the Lords amendments are seeking is that we allow local judgments.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Not to prolong the debate but just for clarification, I should say that my remarks referred entirely to the type of excellent scheme that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has approved for the development of the links between St. George's community school in inner-city Bristol and the Wells cathedral school. It is entirely at that level that they developed that programme, and we supported it with resources.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am all for links between choir schools—one of my children attended one—and I am all for links with ballet schools. I am all for all sorts of local links, depending on local circumstances. It is not for the Secretary of State to dictate what those circumstances are. If we are talking of excellence, let us refer to the recent research published in The Times Educational Supplement of 27 March 1998, which found that potential high-flyers who do not have university-educated parents have greater difficulty realising their potential in comprehensives than in private schools.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are talking about leaving with local authorities a power to develop a scheme under which such children can go to independent schools if it is judged in their best interests—a power which the Secretary of State has made it clear he wishes to deny to such children. The message of that report, reported in The Times Educational Supplement, is that some such children clearly benefit from such an education. If I may, I shall quote very briefly from that report again. The report concluded—

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

There is clear evidence that children who win an assisted place at a private school go on to a better university and a better job than would otherwise be the case. That raises the next issue. Should the question of local partnerships between local schools and a local education authority be determined locally in the interests of the child, or by the Minister in the interests of his policy? On a number of occasions, the Government have prayed in aid schemes that they deign to approve. In the House of Lords debate that I mentioned, the Front-Bench spokesman for the Government cited a scheme in Bromley. It is ironic that the council in Bromley wants to enter a partnership scheme involving independent schools that is much wider than the one that the Department has approved. The reason is that there is a problem of class sizes in local secondary schools. If the council can buy places at local independent schools for the children for whom that is most appropriate, the class size problem in secondary schools will be alleviated. The Government's announcement this afternoon of new classes to be built is not relevant to Bromley. Many of those schools are already over-subscribed, and lack the space to build new classrooms on their own ground. Therefore, the ability to buy places at other schools in the area answers a local need. However, we know from what the Minister has said before and what we have heard tonight that Bromley education authority and LEAs in Surrey and elsewhere will be denied the possibility of coping with a local problem in a way that answers their needs and those of children, parents and local schools, including those in the maintained sector. If such a scheme were allowed, it is implicit in the Lords amendment that the selection of children to go to the local schools should be determined locally, which means involving the local education authority.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Hear, hear.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has previously compared the situation to that of the nomination rights of a local authority in a local housing association. If, in devising a local scheme, an LEA wished to claim nomination rights, under the Lords amendment that the Government seek to reject, it would have those rights if it made them part of the scheme. It is right and proper that an LEA should have the power to do so. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to whom he reports were both taken to court by an 11-year-old child in order to make them meet their commitment to see that child through with an assisted place at the same school until the end of the child's education. The child had to learn that—

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I want the Minister to comment. If he is intractable in his insistence on the regulations that his amendment seeks to reimpose, does he consider it reasonable that children who currently have an assisted place, who have a reasonable expectation, based on his comments and those of his Prime Minister, that they will see that education through to the age of—

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am about to do so, but this relates to whether we should accept the amendment from the Secretary of State. If he is prepared to concede that, in the regulations that his amendment anticipates, he will allow children who currently have an assisted place to see their education through with the help of their LEA, that would be a move in the right direction. I urge the House to reject the Government's proposals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to be called, and I will be brief. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members who have recently entered the Chamber are trying to make contributions; they may want to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to make more formal contributions. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State remarkably combined pomposity with fatuousness. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is now impersonating a seal, so we can add that to the cocktail. The fatuous element of his speech was his statement that we had not moved forward since this time last year. In fact, the House of Lords has suggested something quite different: partnership schemes—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

In regard to fatuousness, the Secretary of State has moved no further forward. The solution suggested in the Lords amendment is different from the solution that we discussed when the matter first came before the House. Their Lordships suggest local discretion: they suggest that local people, through local education authorities, should be allowed to develop community schemes. I know that it is some time since the Secretary of State served in local government, where he established a distinguished record; and I know that, once some people come to this place, they often forget their roots. Perhaps the Secretary of State has forgotten his. It is understandable: buoyed by money and power, people do forget. Nevertheless, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that discretion, innovation, choice and diversity will result from allowing local communities to devise schemes that are sensitive and responsive to local traditions and needs. Surely, in the context of his education policies, the Secretary of State should take that on board. We are not debating—or re-debating, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—the principle of assisted places. Of course the Government have a mandate to deal with the issue in whatever way they wish. We are debating the Lords, considered and intelligent attempt to amend Government policy to allow for local discretion. In the interests of local democracy, in the interests of innovation and, surely, in the interests of trying to make the policy more moderate, the Secretary of State should give ground. I shall end on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than testing your patience any further. I mentioned pomposity. I think that pomposity emanates from a Secretary of State and a Government who object to any revision of their policy. This is not about the hereditary principle—although the Secretary of State threw that into his remarks as a cutting aside; it is about the opportunity to question, to challenge, to attempt to moderate and to amend policies that are born of little more than arrogance.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I shall endeavour not to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Labour Members—even the Secretary of State, who began this short debate by saying that he had become rather tired of proper democratic discussion of the subject. If he will give me a specific assurance on this very precise matter, I guarantee that I shall sit down immediately, and not say another word. I hope that we can work together for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who has made a strenuous case for the partnership places scheme that the people of Surrey have chosen to introduce. However, I want to deal with a very different matter, relating to circumstances that many of my constituents have enjoyed for some 50 years, going back to the second world war. I refer to the practice of the borough of Trafford, and what used to be Cheshire county council, of sending Roman Catholic pupils to fee-paying St. Bede's grammar school in order to provide denominational education in a co-educational environment. I am pleased to see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), in his place. I believe that he benefited from the excellent education that St. Bede's has to offer. I do not know whether he did so through a fee-paying arrangement or with the help of the local authority, as many of my constituents still do. I shall be less concerned about the Government's proposals if the Secretary of State can give me a simple assurance that the historic practice of the borough of Trafford of providing extra denominational places by sending children to a fee-paying Roman Catholic grammar school will not be affected by the Bill. I do not believe that the clause was intended to cover a situation such as that of St. Bede's. It was specifically intended to rule out any deliberate return to the assisted places scheme through other means. I accept what the Secretary of State has said on that. I do not believe that there was an intention to prevent a local authority from continuing a practice that has gone on with wide acceptance for many years. The practice has become controversial this year, because the ruling Labour group on Trafford council, which came to power a couple of years ago, has decided to end it. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Trafford—I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrat Members here, backing up their local people in Trafford—have guaranteed that, if and when they take back control of the borough, they will restore the practice of funding places at St. Bede's. The issue is of vital local significance. The council's withdrawal of the scheme has caused considerable difficulty in the provision of denominational places for Roman Catholic children. There are now insufficient places, and Catholic children are having to go to non-Catholic schools against their wishes. I would welcome an assurance that the Secretary of State will not use the powers in the Bill to prevent the borough of Trafford from continuing the practice, which has gone on for 50 years, of sending Roman Catholic children to a co-educational denominational school which happens to be fee-paying.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I find myself in a difficult position. I agree more with the tone of the remarks of the Secretary of State than with what I have heard from the Conservatives, but I shall vote against the Secretary of State's recommendation. I shall try to explain why. The Secretary of State rightly made clear his strong opposition to the assisted places scheme introduced by the previous Government. I entirely support him on that. We voted with him to bring about the end of the centralised assisted places scheme, which did not meet even the conditions laid down for it. The Secretary of State has also said how much he is in favour of the development of partnerships between the state and independent sectors. I praise him and his Minister for their work on developing opportunities for such links to flourish. In about 1993, in an interview with the Independent Schools Information Service magazine, I talked about the importance of links between the state and independent sectors. About two years later, the current Secretary of State also gave an interview in which he repeated, almost word for word, what I had said. There is great agreement between us on the issue. We both believe in the importance of partnership between the two sectors. The amendments relate to changes to the Education Act 1996. Section 518 of the Act made it possible for LEAs to pay the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable at fee-paying schools. The Government want to replace that section, which the Lords oppose, so that LEAs may not pay all or part of the fees or expenses payable at independent schools unless regulations allow them to do so. The Government are to constrain a permissive power in regulation that no hon. Member has yet had the opportunity to see. We do not know what constraints central the Government will impose on local government. It is the duty of local education authorities to seek to meet the educational needs of children in their areas and to ensure high-quality education for every child. If necessary, it is right and proper for LEAs to seek to meet some of those needs through other education providers as they see fit, which may include the independent school sector. Local, democratically elected LEAs should be given unfettered powers to decide how best to meet needs. I do not want a return to the centralised assisted places scheme. In another place, their lordships decided that it was inappropriate for central Government to try to lay down in regulations, which, as I have said, we have not yet seen, limits on how LEAs should choose to develop partnerships. I support in its entirety the view of their Lordships' House. It would be wrong for central Government to impose regulations on local government about how it should fulfil its fundamental responsibilities to provide high-quality education for every child in its area.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I was disappointed by the way in which the Secretary of State opened the debate. This debate is not about the assisted places scheme. We have had that debate, and legislation on it has gone through the House—whatever our views of the rights or wrongs of the Government's policy. This debate is about partnership between local education authorities and independent schools in or beyond their areas. I was also disappointed that the Secretary of State again told the House that we should take absolutely no notice of amendments agreed in another place. He more or less dismissed the other place as something that should not exist. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the Government's position is that there should be no revising Chamber? Should they choose to introduce proposals on such a position, they would have a very difficult time. The other place has a valid role as a revising Chamber, looking again at legislation passed by this House. We are given the opportunity to think again on the basis of what their Lordships propose. The Lords amendments would allow local education authorities freely to enter into partnership with independent schools, as opposed to the Government's rather prescriptive arrangements. Such arrangements are hardly surprising given the prescription throughout the Bill, which even includes, as we learned earlier, what constitutes the school meal. The Lords are rightly saying that that flexibility and freedom should be there for local education authorities. 10.15 pm I find it somewhat surprising that the Government are opposing the Lords amendments on that matter, given the statements that have been made by the Secretary of State and others about partnerships between the public and private sectors. Only in February, in a speech to the Labour party local government conference, the right hon. Gentleman said: The central thrust of the policy is to encourage innovation in order to provide higher standards in places where current provision is inadequate. It is in this context that we are keen to develop new public-private partnerships. The White Paper, "Excellence in schools", contains a section on independent schools, which says: The new partnership should embrace independent as well as state schools… The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system".

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Hear, hear.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

If the Secretary of State genuinely stands by what he said in the White Paper about partnerships between independent schools and the state sector, he should welcome the Lords amendments and agree with them, because they are an attempt to ensure that the Bill puts into practice the statements made by the Government in their White Paper. Even more recently, in a speech to the Social Market Foundation at the beginning of this month, the Minister for School Standards said: We believe that bridges should be built to enable the independent sector to play a part in our standards agenda. The response from the private sector has been extremely positive. Old hostilities are being put to one side". The hon. Gentleman may have thought on 1 July that old hostilities were being put to one side, but it is clear from the speech by the Secretary of State about these amendments that that has not happened. If the Minister for School Standards stands by what he said to the Social Market Foundation, he too should support the Lords amendments, because that is precisely what they would do. The amendments would give the local education authorities the opportunity to put together, with businesses, the private sector and independent schools in their areas, schemes that could work to the benefit of the children of the area in terms of the education provided. They would allow LEAs the whip hand; they would have the nomination rights and could determine where those rights would be taken up and how they would be allocated. The LEAs would be able to say, "Here is a child for whom we cannot in the normal course of events provide the education that we believe would be right. We believe that that could be provided by an independent school, so we will enter into a partnership so that that can be done." That concept is accepted throughout the House in relation to children with special educational needs. Local authorities often cannot meet such children's needs within their own schools, so a place has to be bought in the non-maintained sector. I suggest that very bright children have needs every bit as special as those of others who are more naturally considered in the category of having special educational needs. If a local educational authority chooses to educate a child with those special needs outside the maintained sector, it should be free to do so. The Lords amendments would give freedom at local level. I return to the issue that we have heard about throughout our debates tonight. Ministers stand up and talk about the importance of local decision taking, meeting local needs and accepting local circumstances, yet if we judge by how they vote on the Lords amendments and what they put into their legislation, the message is different. Ministers are trying to restrain what goes on at local level, and to restrict the rights, flexibility and freedom of local education authorities. The amendments are about giving LEAs the opportunity to enter into partnerships with the private sector—partnerships that Ministers applaud in their rhetoric. However, as we see yet again, the reality of what the Government are doing is far from their rhetoric. The Lords amendments are about giving extra freedoms and flexibility to local education authorities to provide the education that is right for the children of their area. On that basis, we should support them.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I am sad that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has taken the view that he has. If I had read his 1993 speech, I would have saved myself about 55 minutes by ticking it and handing it over to the Independent Schools Information Service. We could have saved ourselves a lot of bother. Nobody is against discretion, and nobody wants to stop local authorities entering partnerships or placing children for special reasons. I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that, if the local authority should in future choose to exercise its discretion, it would be able to do so in the circumstances that he described. I was deeply offended and hurt by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), not least because I love the area that he represents. To be called pompous, or whatever it was—was it fatuous?—was deeply offensive. It has hurt me.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I certainly will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to hurt me as well.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am seeking to atone for any offence that may have been caused, by giving the right hon. Gentleman heartfelt thanks on behalf of my constituents and the people of the borough of Trafford. They will be grateful for his assurance that should they choose, through the democratic process locally, to elect parties that support the provision of places at St. Bede's, they will be allowed to do so.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I am grateful, but I regret that that is unlikely to prevent the hon. Gentleman from voting against us. However, I am always happy to make others happy. I cannot make the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) happy, because he did not address the issue at all—he addressed something entirely different, which underpins why we cannot accept the Lords' view. In the end, what the Lords' view entails is exactly what the hon. Member for Guildford wants—to introduce an alternative assisted places scheme. He simply wants to be able to flout what we agreed in this House last year. For that reason, I say to the hon. Member for Bath that politics is full of guile, hidden meanings and what is written between the lines. When Conservative Members talk about partnership, they mean an assisted places scheme.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Secretary of State is absolutely right—politics is about reading between the lines. The problem is that we have no lines to read between. We have not been given the opportunity even to look at draft regulations in relation to the clause. Will he acknowledge that, unless we have some indication of what sort of fettering powers he intends to impose on local education authorities, it will be difficult for anybody to accept that he should be given carte blanche to stop LEAs doing what they think is appropriate?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

If the hon. Gentleman has accepted that we are entering partnership arrangements—which we are—he has accepted that we will not fetter any discretion in relation to special educational needs. We are dealing with the introduction of discretion to provide for an assisted places scheme at local level, which is what the hon. Member for Guildford was advocating.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I certainly will. I am hoping for some clarification of the matter.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I have been thrown into confusion by the Secretary of State. He accused me of being pompous, but then complained when my colleague returned the compliment. What is being claimed by the Lords, and what has been claimed in debate after debate in this House, is the right for local authorities to decide what is needed locally, building beyond the assisted places scheme with newer, more positive schemes. The right hon. Gentleman has gone on time and again about the number of children in classes in primary schools. If a local education authority seeks to reduce the number of children in a class in a secondary school by sending some other children to an independent school in the same area, will he deny that class smaller numbers in the classroom?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

The Government are doing a great deal about reducing numbers in the classroom, some of which we announced this afternoon. The idea that, in order to reduce numbers in a secondary school classroom, we must send children off to a private school on a local assisted places scheme beggars belief. This debate has to have some credibility, but I do not for a moment believe that either the intention or the outcome of what the House of Lords proposes would ensure partnership or give local authorities the discretion to do their job better. The amendments are entirely to do with facilitating a better, broader, more expansive or whatever one wants to call it assisted places scheme. We have thought about the matter and decided that our original thoughts were better than those of the House of Lords, which wanted to change the position back to what we thought we had changed in the first place. We do not want an assisted places scheme, either local or national, which is why we shall ensure that the amendments are overturned.

New clause

Payment of school expenses; grant of scholarships, etc.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I ask the House to agree with this group of amendments, most of which are technical, although one gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to allow local education authorities to offer financial support to students if they choose to do so, which is important. It is a good example of the Secretary of State giving LEAs the flexibility to respond to local needs and aspirations as they find them. The current arrangements for post-16 discretionary awards are failing our young people and need to be replaced. The Government have considered the recommendations of the Lane committee and, as a result of the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review, we have been thinking how we can assist young people post-16 to stay on in full-time education. Hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have confirmed that we shall pilot educational maintenance allowances over the next 12 to 18 months. The amendments will give the Secretary of State the power to do that. They will also allow local education authorities to offer financial support if they feel it is appropriate. I hope that they commend themselves to the House.

New clause

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The amendments cover perhaps only a handful of young people, but they are important. At present, the law on phasing out the assisted places scheme does not permit a child to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. However, there may be pressing reasons why a child should be able to do so. Ministers' attention has been drawn to several cases in which there are family and social reasons why an alternative school is needed. The amendments would give the Secretary of State a power to agree that an assisted place can be transferred in exceptional circumstances where compassion demands it. The amendments respond to the situations that have been raised with us. We shall operate the discretionary power responsibly and sensibly. We have already exercised existing discretionary powers in considering 180 applications for transfer. More than half have been agreed to, which shows that we have been fair and reasonable.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Can the Minister confirm that three criteria apply in such cases, and that the Government have exercised discretion reflecting compassion and the needs of the child in only two cases that do not meet those criteria?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with detailed figures, as I do not have them to hand. I believe that more than two have been agreed on grounds beyond the three specified criteria. Wherever possible, we have sought to be generous and sympathetic, as these amendments are.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I welcome the amendments. As the Minister has said, a number of young people may benefit from what I must call a U-turn by the Government. Those points were raised by Opposition Members during the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill. The Government set their face implacably against the discretion that their amendments introduce. I fear that the Government's sudden transformation came not because they had considered the concerns of parents or the education of any of the children involved but because a parent decided to take them to the High Court to challenge the fact that his son was not being allowed to transfer to a second school. The Government decided to pull out of the case and allow the child to transfer to a second school. The case involved junior and senior schools at Ely.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Lady has totally misunderstood the consequences of the amendments, which relate to a child at secondary school who wants to transfer to a different secondary school. That is why we tabled them. The situation that she describes is covered by the Education (Schools) Act 1997. She needs to be clear about the consequences of the amendments, but her contribution so far has shown that she is unclear about them.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, because it suggests that he does not understand the sort of case that I was citing. The amendment, as I read it, does not refer to the two schools being secondary schools but talks about a pupil transferring to another school to continue the assisted place. That was what was happening in the High Court case of Alastair Sanderson.

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

The hon. Lady is misleading the House—inadvertently, I am sure. I do not think that it is helpful to mention individual cases in the way that she did but that case has now been agreed under the discretion that the Secretary of State already has. Tonight, we are considering a quite different discretion to allow an individual who already has an assisted place to move to another school with it. That is quite different. The case she mentions has nothing to do with the Lords amendment.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

It seems that, every time the Minister speaks on this, he talks about increased flexibility in the Government's provisions for children who have been granted assisted places. It is precisely that point that the amendment addresses and to which I want to refer in respect of other cases. I am sorry that he feels that it is not helpful to refer to individual cases, because it is clear that there are several cases in which people are happy to be quoted on this issue. They have found themselves in difficulty because the Government have exercised discretion on assisted places in some cases, and not in others and are extending their powers in the Lords amendment on such decisions. Those are people who accepted assisted places in 1996 or 1997 on the basis of assurances given them by the Labour party before the general election and subsequently.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is out of order. She is dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances. The amendment is to do with the transfer of children who have places but who, because of family circumstances, move to another part of the country and take up another place. I know that, because it was on my instructions that we tabled the amendment to overcome what I considered an unacceptable anomaly.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Let me answer the first point of order. I shall not be long in coming back to the hon. Gentleman. There is an ambiguity in the mind of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It is for Ministers to put her right. She is raising a matter and is entitled to an explanation. If the Minister feels that a full and proper explanation has been given, we shall have to end it at that.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State issues instructions to his officials to draft a new clause, but they give it a wider ambit that permits a wider debate, is it in order for the Secretary of State to try to limit the debate in the House to the clause that he originally intended to table, but clearly failed to do?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. I think that my ruling was excellent. It was a first-class ruling.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Your rulings are always excellent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order to allay your concerns and any concerns held by Ministers, I should say that my remarks are pertinent to the Lords amendment. It relates to the circumstances in which a pupil seeks to move from one school to another, but to transfer his assisted place. It was interesting that the Secretary of State rose to say that I was out of order before he had heard about the cases. Either he is telepathic or he knows well the concerns that have been raised by parents. The cases that I was starting to quote were instances in which individuals believed that they had places at schools which were defined as all-through schools, which the Labour party before the election told them would be honoured. The Secretary of State, in a letter, sent—

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is confusing vertical with horizontal. The amendment deals with transfer across. She is referring to transfer upwards.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Everyone wants to raise a point of order. I have to reply to the point of order. Let me say to the Minister that those are matters for debate.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

rose—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. After the hon. Member for Maidenhead has said her piece, I will happily call either the Secretary of State or the Minister to reply to her. That is the way that things are done in the House. The Minister can then rebut her argument. So far, her argument has not been out of order. If it had been out of order, I would have told her so.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Whatever the Secretary of State may wish to say in response to my hon. Friend, it would be extremely helpful if she could be allowed to complete what she has to say. I am finding it extremely frustrating. Just as I am beginning to follow her line of reasoning, the Secretary of State intervenes to cut her off. May I ask you to assist the House?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I am assisting the House. I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I trust that I shall be able to reach the question that I wish to ask the Government on the basis of the cases to which I have referred. It is interesting that the Secretary of State finds such need to stand up and try to break off the argument on this issue. It suggests a certain sensitivity on his part. I was about to refer—this is part of the question that I wish to ask the Secretary of State or the Minister—to a letter that the Secretary of State sent out on 10 March this year to a Mrs. Teed in Maidstone in Kent. He made it clear that there was—[Interruption.] Perhaps if I may be allowed to complete the argument, the Secretary of State or the Minister will be able to say whether the issue is relevant. In that letter, the Secretary of State talked about vertical schooling, in the sense that he said to Mrs. Teed: Where there was provision of an 'all through' school and where there had been a clear promise of a place through to the age of 18, we have agreed to honour that promise. Parents and grandparents are being told that that promise will not be honoured—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I must say to the Minister that the hon. Lady has the Floor. She is the only one who is going to address the Chamber at this moment.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

If the Secretary of State could have a little patience, I was almost at the point—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Get on with it.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

If the Government Whip wants me to get on, he should keep his Secretary of State from constantly standing up. In his letter of 10 March, the Secretary of State said that the Government would honour the provision of an all-through school place where it had been promised through to the age of 18, but parents have discovered that those places are not being honoured. They are being told that the senior school of the school in which their child has been given a junior school place constitutes a separate school, and that it is not an all-through place. The point is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State a power of discretion in those cases where a child wishes to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. My question, which I could have asked several minutes ago had the Secretary of State allowed me the opportunity to do so, is this. Is it possible for those parents who have written to me—having written several times to the Secretary of State, having checked the Labour party's policy when it was in opposition and having had that assurance from the Secretary of State, but having found that the all-through places are not being honoured because the schools are now defined as being separate schools—to ask the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion under the new powers given in the amendment, which the Government introduced in the House of Lords, which the Lords passed and which the Government now claim gives them extra flexibility—which it does; there has been a U-turn from the position taken last summer when what became the Education (Schools) Act 1987 went through the House—because the DfEE has now defined the school in which the place was given as being two separate schools? I should tell the Secretary of State that the amendment at which I am looking makes no reference to horizontal transfer, but only to transfer to another school under the assisted places scheme. Parents and children are being disappointed because they trusted Labour's word when it was in opposition, but they have found that that word, that promise, that pledge, to them has been broken. Children who thought that they had a school place through to the age of 18 have had, or are about to have, that place taken away at the age of 11. Under the Lords amendment, which the Government tabled, the Secretary of State has extra discretion in respect of the operation of the assisted places scheme and the phasing out of that scheme. Will he now confirm that the Government will go away, consider the Lords amendment in relation to the cases raised by parents who are greatly concerned about what is happening to their children because of the Government's broken pledges, and decide that those people who were given clear pledges by the Government will now have those pledges honoured at last?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I hope that I shall be able to clarify the position for the benefit of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Amendment No. 142 is the substantive amendment in this group, and I had thought that, when introducing the debate on the amendment, I had identified the circumstances in which the Secretary of State intended to exercise the new discretion that the amendment would give him. What we said—it was said in the House of Lords as well, and I commend the comments made on this matter when the Government moved the amendment there—is that the specific situation that we have in mind is where a transfer will be made, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, horizontally—in other words, a child who already has an assisted place, perhaps for family reasons, needs to transfer to another school. In such circumstances, we felt it would be appropriate to have a discretion to continue that assisted place. Amendment No. 142 is an enabling provision; it creates a new discretionary power. We shall have to produce regulations to show how we intend to exercise that power, and I had thought that I had already illustrated the circumstances in which we would exercise it. It is restricted solely to the circumstances I have described. One or two Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends who are not currently in the Chamber have raised constituency cases which we have considered. In the light of those cases, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that the amendment should be tabled in the House of Lords. That is a very good demonstration of how, away from the fiery rhetoric of the Chamber, we act in response to particular cases to meet the needs of individual children. This evening, we have had a rerun of the debate that we had last summer when we passed the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The Government's commitment to the phasing out of the assisted places scheme was made crystal clear in the run-up to the last election. Chapter and verse was given. Letters written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 10 March do not countermand what was said in the run-up to the election, when our position was made clear.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

No, because we have debated this matter on numerous occasions and the hon. Gentleman brings nothing new to the argument. The House is aware of the arguments. We have the opportunity this evening to agree with the Lords amendment that will give the Secretary of State a discretionary power to use in accordance with regulations to apply to a small number of cases, in which, for compassionate reasons, young people should be allowed to move school and keep their assisted place. That makes sense. The Government are acting reasonably and compassionately, and I hope that, in that spirit, the House will agree to the amendment.

DISSOLUTION OF FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS

Stephen Byers (Labour, North Tyneside)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.