Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2001.

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 1st Clauses 1 to 12 — 2nd Clauses 1 to 12 (so far as not previously concluded) — 3rd Clauses 1 to 12 (so far as not previously concluded) 11.25 a.m. 4th Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 43 — 5th Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 43 (so far as not previously concluded) — 6th Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 43 (so far as not previously concluded) 7 p.m. 7th Clauses 44 to 48, Schedule 4, Clause 49, Clause 50 1 p.m. 8th Clauses 51 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 61 — 9th Clauses 51 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 61 (so far as not previously concluded) 11.25 a.m. 10th Clauses 62 to 65, Schedule 7, Clause 66, Clause 67, Schedule 8, Clause 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10 — 11th Clauses 62 to 65, Schedule 7, Clause 66, Clause 67, Schedule 8, Clause 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10 (so far as not previously concluded) 1 p.m. 12th Clause 72, Clause 93, Clause 73, Clause 94, Clauses 74 to 76, Clauses 95 to 97, Clause 77, Clause 79, Clause 98, Clause 100, Clause 85, Clause 106, Clause 78, Clause 99, Clause 80, Clause 101, Clause 81, Clause 82, Clause 102, Clause 103, Clause 83, Clause 84, Clause 104, Clause 105, Clauses 86 to 91, Clauses 107 to 112, Clause 92, Clause 113, Clause 114 7 p.m. 13th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 — 14th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded) 5 p.m. 15th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170 — 16th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170 (so far as not previously concluded) 7 p.m. 17th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules — 18th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules (so far as not previously concluded)-[Mr. Timms.] 5 p.m.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I do not want to take up any more of the Committee's time. Yesterday evening, we had ample opportunity to discuss the timetable motion. We could have taken three hours if we had wanted to; we chose to spend 20 minutes. We agreed with you, Mrs. Adams, on what the timetable would be for the first three days of the Committee. We feel strongly about the key issues in the Bill, and frankly, would like to get on with debating them.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. Having guided us safely through the Programming Sub-Committee meeting last night, I look forward to your stewardship of our deliberations.

In response to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I should say that the Bill is not a centralising one; it is deregulatory and devolutionary. It is ambitious—he is right about that—and we shall discuss in detail how it will free up regulation and encourage innovation. On the basis of what the hon. Gentleman, I am puzzled about some of his amendments because several propose greater powers than the Government think prudent. I will be interested to hear him argue in favour of those amendments later.

As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) pointed out, we discussed that in the Programming Sub-Committee last night and made some changes to the programme motion to

reflect the concerns of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I understood that he was broadly content, given the constraints of the time scale imposed by the House within which the Committee should conclude. We have also made it clear that if there is a need for further variation in the motion during our deliberations over the coming weeks, we will be willing to accommodate the concerns of all members of the Committee as far as we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. As a general rule, adequate notice should be given of amendments. I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that may be reached during the afternoon sitting. I also give members of the Committee advance warning that we will meet in Room 6 on Thursday, as the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which has a large membership, will be using this Room. We will return to this Room next week.Clause 1 purpose and interpretation of chapter 1

Clause 1 - purpose and interpretation of chapter 1

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—

'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 73, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly of Wales shall, before making an order under section 2 or section 3 with respect to a particular maintained school, consult the local education authority.'.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. I have not had the opportunity to work under your stewardship before, but I understand from my hon. Friends that you are a fair and generous Chairman. You are also a most appropriate Chairman for the Bill, because of your long involvement in education. As you represent a Scottish constituency, you are aware of the benefits of devolved power to not only the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish local authorities and schools, and I have no doubt that you will use your wisdom in that direction too.

I am delighted that you have come to the Committee with an understanding of local government and its uses, as you have served as a member of Paisley town council, Renfrew district council and on Strathclyde regional council—an education authority. When we discuss key issues involving local authorities and the Government's disgraceful attempts to strip them of more powers, I am sure that your ears will prick up and that you will be especially mindful of the arguments.

Clause 1 is an important first clause, and it would be difficult to find any other first clause that had such significance. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)—he is not with us this morning as he is serving on a Select Committee—Conservative

Members and I have tabled a range of amendments. The purpose of amendments Nos. 72 and 73 is to explore the future role of the local education authority under the Bill, which provides that a school can apply directly to the Secretary of State for exemption from any requirement of education legislation, such as, for example, from the curriculum, which otherwise is not provided for in part 1, chapter 2. Clause 4 does not even require the LEA to be consulted. We seek an assurance from the Minister, if not acceptance of the amendment, that LEAs should automatically be consulted about any school that varies its terms and conditions or the 1996 or 1998 legislation. We cannot understand why that will not be the case.

Under section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, LEAs have a duty to raise standards. I think that some hon. Members present, including the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, served on the Committee that considered that Bill. It was the first time that such a duty had been imposed on LEAs in law. The 1998 Act was a significant piece of legislation at the time, yet there is a contradiction. The aim of this Bill is to raise standards and facilitate innovation. As I said, LEAs have a responsibility to do exactly that under section 5 of the 1998 Act, but at the same time they will not have control, or even a say, over those schools that have left their control to become grant-maintained—I should not use that term—or super-grants. I should not use that term either, but that is what the schools will be in effect under this legislation.

There is very much a feeling of deja vu about part 6, because so much of the legislation is from the former Government, whom we got rid of at the beginning of this Parliament. That part re-provides for a duty on LEAs to ensure that the national curriculum is taught in schools. Under part 1, however, a school can opt out of the national curriculum without asking the LEA for any advice. Indeed, the Secretary of State does not have to consult the LEA at all.

However, some of the greatest innovation in the British education system has taken place because of LEAs. I am sure that, from your experience, you can testify to that, Mrs. Adams. In fact, much of the innovation up to the early 1980s was due to the fact that LEAs were in charge of schools and school innovation. It is interesting that in the 35 years after the second world war, only 150 pieces of legislation affecting schools were passed. Since the early 1980s, the number has risen to more than 800. At local level, local authorities are being starved of resources and, indeed, powers to innovate.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that until the early 1980s, it was only narrowly accepted that the education system was failing? From then on, that began to be more widely accepted to the point where this Government have accepted that there are many problems for pupils and their parents. That is why the previous Government and this one have, to their credit, tried to improve the education system.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) immediately nails his colours to the mast by effectively saying that he does not want LEAs to have a role. Indeed, a previous Administration made exactly those claims. In the Tory party's manifesto at the last election, its express policy was to get rid of LEAs, make all schools free and have some 24,000 admissions authorities and organisations running around the country. The Tories are entitled to their vision, but I certainly do not share it, and I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and the assumption that the education system was failing.

The reality is that today, as 10 or even 30 years ago, parts of the system are delivering a sub-standard product. I can point to schools in my constituency that 10 or 20 years ago were as successful as they are today. In fact, one might even argue that some were more successful. We would find exactly the same situation in every hon. Member's constituency.

With the amendment, we are asking the Government about the the role of LEAs. Amendment No. 74 is also a probing amendment. Included in the amendment—

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. We are discussing amendments Nos. 72 and 73.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am sorry. I was getting very excited and moving on to the second group. We are asking the Government for their opinion about what role the LEA should play in being consulted on the clause.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has tabled the amendments because they allow us to explore the Government's thinking on the role of the local education authority. It was slightly unfair of the hon. Gentleman to caricature the position of the Conservatives on education at the previous general election As all hon. Members of the Committee know, the free schools policy accepted that some residual roles would remain with local authorities, notably in special educational needs and school transport. It also set out an overarching requirement to provide an appropriate school place for every child.

It would be interesting and instructive to compare and contrast the Bill, particularly the clauses dealing with innovation and the suspension of education legislation as it applies to certain schools or groups of schools, with the vocal attacks that the Government made on the Conservatives' position on education at the time of the last election. Ministers can considerably circumscribe the powers of local education authorities and we should look at that.

If I had tabled the amendment, I would characterise it as a probing one. We must explore what the Government see as the appropriate role of the LEA. The document issued by the Department for Education and Skills, ''The role of the local education authority in school education'' states, at paragraph 11:

''good schools manage themselves; and that Authorities only intervene in schools' management in inverse proportion to those schools' success''

We have heard that before in regard to the Government's proposed interventions in schools. They have not lived up to it, but we have heard the phrase. It goes on:

''there are a number of essential functions which cannot and should not be discharged by individual schools. Examples of this are planning the supply of school places for a given area, taking account of population trends and transport patterns across Authority boundaries -often involving contentious decisions about school closures or mergers; making sure that every child has access to a suitable school place, or has suitable provision made for him or her outside mainstream school; intervening in failing schools which have shown themselves incapable of putting their own house in order; and taking decisions in consultation with schools, about the distribution of the schools budget to take account of schools' differing needs.''

The document was published in 2000 and is, as far as we can establish, a statement of the Government's current policy and thinking. I would be most interested to hear how the Minister reconciles the statement that those functions cannot and should not be discharged by individual schools with clauses 1 and 2, which make provision for schools to operate in precisely the way that Ministers say they cannot and should not. If the Minister says that the document remains an accurate statement of Ministers' views and that schools cannot and should not discharge those functions, I assume that that means that he will accept the amendment. However, if he refuses to place any restraint on Ministers' powers to allow schools to innovate and to operate without the framework of the local education authority and without the frameworks within which schools today operate, Members on both sides of the Committee will have serious questions about whether the Government really stand by the role of the local education authority, or whether they do so only sometimes.

Does the Minister stand by the phrase:

''there are a number of essential functions which cannot and should not be discharged by individual schools''?

If they cannot be carried out by individual schools, they cannot be carried out by any individual school. Does the Minister stand by that position, or does he believe that, in some cases where innovation may be restrained by a local education authority, those functions could and should be discharged by individual schools?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I should like to probe the Government's motives a little further than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I shall try to illustrate the difficulty in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough seems to find himself. It arises from the differences between those who want to treat schools as toddlers, those who want to treat schools as teenagers, and those who want to treat schools as grown-ups. The toddler approach adopted by the Liberal Democrats claims that everything in the garden was rosy until approximately 1986 and continues to be--or would have been, had no changes in education been made since then--provided that local education authorities constantly hold schools by the hand.

The Government's approach is much more progressive. They say, ''We will set a series of boundaries for the teenager: he must be in bed by 6.30

pm or 10.30 pm—it obviously depends on the age of the teenager. We shall allow him to drink alcohol in closely-prescribed circumstances, but we, the parents of the teenager—or, in this case, the Secretary of State—know best''.

Our approach is that schools are grown-up. They have the right and responsibility to take the decisions that they believe are appropriate in the interests of their pupils' learning and advancement, and of the wider community. The toddler approach is totally out-of-date and discredited, but the Liberal Democrats like to propose it none the less. They suggest that, because so much innovation took place as a result of local authority involvement—I am talking, of course, about England and Wales, not Scotland, about which you, Mrs. Adams, will know much more than I—that innovation is now closed off. I see no evidence in my local education authority of innovation being closed off because of legislation passed since 1986. I see no reason why local education authorities should be given a role additional to that provided in the Education Reform Act 1988 in deciding the kind of innovation individual schools should attempt to introduce.

The Government's approach is more progressive because they understand that innovation in schools is necessary, but they want to constrain the boundaries heavily. They do not really trust schools, just as sometimes we do not really trust teenagers. They do not want them out on a motorbike late at night; they do not want schools taking decisions for themselves unless the Secretary of State is looking over their shoulder and keeping what they are doing closely in mind. That is the difference between the Government and the Liberal Democrats. The Government's approach is for teenagers, and the Liberal Democrats want to treat schools as toddlers. It is far more appropriate to treat schools as grown ups, with the reserve power of intervention for special cases where the adults cannot look after themselves.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I just want to say a few words, further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

The degree to which we entrust schools with greater responsibility for managing their own affairs is the fundamental heart of the debate and, for me, the question is how we achieve that. My anxiety about many elements of the Bill, which is replicated in some early provisions, is that we are once again asking head teachers and governing bodies to take on a raft of additional tasks to bring themselves to the point at which they can apply for the new status. Having spoken to teachers about the work load problem that they face, I am anxious that the Bill only makes that problem much worse. It was striking that on Second Reading, the Secretary of State had nothing to say about teachers' work load.

I am anxious also about the implications of a process that requires schools to put together a substantial application, which involves a huge amount of work, and to approach the Secretary of State to seek a new status. If we were to overlay on to that the process suggested by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which is for schools to go through that process with their local education authority as well, that would provide an unwanted and unnecessary burden of bureaucracy with which schools can ill-afford to cope. The benefit of the free schools approach taken in the Conservative general election manifesto is that it offers them the ability to take responsibility for their own affairs without making them jump through hoops. My big concern is that we expect schools to take on an enormous burden of work to enable them to reach the point at which the Secretary of State can make a decision. We should bear that in mind as we debate the clauses and amendments. It should be a given in Committee that, if a proposal means a raft of additional work for schools, we should think hard before accepting it.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that the approach taken by the Bill—giving wide enabling powers rather than specifying the criteria under which innovation will be permitted or promoted—adds to that burden? Schools will not be able to look at a clear objective set of criteria on which they will be granted the right to innovate. Instead, they will find themselves making a bid that will be awarded or rejected on the whim of the Secretary of State.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and schools are rightly concerned about the degree to which guidelines will evolve over time. One of the most persistent complaints from the education world is that nothing is ever given time to bed down. If the Secretary of State is given swingeing powers to decide the criteria to determine whether a school is allowed to be innovative, will we be certain that those criteria will not change after six, 12 or 18 months as the process develops?

I agree with my hon. Friend that more detail should be attached to the provisions. One of the most profoundly concerning aspects of the Bill is the vagueness of its stipulations. There is no detail. The Bill basically says that the Secretary of State will decide everything and we are just enabling her to do that. I am concerned about the Bill's potential for exacerbating the work load, and I am uncomfortable with the Liberal Democrat amendment because we are creating a process that over-engineers for schools and makes the lives of heads and teachers more difficult.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had an interesting discussion around the two amendments, including some diversity of views among Conservative Members, and between them and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

I shall respond to the matters raised and make a couple of general points at the outset. First, the Bill's clear focus is on raising standards of education, which reflects the Government's highest priority, expressed

by the Prime Minister before the 1997 election, of education, education, education. During our debates, I shall encourage the Committee to resist attempts to shift that focus elsewhere and to keep tightly to raising standards.

Secondly, as a result of changes in the past three or four years, the education service is accountable. Targets have been set throughout the system, performance tables are published and there are Ofsted inspections. Everyone knows their schools' and local education authority's objectives. As a consequence, one of the great benefits is that we can give a much freer reign to the professional judgment of teachers and head teachers about precisely how to achieve their objectives and raise standards in their schools, in an adult way, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight colourfully suggested. The Bill will permit teachers to be the leaders in the next wave of education reform; it is about deregulation and devolution.

I make no bones about my third introductory point: we want more education measures to be passed through secondary legislation than has traditionally been the case. Education measures have been out of step with other legislation, and thus have been unnecessarily inflexible and unduly prescriptive. The Committee will discuss the many instances in which greater flexibility would help to meet the different circumstances of communities throughout the country and to support the different needs of schools.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that vital matter. I am most anxious about the drift—the Minister says that it is a deliberate policy— away from primary legislation, which is properly scrutinised and debated, to secondary legislation, which may go through the House without debate or in a Committee whose timetable is constrained. In justifying the policy, the Minister said that education legislation is always out of step, but education legislation was presented every year in his Government's first term.

I made my maiden speech in 1997 on the legislation introduced to abolish the assisted places scheme. In 1998, I served on the Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill. The following year, there was a teaching and higher education Bill, and the year after that I sat on the Committee considering the Learning and Skills Bill. The Government have introduced legislation on education every year; how can it possibly be out of step?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am referring to the period before that. A large chunk of our debate will be about the formulation for the national curriculum in the Bill, which is very different from that enacted by the previous Government. The tradition was for a large amount of detail in primary legislation, which means that changes could not be made except through new primary legislation. That was unnecessarily unhelpful and inflexible. I accept that there will be questions about how parliamentary scrutiny can be properly exercised; we shall no doubt spend a fair time in Committee reflecting on that matter, and it is right that

we should do so. However, I make no apology for wanting to introduce more flexibility to the operation of education legislation than was available in the past.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the Minister accept that, certainly in the terms in which it was re-enacted in the 1996 Act, the national curriculum is one example of exactly what the Minister proposes? It is prescribed only in broad terms by the Act, but in detail by order of the Secretary of State. Section 356(2) of the 1996 Act states that the Secretary of State may, by order, specify the attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements that he considers appropriate. That is exactly the kind of clause that he proposes for the whole range of measures in the Bill. The national curriculum therefore seems a poor example for him to have drawn upon. The rest of the 1996 Act, on the whole, devolved specified powers to schools so that they knew where they were.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. Hon. Members are wandering a bit. There will be opportunities later to debate this matter. The Committee should stick to discussing local authorities at the moment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Mindful of your point, Mrs. Adams, let me simply say that part 6 of the Bill sets out again the arrangements for the national curriculum, and part 7 does so for Wales. We shall certainly have a full discussion about those matters when we reach those parts of the Bill.

The amendments deal with the role of local education authorities. I am a former local authority leader. I have a background in local government, as do you, Mrs. Adams, and some Committee members, and I take a high view of the role of local authorities in education. The Government's view is the one set out in the documents that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West quoted. It is an important and significant role. It is not simply making arrangements around the periphery, as the Conservative party did, although I am not sure that it still wants to do that. It is a central role with a responsibility for school improvement.

We envisage a different role for local education authorities. In the past, LEAs delivered a wide range of activities, and did so exclusively. In the future, we see them facilitating and co-ordinating delivery by a number of partners as well as themselves. We have made it clear that we do not intend to change their central role in school improvement. Indeed, a few weeks ago I was with a group of LEA chief officers, who rightly pointed out that there is now a new consensus about the role of LEAs. We are not fighting boundary wars. The position is clear and the central focus is on responsibility for school improvement and a number of other matters that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West read out from the document.

The proposals in the Bill are certainly not intended to centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State. Chapter 1 contains a power for the Secretary of State to respond to innovative proposals put forward by schools and LEAs. That important point has not

been picked up in any of the contributions from Opposition Members. The LEA may itself be the applicant for those powers.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Before the Minister moves from the central question of the role of the LEA, particular in relation to school improvement but also in all the other areas that I enumerated, can he guarantee that the powers contained in part 1 of the Bill, when applied to a school and allowing it to innovate and be exempt from education legislation, will not interfere with the role of the LEA? Will the LEA have exactly the same powers and role in relation to a school that has been granted an arrangement of innovation under the Bill as it has in relation to other schools in the neighbourhood?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, LEAs will not have exactly the same role in dealing with different schools. We made the point, which the hon. Gentleman repeated, that we believe in the principle of intervention in inverse proportion to success. I would expect the LEA to play a bigger role with schools that are struggling than with successful schools.

Mr. Brady rose—

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me continue, as that brings me back to a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. The power would not give schools the duties of an LEA, such as ensuring the supply of a sufficient number of school places. That would have nothing to do with raising standards, which is clearly set out as the purpose of the clause. The relationship between LEAs and different schools will depend on their circumstances.

The Bill provides that applicants--it may be LEAs or schools--will make proposals following consultation, in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. That is spelt out in clause 4, subsections (1) and (2) of which are particularly important, given our current debate. That is consistent with our approach of supporting innovation, generated at the grass roots and involving all the relevant parties. The Secretary of State will make an informed decision based on information provided by the applicant, which will include the outcome of consultation with local bodies.

Where a school, as opposed to an LEA, applies to the Secretary of State, we expect the consultation to include the LEA. The guidance issued under clause 4(2) will make that clear, which may help the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The LEA itself could be the applicant, so the amendment does not entirely make sense, although I understand the point behind it.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I seek clarification. If a school was seeking to make an application to the Secretary of State, partly because its relations with the LEA were bad and it was unable to achieve what it wanted within the confines of the local LEA structure, would the fact

that it was in conflict with its LEA and did not have its backing affect the nature of the Secretary of State's decision?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Clause 4(2) states that ''the qualifying body''—in that case the school—

''shall consult such persons as appear to the body to be appropriate, having regard to any guidance''.

As I said, under the terms of the guidance, consultation will include the LEA. The results of the consultation, including the LEA's comments, will be provided to the Secretary of State under clause 4(1). That information would be in front of the Secretary of State when she makes her decision.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I fear that the Minister is tying himself in knots to some extent. He said that the LEA would be consulted and that the Secretary of State would be under no obligation to follow the LEA's recommendations. In a sedentary intervention while my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was speaking, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said that that was the whole point. If the provisions enable a good school to escape from a bad LEA, I would remind him that he said that intervention would be in inverse proportion to success. That implies choice and discretion on the part of the LEA. If a school has applied for innovation status to escape from a failing LEA, will that LEA retain powers to intervene in the school's performance and activities?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the clause. Clearly, the purpose of clause 1(1) is to raise educational standards. Undoubtedly, schools will choose to make such applications in a variety of circumstances. In doing so, they will need to consult several bodies—including the LEA—and the result of that consultation will be available to the Secretary of State when she makes her decision. The hon. Gentleman is putting a rather different character on the clause. I urge him not to divert us from the clear focus of the Bill: raising educational standards.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister speaks as if the Bill refers to only one jurisdiction. Although he can assure us on behalf of his right hon. Friend and her successors in the post of Secretary of State for Education, he can give no such assurances on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales. Is the Minister speaking for the Welsh Assembly in his assurances? If not, can the Assembly draft entirely different guidance that may forbid the consulting of LEAs or the involvement of diocesan authorities? That is my reading of clause 4(2).

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

That is an interesting line of discussion. I am sure that we will have similar discussions several times during the proceedings, which is why I am glad that the Under-Secretary for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), is on the Committee. The National Assembly for Wales will engage in extensive consultation with local authorities on all such matters, and it will undoubtedly want to do so in the manner set out by guidance. He should be reassured on that point.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I really cannot see how the Minister can give any reassurances about the future political complexion or judgment of the National Assembly for Wales. He is holding the electors of Wales in contempt if he assumes that he can give assurances on their behalf.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I can draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the published statements and intentions of the National Assembly of Wales.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Current.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes, but similarly I can give assurances only on behalf of the current Secretary of State; I cannot bind future Secretaries of State.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that, had he moved the amendment, it would have been as a probing amendment. I think that he has moved it: it is very similar to amendment No. 6, to which we shall come shortly.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

That refers to a different clause.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It does, but its purpose is close to the current amendment. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell raise the subject of free schools. Government Members will be interested to understand the Conservative party's precise position on that subject. Not long ago, the Conservatives' only apparent schools policy was one in favour of free schools. In this context, ''free'' meant free from the shackles of local authority control, so it was startling to see the reference to democratic accountability of schools in the motion moved by Opposition Members on Second Reading.

Mr. Brady rose—

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I shall give way in a moment. We have not heard much from Conservative Members on that issue for a long time. The motion did not give the impression that it is still their policy to promote free schools and to cast off the constraints imposed by local authorities, and we would welcome clarification.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Does the Minister believe that the only way in which a school can be democratically accountable to parents and the local community is through an LEA?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The motion clearly implied that democratic accountability can be achieved through local authorities, and there is much merit in that view. It will be even more interesting to Government Members if the Opposition propose a new mechanism for democratic accountability of schools that does not involve local authorities, and we look forward to hearing more about that in the Committee.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The Minister will be aware that, over the years, the Conservative party has believed consistently that we should entrust head teachers and governing bodies with more powers. It is not for me—a new member of the Committee—to talk about party

policy, but I strongly believe that what is missing from the Bill is the ability to give powers to head teachers and governing bodies.

Let me give the Minister a practical example. The Bill provides entirely for successful schools, but a great success of the grant-maintained school system was to give freedoms to schools that had underperformed so that they could turn themselves around and become successful. That is completely missing from the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like to know his party's policy on that issue and I hope that we shall be informed of it during the debate. His point about work load was raised on Second Reading, and teachers and head teachers share his concern. As proceedings continue, we shall see that several parts directly address that issue and allow us to make major strides in dealing with it in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in her lecture to the Social Market Foundation a few weeks ago.

As several hon. Members pointed out in helpful sedentary interventions, it is important to stress that the process is voluntary for schools, LEAs and qualifying bodies. They can apply if they feel that that is in the interests of raising standards in their school or area. We are not imposing the process on anyone, and I assure the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that many schools will want to apply for the freedom provided by part 6. That will, of course, involve them in additional work and planning, but many schools will want to take up the opportunity because they can see the value of using the measures to raise standards.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister clearly believes that many head teachers and governing bodies will seek to take advantage of the provision. How many LEAs does he believe will do so, and does he believe that the provision will be popular with them?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I certainly expect to see applications from LEAs.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The debate has been interesting, especially in the light of Conservative Members' admissions that they have no education policy at all. That is a starting point for the future, if nothing else. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted the main principle behind the amendment, which is to consult, and is not as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight described it.

Consultation is anathema to the Conservative party. The assertion that democratic responsibility and accountability and the Conservative party go hand in hand is a contradiction in terms. We have heard it today and we shall certainly hear it in future debates. We want to establish the consultation of local education authorities, not to return to the bad old days when the local authority was the provider of all services as a monopoly supplier. We accept that those days have gone and that modern local authorities see themselves as enabling bodies to raise standards in schools.

However, we reject the view of the Conservatives and, increasingly, the Government, that what happens to one school does not have an impact on another in the same area. The purpose of consulting the local education authority, which is at present the only democratically elected local body, is to ensure that one man's riches do not create another child's poverty. That is what happened with grant-maintained schools: the principle was established that local authorities were not consulted. There was a direct relationship between a group of parents and a ballot, the fractured management of the school and the Secretary of State.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Let me make this point before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited. What happened with many grant-maintained schools—Conservative Members who were in government at the time should remember this well—created great problems locally in terms of admissions and the disproportionate use of resources. The amendment attempts to address that impact. Although we would have preferred to see it in the Bill, we are grateful that the Minister has conceded that, in regulation, both here and in clause 4, it will be made a condition that local education authorities have to be consulted. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 1, line 6, after ''to'', insert ''promote and''.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 40, in page 1, line 8, leave out

'in the opinion of the Secretary of State,'.

No. 75, in page 1, line 9, after ''standards'', insert ''or childcare provision''.

No. 76, in page 1, line 9, after ''standards'', insert

''and the improvement of special educational provision''.

No. 77, in page 1, line 9, after ''standards'', insert

''and the improvement of social inclusion''.

No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after ''England'', insert

''; there shall be a presumption in favour of innovation except where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to prevent it''.

No. 31, in page 1, line 9, after ''England'', insert

''and promoting equality of opportunity''.

No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after ''England'', insert

''or the development of schools in their communities''.

No. 2, in page 1, line 11, after ''Wales'', insert

''; there shall be a presumption in favour of innovation except where the National Assembly for Wales has reasonable grounds to prevent it''.

No. 32, in page 1, line 11, after ''Wales'', insert

''and promoting equality of opportunity''.

No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—

''(2A) In subsection (1) 'innovation' means any change from existing practice in a particular school, educational institution or part thereof''.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I expected the first group of amendments to receive the Minister's assurance within about five minutes so that we could move on, because this group concerns the substance of the clause. I hope that we can have a massive debate on the principles at stake.

Amendment No. 74 moves on from some of the Minister's comments on the last group of amendments. Hansard will show that he emphasised that he wanted to see the promotion of innovation, not simply its facilitation. He also made the point, which Labour Members supported, as I did, that local education authorities could apply to innovate in order to raise standards. We would like to see in the Bill the words ''to promote'' as well as ''to facilitate''. To promote is a proactive activity; to facilitate is passive. Does the Minister accept that, for both qualifying bodies and schools, our system has consistently prided itself on the promotion of innovation and we would like to see it take place again?

The amendment also raises the cost of innovation. Although cost is mentioned in the explanatory notes, it is unclear where the additional resources to promote--or, indeed, to facilitate--innovation will come from.

Amendment No. 74 examines the issue of promotion but also raises the question of funding for innovation and whether additional resources will come from the standards fund or from the new funding stream that will result from changes to the standard spending assessments and the funding of local authorities and schools. Where does the Minister expect the resources to come from to promote and to facilitate innovation? At present, the only resources available are special Government grants to specific schools. There must be resources to support the initiative if there is to be wide-scale acceptance by schools and local authorities.

Amendment No. 40 is, perhaps, the most important that the Liberal Democrats propose in this sitting. It seeks to remove from clause 1(1) the words

''in the opinion of the Secretary of State''.

I hope that Conservative Members will support the principle of what we are trying to achieve, because it is a key issue. Before we leave the clause, we require answers from the Minister to three questions. First, can he explain what ''earned autonomy'' means? It goes to the heart of what the Government seek to do. Secondly, can he define ''a successful school''? Thirdly, can he define ''a failing school''? Those three terms are used constantly. They were used on Second Reading and have been used by the Prime Minister and various Education Secretaries and Ministers throughout the lifetime of this Labour Government. It is important that we put the meaning of those terms on the record, either in the Bill or in the regulations.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead by addressing points that will be raised under clauses 5 and 6 and onward. Those are the earned autonomy, not power to innovate, sections.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am perfectly happy for the Minister to reply that he will answer my questions when we discuss those clauses. However, within our discussion of the

group of amendments—particularly amendment No. 40— I am trying to wrap up the essence of what the Government seek to achieve in facilitating innovation, and the Liberal Democrat response to it. The two go together.

The Minister must tell us why the Secretary of State alone should have such powers. Why do they fall within her remit? If the Government believe, as I do, that the vast majority of schools throughout the country perform well, why should we not assume that all schools and LEAs should have those powers, unless there is a good reason for them not to have them? That is at the heart of our discussion. Ofsted says that an increasing number of schools and LEAs are performing well and that some of the problems in LEAs seem to have been rooted out. If that is so, why do we not allow them those powers, subject to certain qualifications? For example, a school under special measures or even a school that is showing serious signs of weakness could not take up those powers.

There is a fundamental difference between the Secretary of State, who is saying that she must have control of the whole process—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Don Valley rightly says that I do not believe in a national system of education, but she does. With respect, if the Government want a centrally directed and centrally controlled education system in which everyone dances to the same tune, they should be honest enough to say so. If the Government want to achieve that, they can. They have such a system in France and in other countries, but I do not believe that we should have that here. With your experience in Scotland, Mrs. Adams, I am sure that you will have seen different education systems that reflect local conditions. The same applies in Northern Ireland and in Wales, as the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) will attest.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify that point. His party has talked in the past about significant government devolution within England. Would he prefer different education systems in different parts of England, too?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Liberal Democrat party is in favour of regionalisation. The population of the area where I live and work in Yorkshire and the Humber is exactly the same size as that of Scotland. Therefore we see no reason why Yorkshire and the Humber should not have the same powers as Scotland to innovate, disapply tuition fees and give quality care to the elderly. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not share that view, but it is entirely legitimate and we can debate it.

I fundamentally disagree with the Government's idea—the Bill is a classic example—that they should take more and more powers to the centre and use them in whatever way they wish, with secondary legislation and regulation, irrespective of the views of the House and areas of England. That idea should be challenged, and the Minister should respond to that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I confess that I am a little puzzled as to where the hon. Gentleman and his party stand on this issue. He has criticised grant-maintained

schools and our free schools proposals, yet he has welcomed the measures that the Government are introducing that will give greater discretion to individual schools, and he wants to prevent the Secretary of State from deciding whether that discretion should be devolved to schools.

The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he believes in greater powers for schools, but he does not believe in the Secretary of State having a role in deciding which powers should be given to schools. He wants clarity in the Bill, so why is he talking about regional systems, when it might be better if the decisions were made, say, on the Isle of Wight and not in Woking?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With the greatest respect, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would follow the debate. I was responding to a reasonable question in a legitimate intervention from one of his colleagues. Perhaps I should not take interventions, because if I do, I get into trouble for responding to it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is the way the hon. Gentleman responds.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It's the way I tell them—but we shall not go into that.

On Second Reading, I asked the Secretary of State to give the Committee the definitions of a successful school and a failing school. I remember having an exchange with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), with whom I enjoy debating, about the definition of a failing school. I went back to a definition that was given in a Department for Education and Skills press release of 1 March 2000, which referred to

''The new benchmark—with no school having fewer than 25 per cent. of its pupils gaining 5 good GCSE passes''.

Schools that did not meet that benchmark would have special measures applied to them, including being teamed up with a beacon school, being introduced into fresh start or bringing in super heads. All those issues were raised after 1 March 2000.

In an article in The Times on 5 September, when the White Paper was introduced, the Prime Minister said:

''Our best schools are outstanding, but 480 schools—one in seven of the total—secure five good GCSEs for fewer than a quarter of their pupils. This is unacceptable.''

He did not qualify or include a rider to that statement about schools' performance. While some Opposition Members may accept that definition, I and other hon. Members do not. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who has worked in some demanding schools in his time, would also accept that that extremely narrow definition of a failing school is unacceptable. It is therefore important to ask whether we should have such a definition.

Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78 follow a pattern. They seek to broaden the definition of innovation and success. At present, all that can be varied for schools is the national curriculum and the terms, conditions and levels of pay for staff. If that is the Government's total vision for secondary schools

and the future of secondary education, God help us. The amendments would extend innovation into other key areas. I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government must envisage far wider discretion for innovation.

Amendment No. 75 would include innovatory child care projects within the scope of the powers given to schools. The Minister and the hon. Member for Don Valley would be the first to accept that child care and early years education are crucial in raising standards. Indeed, all hon. Members would surely accept that. Many years ago I worked as the head of a major secondary school. We had the power to run our own daycare centre in the school, and did some experimental work with Leeds university and the Institute of Education in that regard. The amendment would encourage innovative approaches to our schools, rather than applying these measures just to the curriculum and working conditions. Clauses 25 and 26 may provide schools with sufficient scope to innovate in other ways. If so, I would accept the Minister's view on the matter.

Amendment No. 76 deals with the improvement of special education provision. The link between raising educational standards and developing new special education provision can be difficult. Our survey of 240 so-called challenging schools showed that one of the problems that many of them face, especially in our inner cities, is the significant rise in the number of children with special educational needs in deprived areas. I think that the Minister would accept that. It is often the schools with the greatest challenges in raising standards, whatever that means, that also face communities of youngsters with other special needs that must be addressed. For example, two additional children with special educational needs can distort the performance of a small primary school. One of the most exciting aspects of the Bill is that it will allow some secondary schools to act differently. On Second Reading, I tried unsuccessfully to talk about my sadness that the schools with those difficulties that need to innovate the most, because they are not successful on the Government's terms, will be denied the ability to do so.

The point behind our amendments is that, if we gave all schools these powers, we would enable those that face more challenging circumstances, particularly in special educational needs, to use more exciting methods. The Minister will know that I spend much of my time working with integration projects for children with special needs in different circumstances. When we were operating in Leeds, we became a centre of excellence, particularly for children with severe learning difficulties. We attracted a significant population of those children, and it was a great sadness that they had an adverse effect on our examination performance, on which we were judged. I say that they had an adverse effect, but they also had an enlightening effect on our school. Nothing in the Bill would enable that school to operate in an exciting way, and the Minister must address that.

Amendment No. 77 deals with social inclusion projects. The purpose is to find out whether the powers in the Bill would be sufficient to allow a school to run its own pupil referral unit.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am grappling to understand the difference between the hon. Gentleman's position and that of the Conservative party. My colleagues and I have argued for giving schools more broad-ranging powers and the freedom to decide their own fate and how they operate, instead of the convoluted process of limited engineering, controlled tightly by the Secretary of State, that allows only a select few to have some powers. We want schools to take the decisions that concern them and benefit their pupils, and I am at a loss to understand the difference between our positions, as we both want much greater freedom for schools.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and there are two responses. Some of us lived through the grant-maintained saga—[Interruption.] With respect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), it was not a success, but an absolute debacle. It created massive divisions in our education system.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will just finish my point. I am glad that I have roused the hon. Lady.

The grant-maintained saga created huge divisions in the system. Approximately 1,000 schools became grant maintained and, in doing so, took resources from other schools in the area, as that was the way that the system worked. Those schools did an enormous amount of cherry picking of students, which had a skewed effect on the exam results of most local authorities.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I was officially asking the hon. Gentleman to give way because I should not have made my comment from a sedentary position. Now that he has given way, I should just like to point out that he and many Labour Members are obsessed with divisions in education, instead of paying attention to raising standards, which the Bill purports to be about. Grant-maintained schools raised standards enormously in certain places, but not in every area because not all schools became grant maintained. Grant-maintained schools worked exceptionally well, to the enormous benefit of hundreds of thousands of people.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I do not wish to cast aspersions on the achievements of grant-maintained schools, many of which achieved a great deal. I am delighted at the success of any school, but I reject the view that giving one school virtually all an authority's capital budget and increasing its funding by about another 17 per cent. should be regarded as equity. It was the inequity of that system that had to be—

Several hon. Members rose—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I suggest, Mrs. Adams, that we are straying from my point.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. I remind hon. Members to keep to the subject of the debate.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell asked a serious question about the difference between what we propose and the Bill as drafted. I want all schools to be able to innovate, not just those picked by the Secretary of State. I did not want grant-maintained schools to get additional resources and to innovate, as the Tory Govt proposed, but nor do I want a complete free for all, which is what the Conservative party is suggesting with their free schools. Conservative Members fail to acknowledge the fact that the £540 extra that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, during the last general election, he would give to every pupil was the £540 that local authorities retained for central services, which was ludicrous. Of course we want a framework and consultation; what happens to one school has an effect on another. It is important to work co-operatively rather than individually, and amendment No. 77 considers social exclusion. That issue and educational standards are one and the same; sometimes social exclusion must be dealt with before policies to raise standards can be developed.

We do not want a repeat of what happened when the Conservative Government introduced city technology colleges and CTC trusts, which were supposed to take students from the local catchment area, with a proper distribution of intake to reflect the locality. Dixon city technology college in Bradford has such an intake, as I am happy to report, having visited it recently. However, elsewhere, from Gateshead to Lewisham, CTCs have made fishing expeditions beyond their boundaries to attract children from outside the locality.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Well—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I apologise for taking advantage of his apparent indecision.

If the hon. Gentleman would stop perpetrating myths about what happened between 1988 and 1997, we would find it easier to rely on what he says about Liberal Democrat policy. In a previous debate, I described his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) as an elephant on a tightrope, striving not to fall on the side of Conservative or Govt policy. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is slightly more elegant than the elephant, but he is still wandering all over the place, which is a dangerous thing to do when one is on a tightrope. It is almost impossible to tell which powers he thinks should remain with the local education authority and which should, as of right, be given to the school. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify the matter?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman uses graphic language. He paints a vivid picture of an elephant on a tightrope; was it a toddler, or—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member for Torbay.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The amendments explore one of the Bill's core issues. Does the Minister accept that all schools, other than those subject to special measures or showing serious signs of weakness, should be given the powers? Should they be given on the same basis to local education authorities? I hope that would satisfy Conservative Members because it would cut out a huge amount of bureaucracy; there would be an assumption in favour of innovation rather than simply control by the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State include in the Bill or in regulation definitions of a successful or a failing school? Does he accept that innovation other than in terms of the curriculum and pay and conditions is what is needed to give schools and local authorities real powers to innovate?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

These important and challenging amendments, which have wide implications, are at the core of the clause, as the hon. Gentleman said. I want to comment briefly on his amendments before speaking to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Amendment No. 74, which would encourage the promotion of innovation, challenges the Government to probe the depth and reality of their commitment to innovation and to an explosion of new ideas and practices in schools in a drive to raise standards, and how far they merely mouth the words. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Amendment No. 40 echoes my amendment No. 9 to clause 5. It considers how far Ministers should be trusted to exercise their discretion. The present Minister and Secretary of State have huge integrity and great good will; we may often disagree with them about how to improve school standards, but we are also acutely aware that holders of the office of Secretary of State for Education and Skills change regularly. For the Bill to have a principal criterion that such an important decision is to be the opinion of whoever happens to be Secretary of State is a worrying power to leave with Ministers.

I have considerable sympathy with the first two amendments in the group. On amendments Nos. 75 to 77, 31, 78 and 32, there is an interesting difference of approach between two of the amendments and the rest. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough might enlighten the Committee as to his thinking in phrasing amendments Nos. 31 and 32 differently from the others. The other amendments begin with the word ''or'', which implies that, if they were included in the Bill, it would be a matter of choice as to whether the innovation in question would be to improve educational standards, child care provision, special education needs provision, social inclusion or the development of schools. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members, even those who are busy with their Christmas cards, that amendments Nos. 31 and 32 begin with the word ''and'', which implies that, were the amendments to be passed, it would be a requirement in England and in Wales that innovation should not only improve standards but promote equality of opportunity. I do not know

whether the hon. Gentleman would care to enlighten me now or later, but that important question must be answered.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I would not have thought that any member of the Committee would require an explanation. It is a fundamental principle of our party and of education that we should promote equality of opportunity for all our citizens. It is as simple as that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I wanted to establish whether the difference in phrasing was deliberate, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that it is. However, it has important implications. The importance that the hon. Gentleman ascribes to the subject matter of his other amendments is not as great as the importance of promoting equality of opportunity, which would place a requirement on the Secretary of State. The other amendments would simply set out parameters within which judgments could be taken.

It would be useful to explore the inclusion in amendments Nos. 31 and 32 of the requirement that any innovation should promote equality of opportunity. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a fundamental tenet of his party. I suspect that all hon. Members, regardless of the party of which they are a member, would share the view that equality of opportunity is vital. It is what drove many of us to become involved in politics and public life. I do not think that there will be a gap between hon. Members of any party on that question.

However, historically, there has been a huge void as to how it is best achieved. For instance, we shall consider the status of grammar schools and selection later on in our discussions. The hon. Gentleman and I have debated that in Committees on numerous occasions. The newspapers on Friday and this morning announced—before announcements were made in the House—that the Government have changed their approach to grammar schools. They now embrace them and see them as a way to spread best practice and bring special skills to other schools in the maintained sector. Those of us who have had the privilege of representing selective education systems have seen that in practice for many years. We perceive a difference of approach. The Conservative party has traditionally defended the remaining grammar schools, often under repeated attack from Labour Members. However, it is now joined by the Government in viewing grammar schools as promoting equality of opportunity. I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough takes a different view.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We have always exchanged views robustly on that subject. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in view of the Minister's statement last Friday—sadly, we did not hear it on Second Reading—clauses 104 to 109 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 now have to be removed? Clearly, it is impossible to marry the Minister's comments about extending the role of grammar

schools with the flawed ballot system that purports to get rid of them, although the hon. Gentleman and I would disagree on that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

We have always agreed that the ballot system is flawed. I think that the threshold was set too low, whereas the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was set too high. It will be interesting to see if the Minister tables amendments to reflect the Government's new-found love of grammar schools. We will want to explore that, but I raise the point to illustrate the difference of approach. If we were to include a requirement to promote equality of opportunity in the Bill without defining that phrase, it would raise concern. I wait for the Minister's reassurance on how the Government will ensure that equality of opportunity is maintained.

To save time, I will speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. Their wording is the same. The only difference is that one applies to England, and the other to Wales. I am conscious that the question is sensitive because amendment No. 2 would circumscribe the freedom allowed to the National Assembly of Wales. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales may want to comment on that.

The amendments are designed to examine the Government's commitment to innovation. Is it akin to the Government's commitment to end selection, which—even if we have read the Minister's lips—may be reversed? Is it similar to their pledge to promote the establishment of faith schools to raise standards, which is quietly moved away from as time passes and controversy arises? Are the Government of the view that the best way to raise standards in schools is to release the energy of teachers, head teachers, governors and non-teaching staff in maintained schools? If the Government really believe that that is the best approach, the Minister knows that it is risky. It means that Ministers have to do what they are least inclined to do: stand back and let people get on with their jobs. Taking that risk means that the innovation will be more successful in some instances than in others. It is not a recipe for uniformity. Quite the contrary, it is potentially a recipe for huge diversity if Ministers are brave and bold enough to grasp the nettle and to see innovation springing up across the maintained schools system.

This is a slightly difficult group of amendments to speak to because it also embraces amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which in some ways seek to constrain the form or the type of innovation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is looking a little concerned. He does not interpret it in that way. However, by specifying what types of innovation would be allowed rather than leaving it in its present fairly broad terms, he is in one sense seeking to constrain the application of the Bill. My amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are entirely permissive. They seek to further innovation, to remove restrictions and to prevent Ministers from exercising discretion in such a way as to prevent an innovative proposal when they do not have good reason to do so.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will really get to the heart of what Ministers perceive as being important in the freedom of innovation in part 1 of the Bill. Are they comfortable to be faced with a requirement to allow innovation unless there is an impediment? If they are, they will accept the amendment. If the Government promise to table their own amendment, perhaps on Report, to strengthen the presumption in favour of innovation, I would be prepared to withdraw mine. If they insist on opposing the amendments, it will cast real doubt over the strength of their commitment to and belief in innovation. We await the Minister's views with interest.

Finally, amendment No. 3. Even though I seek to add a little to the definition of ''innovation'', I do so in what I hope is a helpful and permissive manner. The amendment specifies that

'''innovation' means any change from existing practice in a particular school, educational institution or part thereof.''

The purpose is first to draw out from the Minister how he sees the measure being used in practice. Does he have particular projects or types of projects that he feels that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would look upon favourably? Does he believe that there are limits to what is acceptable innovation? Does he believe that innovation must be something that has not been done or tried before?

My amendment would clearly allow a school to adopt practices that had been tried before and which perhaps had been found to be successful and worthwhile and had contributed to improving education standards in our schools in the past. Whole class teaching, phonics, and the way in which schools balance whole class and group techniques might be characterised as traditional teaching methods. A few years ago, those methods were highly contentious, but increasingly they are the stuff of consensus. The traditional approach to education has been taken to good effect in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) repeatedly reminds me in discussions on education policy. In some schools, traditional teaching methods would be an innovation. In some areas, they may, sadly, be rare, but could raise educational standards for an enormous number of children. That is the core purpose of amendment No. 3.

I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, but stress that

''presumption in favour of innovation''

in amendment No. 1 goes to the heart of what the Government say that they are seeking to do. If they are not prepared to support a presumption in favour of innovation, my hon. Friends and I will have profound cause to doubt the sincerity of the Government's commitment to it. I invite the Minister to support the amendment or give robust assurances that the Government will amend the Bill to similar effect.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I want to make a few comments, as my name has been mentioned during the debate.

The Government have been criticised for the number of initiatives that they have introduced, but no one could doubt that, since 1997, they have striven to

create opportunities for all those involved in education—teachers, governors, LEAs or even politicians with an interest in education—to improve the ways in which we motivate our children and young people to learn. The norms that I expected when I was at school many years ago are different to those that are faced by children in many of the communities that I represent. Communities were often held together by the work that was offered, such as mining, which gelled the approaches of those communities to education and to the law. That cohesion has broken down over many decades, and we are trying to recreate it. That is why I believe so passionately that we should not treat schools as islands.

Some years ago in the Education and Employment Committee, on which I served with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the point was made repeatedly that schools cannot operate on the basis that children come in at 9 am and leave at 3.30 pm, and they can have a detached attitude to what happens during their waking hours outside school. We argued for schools to be able to use their budgets more creatively, whether individually or with other schools in their communities, and we considered the use of non-educational resources. That view comes out in the tone of the Bill.

I want to discuss devolution, the powers of schools to get on with the job, innovation, and the role of the state. Politicians of all parties talk about the power to choose, but I must say as a mum, as well as a Member of Parliament, that many parents have little choice about where their children go to school. It is usually the school that is on their doorstep and in their community, because if they go to work they have to get their kids to school first. Other factors also affect their child's education. Many people do not have the means to pay their way out of that situation by going to live in a leafy suburb or paying for schools outside the maintained system. That is why it is so important that our education policy on driving up standards is aimed at every school in every community. It is also why parents need a safety net. They need to know that the buck stops somewhere, and that someone is making informed choices. By having a Department responsible for education and a Secretary of State to represent it, Governments of all shades of opinion have recognised that, because taxpayers' money is used, the Government of the day should drive the agenda on standards and should decide how that money will be distributed.

I was in a beacon primary school a few weeks ago, and teachers said that they referred to one section of their money as Blunkett money, because they defined it as money with which they could do what the hell they wanted. [Interruption.] Hang on a minute. Opposition Members are saying that schools cannot spend the money as they wish. I suggest that schools have and will continue to have more autonomy over how they spend their money than ever before. That slices through many parts of the Bill.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

No, I will finish my point.

Schools have more autonomy and more ways to innovate. I refer to the Education and Employment Committee report on the role of head teachers. We found that good head teachers and local education authorities were innovative in many different ways. However, that is not always the case, and there must be a balance between devolution and elected politicians taking responsibility for driving the education agenda.

David Miliband (Labour, South Shields)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are not drawing a stark enough contrast between innovation that goes on daily in schools throughout the country to develop education fit for the children in the individual school, and innovation that breaches national terms and conditions or the national curriculum? There are a multitude of practices under the single word ''innovation'', and it is important to distinguish properly between them.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I agree. Innovation is not the property of any one person or group; it has many forms. The Bill is trying to grasp the fact that, at a certain level, it is impossible for schools or other partners, such as the LEA, to take part in some innovative projects. One issue that I will be interested in is examining the scope of the national curriculum, particularly at 14 plus.

The Bill is all about motivating children to learn.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Lady was talking about the freedom that schools have to spend money. I was pinching myself as she spoke, because I had a conversation no more than two weeks ago with a head teacher who expressed frustration about how little control she had over the money that came to her school. She said that she spends endless hours chasing after little ring-fenced budgets that are not suitable for the needs of her school, and that drives her up the wall. How do her experiences relate to the hon. Lady's? The real world in which the head teacher is working is very different to the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: funding takes many forms. Some still goes through the LEA and is passported on to schools. The Government have made huge efforts—with Labour LEAs as well as others—to ensure that that money is passported on to schools. There are other sorts of funding. For example, a ward in my constituency is considering having a mini education action zone. Hon. Members may say that it should have the money anyway, and we could debate that, but the fact is that schools can bid for and receive money from the pots for education action zones and other innovations, whereas they could not do that before. That is part of the educational contract under which the Government are committed to driving up standards. The Bill provides that resources will be released to allow teachers the freedom to use innovative methods if they are clearly linked to raising educational standards.

I want to make a point about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. As he knows, I take a great interest in child care. During the summer recess, I spoke at a number of conferences throughout the country about child care and the education White Paper. There is great optimism in the child care sector that the Bill will enable governors to expand their role in community provision. Early years partnerships will enable schools to have more freedom to innovate in that area and to consider issues around the concept of the extended school. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the child care sector has picked up on that, which is why his amendment is not necessary. I think that his point is covered elsewhere, as are some of his other amendments.

In my area, the bottom line is how we raise educational standards. The issue is about those who could achieve much more than they do; the need to ensure a better educational environment for those in the middle of the group; and the achievement of those who, for whatever reason, are socially excluded and need extra support or different ways of learning to enhance their motivation and their enjoyment of education.

It is important that we do not dilute the Bill's opening lines and the core principle of raising educational standards. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman intends to do that, but I feel sure that his point will be covered elsewhere in the Bill and that the measure's application will become clearer as we proceed.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I shall start by picking up on the final comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley. There is no division in the Committee or the House about the desirability of raising educational standards; the division is about how we reach that point. My great fear about the tone set in the initial clauses is that the Bill seeks to raise standards by over-engineering the education system. As I shall keep saying until I am blue in the face, the consequence is that we shall give undue amounts of work to heads and teachers, making it much more difficult for them to deliver day-to-day quality teaching.

Again, I hark back to a conversation that I had with a primary school head, this time in my constituency, who said, ''What I really want to do is teach. I want to get out of my office and into the classroom to work with some of the kids in the school. The trouble is that so much stuff is coming from central Government that I don't have time to do that.'' My fear is that the process of innovation only through a prescribed route decided and vetted by the Secretary of State will simply add to the complexity of the ''stuff'' with which our head teachers have to deal.

David Miliband (Labour, South Shields)

The hon. Gentleman has made two sets of interventions this morning. On the one hand, he made an important point about burdens on teachers and the priority that should be attached to getting them teaching. On the other hand, he argued for greater devolution to schools of various

responsibilities that LEAs currently discharge. How does he square that circle? He wants to allow teachers to teach, but he also wants them to get into the business of planning and goodness knows what else, which local authorities currently do for them.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever served as a school governor, but if he has, he will have much experience of the amount of unnecessary paperwork that comes out of LEAs, of the number of reports that must be completed for LEAs and of the amount of reporting back that must be done for LEAs. If we add to that the constant stream of initiatives from central Government—a primary school governor recently told me that she had six to deal with by the end of January—it amounts to an enormous and intolerable burden on schools.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on his amendment. We approve wholeheartedly of innovation, but it should not be a question of the Secretary of State saying, ''If you do what I tell you, you can be free to do what you want.'' That is a contradiction in terms. The presumption should be that schools will be given greater freedom to innovate, to understand and appreciate the character of their pupils and their areas, and to respond to those needs. The whole process should be one of pushing responsibilities down the line rather than schools being required to demonstrate that they are somehow a cut above the rest so that they can enter a selection process in which the Secretary of State decides whether they will get extra freedoms.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the freedom he proposes is a large one? If it were adopted, schools could opt out of the whole of the national curriculum and the whole national pay and conditions framework, without any reference to Government.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I have tabled an amendment to a later clause that addresses the hon. Gentleman's point about the national curriculum. The teaching profession and the Government will eventually have to address the issue of national pay and conditions, given the huge difficulties of finding teaching staff in south-east England. The cost of living in some parts of the country is vastly different from that in other parts and we shall have to address that in looking at the framework for pay and conditions in schools. The presumption that innovation is a good thing and that schools should have the ability to innovate with relative freedom rather than having to go through a complex and difficult qualification process must be the best approach.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that some elements of the grant-maintained school system did not work as well as they should. The whole foundation of grant-maintained schools was democratic, with local parents deciding whether schools became grant maintained. In many cases, unfortunately, it became a political rather than an educational battle. If the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertions, he will surely agree that it cannot be

right to allow only some schools to innovate. Grant-maintained schools delivered excellent quality, but the fact that not all schools were grant-maintained made it more difficult for those changes to be seen across the board. Similarly, the system advocated in this Bill, whereby only a select number of schools have the right to apply to be innovative, cannot be the best way forward. The presumption should surely be that every school should be given the flexibility to innovate, unless there are compelling reasons, such as special measures, not to do so.

To set limitations will inevitably mean that the best-run schools with governing bodies that have the time, professional skills and ability to go through a complicated application process—probably the schools that were grant-maintained and that are now foundation schools—will benefit. There is no mechanism in the Bill that would give struggling inner-city schools that are beginning to turn themselves around the freedom to innovate. The measure will simply allow the best schools, which always emerge at the top of the pile, to do so again. To give all schools the freedom to innovate must be a better approach than simply putting limitations on what is happening.

I want to make one point on the issue of child care, in response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; I shall return to the issue as our debate progresses. I have serious anxieties about the way in which we regulate the pre-school sector. As the hon. Member for Don Valley knows, because I raised the point in the House last week, I am anxious about the amount of regulation that we impose on what should still be a relatively informal developmental environment. We are far too prescriptive and elements of the Bill continue that process.

I would feel profoundly uncomfortable about supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, not because I am in any way unsupportive of child care, early years education or nursery provision but because that sector is being sucked into the educational mainstream in legislative terms and is being subjected to too many of the norms applied to secondary and primary schools. As that process develops, not only are many of those groups being driven out of business, but the people who run them find it far more difficult to do the job that many of them do so well. That is why I am profoundly uncomfortable about bracketing child care provision with an Education Bill that is fundamentally targeted at the older years of education.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

To reinforce my hon. Friend's point on early years provision, when I was a member of the sub-Committee of the Select Committee, we took evidence on those matters. It would be helpful to direct all Committee members to the evidence sessions in that inquiry. While the report came out broadly—with some reservations—in favour of prescribing training for all those concerned with child care, a considerable amount of evidence placed a higher value on parents and the community in the earlier years, which are increasingly overlooked. I hope that the evidence sessions will inform the

Committee's considerations on not being over-prescriptive, particularly regarding early years provision.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. It reinforces my view that we should not allow the Bill to continue the process of over-formalising early years provision. We must get it absolutely right and find the best balance between an informal environment and developmental facets. The balance is not right in this country at present and I do not want the Bill to make the imbalance even greater.

It must be the correct approach to give schools the right to innovate as a matter of course. That right should be removed only where there are compelling educational reasons for doing so. The balance is wrong in the Bill. I commend my hon. Friend's amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has already spoken to the amendment tabled in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, and I do not wish to waste the Committee's time in reiterating his points. I would like to probe a little further on amendments Nos. 75 and 76, which were eloquently presented by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I would not necessarily have suggested that the matters referred to in amendments Nos. 75 and 76 should appear at the beginning of the Bill, but as the hon. Gentleman has made that suggestion, I would like the Minister's assurance that special educational needs and child care appear at the beginning of the Government's draft of the Bill. If they are not, I would not take it as an indication from the Minister that those are not considered extremely important subjects. They are indeed extremely important and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is right to have raised them at this point in our deliberations.

Amendment No. 75 deals with child care. Will the Minister assure us that the Government do not consider child care to be merely some sort of by-product--an added extra--of education? Does he agree that the care of small children is the beginning of their education? Thankfully, in most families the duties of early child care and, therefore, the beginnings of education are undertaken by parents or grandparents, in the community or in the family. However, families in some areas of the country are less fortunate and, in those cases, providing early years care and therefore education gives small children the best start in life.

I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley. She is chairman of the all-party child care group, of which I am vice-chairman. That does not mean that we entirely agree on all of the issues, but I know that she gives this matter high priority—indeed, she said as much this morning—and so do I.

I seek the Minister's assurance that we are not to assume that the Government do not give the matter high priority simply because it does not appear near

the beginning of the Bill. I look forward to examining the issue later in part 9. I hope that we will have more time then to explore the Government's plans.

Likewise, I wish to probe further on amendment No. 76, which also was eloquently proposed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The issue of special educational needs is not being handled properly and is causing chaos in some parts of the country. Some education authorities simply cannot cope with requests for statementing. Many families cannot deal with the long wait between requesting a statement for a child and the exploration and granting of one.

The theory of inclusion for children with special educational needs works well in some cases, but is a complete disaster in others. Recently, special educational needs has been seen as a single problem, but it is far from that. There is an enormous range of needs. A slight inability to read because of dyslexia, for example, is simple to deal with by inclusion in the main stream. A child may need an extra hour or so each week or some minor assistance. However, at the other end of the spectrum are conditions such as Asperger's syndrome, which is serious and often not detected until a child is past the age at which something might be done to help him or her. To suggest that small children with Asperger's syndrome should be treated in the same way as children with mild dyslexia, by inclusion in the main stream, is to treat the problem as less serious than it is. It is an increasingly serious problem.

Inclusion does not always work, and the disruption of mainstream classrooms by children with serious problems that should be dealt with in another way is becoming a problem. Let us make no bones about it: the education of other children in classes in which children with severe learning difficulties are included is being affected.

The amendment contains many implications for the budgets of schools and LEAs, and for the work loads of teachers and teaching and care assistants. Most importantly, there are enormous implications for the foundation of children's learning ability. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time on the issue now, but I hope that we will have plenty of time to discuss it in parts 6 and 10 of the Bill in a few weeks' time. I seek the Minister's assurance that, just because the Government have not put special needs in the first clause of the Bill, it does not mean that they do not give the issue high priority.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome the discussion. A valuable conclusion to be drawn from it is that both sides of the Committee support innovation and the possibility that becomes a reality. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough spoke about promoting, rather than simply facilitating, innovation, because some people may say that there are dangers here. It is helpful that the whole Committee supports innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley reminds us that the Select Committee unanimously supported similar measures over an extended period. It is helpful to know that unanimity exists on this matter.

Adding the words ''promote and'' would not help: if anything, it would slightly hinder. However, I welcome the spirit of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said.

The two routes to innovation in the Bill have caused confusion. At the moment, we are debating powers to facilitate innovation. I emphasise that any school can apply to exercise the powers under chapter 1. That is not the case with the powers set out in chapter 2, familiarly known as ''earned autonomy'' and described here as

''exemptions related to school performance''.

When we consider that provision, we shall examine which schools will qualify for exemptions because that is related to their performance, and the criteria for performance. Those issues do not arise in chapter 1.

At face value, some Opposition Members appeared to suggest that anybody should be able to change the law without reference to Parliament. Opposition Members cannot really support that proposition. It is vital that a process is gone through if the law is to be changed in the way that applicants propose. In passing, I note that schools that wanted to become grant maintained also had to apply to the Secretary of State.

It is misleading for Opposition Members to suggest that the provisions are unduly bureaucratic. I emphasise that any school can apply for the power to innovate. A weak school may have a partnership proposal to work with a good school, which could be approved under the Bill. Some Opposition Members assumed that those powers would not be available for weak schools. It is an important aspect of the Bill that those schools will be able to apply for them.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister makes an interesting comparison with the Secretary of State's past role in grant-maintained status applications. A school in a constituency adjacent to mine had a parental ballot in favour of GM status. There was no educational reason why the school should not move to GM status, but the 1997 general election intervened between the application and the Secretary of State's approval. The parents of that school were denied their will because the Secretary of State exercised an opinion that was not based on educational grounds. That could be avoided by requiring the Secretary of State to have good reason to veto a proposal.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Conservative Members are in a small minority in lamenting the passing of grant-maintained schools. The last Conservative Government may have said no in certain circumstances, even if there was a ballot in favour. However, there was a process of application to the Secretary of State in that instance. If that point establishes that Conservative Members accept the need for an application to the Secretary of State, we have made some progress.

Amendment No. 40 proposes leaving out the words,

''in the opinion of the Secretary of State'',

but the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough would accept that a judgment must be made about whether a decision raises standards. The Secretary of State would take advice on that, but

ultimately, only a Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Assembly can make a parliamentary order to change the law.

The amendments raise important issues about equality of opportunity and special education provision, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest also mentioned. In passing, let me point out, perhaps pedantically, that the amendments put the issue of the improvement of social inclusion into the wrong part of the clause, but I shall not dwell on that. It is worth being clear that we would consider the full effects of any proposal, and that if those issues were damaged, the Secretary of State would not conclude that the proposal would raise standards.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

In view of the time, I shall not give way, as I need to make progress.

I can assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a proposal will contribute to raising standards, she will permit it. In judging whether standards are raised, she will consider, for example, the impact on the provision for special educational needs. I hope that that also helps the hon. Member for Epping Forest.

We do not propose that there should be innovation for innovation's sake, which amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would create. The intention behind the Bill is to raise educational standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made the important point that we must continue to focus tightly on raising those standards, because that has such a big impact on social inclusion later in life.

On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Secretary of State will judge the proposals, and she would rightly be cautious about seeking to extend her powers to make determinations over a wider range of activities. As has been pointed out, many of the initiatives, including extended schools, the ability to provide child care in schools and the ability to contribute

''to the development of schools in their communities''

—to use the wording in amendment No. 78—are provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I draw hon. Members' attention especially to clauses 25 and 26, which have been mentioned.

We want head teachers and governing bodies to make proposals, which we expect to be varied and to contribute to the wider community. We do not want to constrain innovation by seeking to define it tightly or by introducing prescriptions that would make it more vulnerable to judicial review or would create a charter for lawyers, as I believe amendment No. 3 would do. It is neither possible nor practical to require the Secretary of State to set a measurable test by which those proposals can be judged.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I apologise, but I do not think that I can.

The key test would be whether the proposal would contribute to the raising of educational standards. We believe that, given the clear accountability framework,

we can be much less prescriptive than has been typical, and can therefore unleash creativity in schools so that teachers can lead the next wave of education reform.

There was some comment on last week's announcement about grammar non-selective partnerships. The Green Paper—published on 12 February—was clear about those partnerships. It stated:

''We want to encourage more partnerships between grammar schools and secondary moderns in the future so that they can share expertise and learn from each other . . . We will provide additional funding to encourage this collaboration and in due course to extend it to all selective areas.''

Last week, I gave details about how that commitment has been implemented.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

I had hoped that the Minister might feel it appropriate to give way, as we could have dealt with the point more briefly than he has.

On his objection to amendment No. 3, I was struck by his concern that it was a charter for lawyers, although I have no reason to declare an interest as a solicitor who ceased practising 14 years ago. With regard to amendment No. 1 and consequential amendment No. 2 on Wales, I am concerned that the word ''innovation'' encompasses innovations of different types, as the exchange between the hon. Members for Don Valley and for South Shields showed.

Although the Minister prays in aid that the focus must be on raising standards, there is no clarification of the various meanings of the word ''innovation'' in the Bill. Without amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and especially amendment No. 3, there would appear to be a much greater danger that the Bill would become a charter for lawyers and that many schools would be disappointed under part 1.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

[Continuation from column 76]

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

They now have to earn autonomy. To refresh hon. Members' minds, I was saying that schools have delivered on what the Government have asked. They have produced outstanding responses to a whole host of initiatives, some of which they were not keen to participate in. The idea that they now have to earn autonomy is rather sad.

However, if that is to be the case, the amendment suggests that objective criteria should be applied. The Minister has made it clear, throughout the day, that he is prepared to set some objective criteria, and the Committee wants to hear them. I also have problems with the criteria. When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke earlier, and cut to the chase, he started to talk about specific objective criteria. Earlier, I had raised the issue of how to judge whether a school is failing or successful. If one does that simply by narrow, national objective criteria, one can quickly fall foul of it. The comments that I made earlier about five A to Cs are an example of that. If the judgment is made on the basis of exclusions, levels of improvement, or any of those simple objective measures, one will not get to the heart of what the Government want from innovation, and what I hope Opposition parties also want. We must therefore be careful about what criteria we use.

I emphasise, however, that it is important that we have a chance to see what criteria the Government have in mind with regard to earned autonomy. If we do not have that opportunity, schools will be thrashing about in the dark, trying to find out what is in the Government's mind before they make the relevant applications. Although the amendments are slightly flawed, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West makes a good a point, and I trust that the Minister will respond accordingly.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We now reach the much anticipated part of the Bill that deals with earned autonomy, or, as the parliamentary draftsman has expressed it, exemptions related to school performance. It would be helpful to begin by clarifying the distinctions between the exemptions available here, and the innovation available under the part of the Bill that we have just finished discussing.

First, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, is available on application to any school, the exemptions are only available to schools meeting specified performance criteria. Secondly, when the power to

innovate can be used to relax any regulatory requirements in education law, the exemptions can only be applied to curriculum provisions or pay and conditions provisions. Thirdly, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, will entail a judgment being made by the Secretary of State on whether the proposal will raise educational standards, the exemptions will usually apply, in effect, as of right, without the need for such a judgment to be made, although there may be exceptions to that, to which I shall come in a moment. Fourthly, when the power to innovate is being piloted, as we discussed previously, the exemptions can be of indefinite duration—although they can be removed under clause 8, they are not of fixed duration.

We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as clear as possible, as both hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned. Over time, we want to provide all schools with the opportunity to aim towards it, as standards continue to rise, and leadership continues to improve further. The criteria that are used to award autonomy to schools will be clear and consistent, and we will ensure—as far as is possible—that they are objective. However, with regard to amendment No. 9, the criteria will need to involve an element of judgment—it will be impossible for us entirely to dispense with that.

I offer an example to illustrate that point. The two key areas that I would expect the criteria to address are the school's performance and its Ofsted report. It is important to note that the performance data will be published, and that we will increasingly be able to refer to value added performance data. A school might meet the performance criteria, and its latest Ofsted report might suggest that it has strong leadership, in which case, on the objective criteria, it would qualify for the exemptions. However, I hope that Committee members will agree with me that, if the school's entire leadership team had changed since the Ofsted report was produced, the Secretary of State would need to exercise judgment with regard to deciding whether exemptions should be made available.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the Minister have in mind specific performance criteria, such as the five A to Cs criteria, which has been used—by the Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State—to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful schools?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I would expect the performance data to include several types of information: absolute performance information, such as GCSE results, and key stage 3 results that take account of free school meal bands; improvement in performance; and value added data, which is increasingly becoming available. Those would constitute the parameters of our proposals, but we will consult on the precise criteria.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I hope that it will not sound churlish if I say that, for the first time today, the Minister is beginning to answer some of the concerns of Committee members who do not represent the Labour party. We want to be told of the details of the Government's intentions.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put a little more flesh on the bones by agreeing to set out, at least in draft form, what those criteria will be, before the House concludes its consideration of the Bill?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of appreciation. However, the reason I am answering questions about earned autonomy for the first time, is because this is the first time that we have addressed the subject.

The hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable request, and I hope that it will be possible to comply with it, although I cannot guarantee that at present. We would expect the criteria to include an assessment of the leadership of the school—which will probably be based on Ofsted's assessment—as well as performance data. We would also expect a consultation to take place with regard to those ideas.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

One obvious circumstance in which a school could look to the Department for consent to take steps under the provisions would be if it were a failing school in which a new head teacher had been employed with a mandate to turn the school round. That should be reflected in the criteria that the Government set out.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

If the school is failing, it is highly unlikely to meet the performance criteria. However, if such a school wished, it could apply under chapter 1 to use the powers to innovate. It would not qualify for the automatic exemptions under chapter 2.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister extend that a little further? Are the prescribed criteria in subsection (1) a single set that relates to both curriculum provisions and pay and conditions provisions, or is the Secretary of State permitted to set two sets of criteria that relate to two different provisions? The latter may seem more appropriate because if a school was near to failing, it would be evident that that was the point at which one should encourage the recruitment of more and better teachers by, perhaps, offering better terms and conditions of service.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, we envisage that the criteria will be the same for both. When performance criteria were met, the school would be entitled to take on the exemptions that are listed in clause 6.

I return to the issue raised by amendment No. 9 concerning the Secretary of State exercising his judgment. I hope that my examples have made it clear that there will be cases in which judgment must be applied. However, that would not usually be the case, and would be the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of cases, there would be no doubt about whether schools meet the criteria.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister explained that, under chapter 1, all schools may apply to innovate. However, under clause 5, only schools that have earned autonomy may disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions. Have I followed the Minister so

far? Does that assume, under chapter 1, that a school cannot innovate about the curriculum unless it has satisfied earned autonomy under clause 5?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 2, which states:

''On the application of one or more qualifying bodies...the Secretary of State may . . . make provision . . . conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation''.

A school may apply for an exemption from any requirement of education legislation under the powers to facilitate innovation. Those requirements include curriculum legislation.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The point that I make is that unless a school has earned autonomy, it cannot disapply the two key areas of the curriculum and pay and conditions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Isle of Wight answers for the Minister, but I would prefer the Minister's response.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I did not hear the answer.

The difference is that when a school meets the performance criteria, it will—as of right, in most instances—be entitled to take advantage of the exemptions that are outlined in clause 6. However, it would be possible for another school to apply to take on similar flexibilities under the powers to innovate in chapter 1. It would not be barred from doing so because of the exemptions in chapter 2.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The specific difference is that earned autonomy gives someone the automatic right to do those things without asking anyone else. In Part 1, one has to go begging to the Secretary of State.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Those are not the words that I would use, but the hon. Gentleman is on the right lines. I make one caveat. As the example that I gave illustrates, in some instances there will be a requirement for the Secretary of State to express an opinion. That might be when there has been a change such as that that I outlined—perhaps Ofsted said that everything was fine and that the performance data was fine, but the management team of the school has now gone. There could be such exceptional circumstances in which the Secretary of State would have to express an opinion, as clause 5(2) allows for.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am trying to understand the Minister's point. What would happen if there were a change in the leadership of the school, resulting in a different character of leadership? Although the school might previously have met the criteria, in the intervening period before Ofsted could come back and say that it was no longer happy with the leadership, would not that leadership have pretty swingeing powers? It could make changes to the whole way in which the school operated, without the system offering any restraints to prevent that. Would that be possible?

Mr. Timms: I am not sure that I entirely follow the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is outlining. I think that he is talking about a school that has met the criteria and earned autonomy, but in which the leadership group then changes.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Let me give a practical example. Without wishing to pick any particular group, let us suppose that a newly appointed head took a personal decision to change radically the character of the school to make it a strongly faith-based school, in a way that was not in the interests of the school community. Although Ofsted might come back later and say that that was not appropriate, none the less, on day one of his job the head would have the freedom to make swingeing changes to the school and its curriculum and culture without restriction.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 6, which sets out that the exemptions available for a school that has earned autonomy relate to the curriculum and pay and conditions. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there could be wide scope to change all kinds of other things, but that would not be available under earned autonomy. The powers automatically available under earned autonomy are quite circumscribed.

I turn to amendment No. 67. We aim that the criteria for earned autonomy should be clear, concise and fair to all schools, whatever their circumstances. I can give the Committee a commitment that we will consult on those criteria and take all views into account before laying regulations before the House. I will go a little further, which might help the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West some more. We will make available a clear statement of our policy on the criteria under clause 5(1) as a draft for the consultation exercise before the Bill leaves the Commons. That is earlier than he was asking for, and I hope that it is helpful to him.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for that last point, to which I shall return.

On amendment No. 67, I am grateful for the commitment that the Minister has given to consult and take account of views before producing the criteria. It would fall into the category of a ministerial commitment that would be of little value, if it were not for the later commitment, for which I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful. If nothing else proves the value of today's Committee proceedings, that certainly does. It will be of enormous benefit to hon. Members and others who are interested in our proceedings to be able to see that there is consultation, and feed in their views, before the House completes its consideration of the Bill.

I take issue with some points that the Minister raised in opposing amendment No. 9. To illustrate that an element of judgment may be required, he gave the example of where the leadership of a school has been good but the head leaves. Such cases could be dealt with by objective criteria. If pressed, I might accept that there may be grounds for a reserve power that is stated as such, but that is not the way in which

subsection (2) currently states the situation. It simply sets out that for the purposes of subsection (1) the criteria may include the Secretary of State's opinion or that of the National Assembly.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend agree that once again the difficulty arises not with the Secretary of State, who one can assume is likely to have a rational reason for reaching a particular decision, but with the National Assembly? The reasons people may have had for voting for or against a particular proposal would be many, diverse and impossible to catalogue in the judicial review proceedings that would occur if a school felt that an opinion had been reached in an unreasonable manner. To quote the Minister, we are once more into the territory of a ''lawyers' charter''.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. How the courts will interpret the opinions of the National Assembly for Wales is uncharted water. We all look forward with intense anticipation to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales giving us greater knowledge of how these matters will proceed.

The Minister clearly stated that we could expect objective criteria by which schools would be in a position to judge whether they would qualify for earned autonomy, which is something that I and other hon. Members welcome. What those objective criteria may be will be another matter, but he has given us an insight for which we are grateful. We are especially grateful for his undertaking to set out the criteria in greater detail.

I had been minded to press amendment No. 9 to a Division, but I shall not do so in the light of the good will that the Minister has shown. Instead, I shall invite my hon. Friends to hold their fire and reserve their judgment until we see the detailed proposals that he has promised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert

'except those contained in sections 74 and 75 below'.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 69, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert

'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.

No. 30, in page 4, line 18, after 'Wales', insert

'except those contained in sections 95 and 96 below'.

No. 70, in page 4, line 17, after 'Wales', insert

'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 apply respectively to England and Wales as do amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which seek to circumscribe the powers to suspend the curriculum for schools under these earned autonomy proposals in the important respect of accepting the requirement to maintain the provisions in clauses 74 and 75, which amount to a guarantee that schools should continue to offer a balanced and broadly based curriculum.

I would expect the amendments to be regarded as non-contentious. I should be surprised if the Minister, in responding to them, were to say that relaxation or suspension of curriculum requirements for maintained schools that earn their autonomy will result in their offering anything other than a balanced and broadly based curriculum, regardless of what specialisms they may wish to pursue, and regardless of a possible wish to concentrate effort—as specialist schools already do—in particular areas of the curriculum. It seems highly improbable that it is the will of Ministers or the House to allow schools to suspend national curriculum requirements to such an extent that they can concentrate solely on a sports-based, technology-based or language-based curriculum. Perhaps the Minister will argue otherwise, and we should be interested to hear his arguments, but such a provision would seem to go far beyond the curriculum innovations introduced by the previous Conservative Government, or by those elements of the Labour Government's education legislation that built on specialist schools, city technology colleges, city academies and the like. All such institutions offer broad curricula that do not permit them to specialise only in their chosen area of interest.

I look forward to the Minister's comments on amendments Nos. 69 and 70, one of which I can probably anticipate. I fear that they might deal with the wrong part of the Bill, and no doubt he, with the benefit of his advisers, will say whether that is so. Even if they should have been slotted in elsewhere, they have been selected for debate, so I beg your forgiveness, Mrs. Adams, as I air the issues that they raise.

The concern at the heart of amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which relate to England and Wales respectively, is the incredible breadth of potential exemptions from education legislation. The Government's decision to concertina the timetable for the Bill's consideration has created time pressure, which may have caused an estimable outside body to ask me to raise the matter at slightly the wrong point in the Bill. In obliging sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996 to remain part of the requirements of education legislation, the amendments' import is to restrain Ministers present or future from going so far in the application of the discretion under the Bill that they end the current guarantee in the 1996 Act to provide free education. The fact that that is possible illustrates the breadth of powers that Ministers have under the Bill.

Given my remarks about the appropriate point at which to table amendments Nos. 69 and 70, the Minister would not expect me to press them. However, I would welcome his comments on them, as well as any assurance that he can give that the Government might look favourably on a later amendment that would similarly constrain Ministers' freedom to manoeuvre. That would give some comfort to those who fear that charging may spread beyond the strictly circumscribed areas of education provision in the maintained sector.

If the Minister's comments and assurances are insufficient, we may seek to press the matter at a later stage.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are very important. They will be of great interest to the many people who follow the debate and want to know what Ministers truly intend in releasing constraints on the national curriculum. Do they intend that there should be any constraint, or that it should be an entirely unfettered power? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I do not wish to speak to amendments Nos. 69 and 70, because I suspect that they have been tabled to the wrong part of the Bill. However, amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are extremely important and require detailed analysis and response by the Secretary of State.

I believe, both as an individual and as a representative of the Liberal Democrats, that if we are to liberate the requirements of the national curriculum it must be done with a semblance of order to ensure that young people continue to have a broad and balanced curriculum. It continues to worry me that some aspects of specialist schools could distort that provision.

I hope that when the Minister responds he will concentrate on key stages 3 and 4, or the extended key stage 4 for the 14 to 19 curriculum. There is a fundamental difference in the disapplication of the national curriculum at key stage 4 and above. As I said on Second Reading, the Government are right to have a major review of the 14 to 19 curriculum and the organisation that goes with it. We are at one with the Government on that, as is the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

It is necessary to consider separately the criteria for key stage 4, or 14 to 19, and for key stage 3. Especially at key stage 3, the need to retain the breadth of curriculum that is offered to all young people is incredibly important. I mean that not only in respect of a group of youngsters of a certain ability at key stage 3. We should not cut off areas of the curriculum to children with special needs or particular difficulties. In statements made by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), it is worrying to note that when examining the primary curriculum he decided to remove music and art as compulsory requirements for key stages 1 and 2. That sent out all sorts of wrong signals.

At one extreme, set curricula have been prescribed in the past, as happened in 1988—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will agree that we learnt lessons from the mistake of saying what every child should do. However, nor should we go the other way and say that during their formative years we should deny our young people opportunities to have a broad and balanced curriculum that includes the arts, particularly art and music. Such a curriculum should also include humanities, social sciences and religious education because they are all important areas.

I should like the Minister to reply to the point about key stage 3. On the subject of issuing guidance about what can be disapplied, or what the framework for disapplication might be, he must remain mindful that key stage 3 is important. Key stage 3 guidance should be separate from that for key stage 4, and he should withhold guidance for the latter until we have been able to address the issue of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am with the hon. Gentleman on at least 90 per cent. of his argument. However, I should like to press him a little on a worry that I have. Welcome as a relaxation of the curriculum for the 14-to-19 cohort may be because it provides for a more vocational or work-based aspect to their education, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should be an aspect of education, not its totality? I would be rather concerned if that group of young people were taken out of school and out of a broad curriculum, however defined, and put in a solely vocational and workplace-based training situation.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

If I have given the hon. Gentleman that impression, I apologise profusely. That is certainly not the case. We will be lost if my party, or any other party, goes back to the bad old days of a division between vocational and academic education, as if the two can be separated like sheep and goats—one lot going off on an academic path, the other on a vocational one. If that is the vision, I want nothing to do with it. [Interruption.] I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) who is saying from a sedentary position that that is not the case. I was simply trying to respond to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and ensure that he did not go home tonight and toss and turn in his bed agonising over what I may have meant.

I urge the Minister to give us clear parameters for key stage 3 and to leave key stage 4, in terms of advice and disapplication, until we have had an opportunity to consider where we are going with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.. Although innovation is important and we support it, the framework in which it takes place is also important. Increasingly, there are national considerations for key stage 4 and beyond, and I think that a desired objective of the Government—certainly, one of ours—is to increase participation beyond the age of 16. That must be a fundamental premise for whatever we do with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds and it requires careful guidance. We do not want to go back to a situation where only the privileged continue in school to key stage 4.

In respect of disapplying the curriculum, will the Minister give me his thoughts on what will happen to religious education and say whether it will become something that could be disapplied? Will the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which looks at religious education syllabuses throughout local authorities, be disbanded? That would allow individual schools either not to teach religious education and to be disapplied from the agreed

syllabus of a local authority, or to pursue fairly fundamentalist religious teaching. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on those issues.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to make a few points. I have great concerns—they are reflected in an amendment that I have tabled to the next clause, but clearly relate directly to this debate—about the nature of the national curriculum once the proposed provisions are implemented, if indeed they are.

There is no doubt in my mind—I think that this is now widely accepted—that the national curriculum, albeit following some teething problems, has made a major contribution to raising educational standards. It was no coincidence that the generation covered by last week's Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of the standards in British schools tallied almost exactly with the lifespan of the national curriculum. It worries me that this legislation risks significantly undermining the national curriculum.

If all we are talking about is some limited ability to change the curriculum—to add some diversity or an extra dimension to what a school is doing—then I have no problem. However, the sweeping provisions proposed would in theory allow a school to go far beyond simply adjusting its curriculum to increase the diversity of teaching offered to its pupils. I would like some clear caveats in the Bill.

I echo the view of many head teachers—and some of the aspirations that lie behind the provisions—that we can be too prescriptive in our schools. Many heads say that they do not have the freedom and flexibility that they would like to offer additional dimensions to the education in their schools to reflect the needs, desires, wishes and culture of pupils. That is without doubt desirable. My concern is that there are no proposed limitations to such flexibility, and that a school that meets the criteria under this legislation could make wholesale changes, with no clear benchmarks, framework or guidelines as provided by the national curriculum. Essentially, they could do what they want.

After the positive contribution to our education system that the national curriculum has made, it would be a retrograde step to allow curriculum anarchy. That, at its most extreme, is the potential consequence of this legislation. There must be enough flexibility to allow schools to reflect their desire for diversity, but not such great flexibility that their curricula can go in significantly different directions.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had much discussion about safeguards relating to the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—authorising such measures, and that the bottom line is that schools will be able to apply for the ability to implement them only if they are connected to raising educational standards? That will be the basis on which any such freedom can be agreed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anarchy will reign in our schools. He cannot have it both ways: he cannot talk about free schools and then say that there will be anarchy as soon as they try to apply such freedoms.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady misses the point that the provision allows not simply limited changes, but wholesale restructuring of the curriculum. I support the principle of free schools and allowing heads freedom to take decisions in the interests of their schools, but I do not believe that that should be taken so far that we scrap the national curriculum. I do not see any clear safeguards in the Bill to protect the national curriculum.

We are talking about rights to amend curricula and conditions that are earned through performance. They are not earned through application. They are almost automatic rights for certain schools. Those schools could take radical decisions on their curricula without reference to the Secretary of State. If I am wrong on that point, I hope that the Minister will correct me.

Up to a certain point, that is desirable, but the question is where to draw the line between heads having sensible freedoms to operate enlightened management policies in their schools and the national curriculum going out of the window. I am concerned that the legislation does not define that line. It leaves to schools' individual judgment which direction they want to go in. That is foolhardy, given the degree of success that the national curriculum has engendered in many of our schools.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is important to remember that the national curriculum was made for pupils, not pupils for the national curriculum. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West would set a reasonable boundary on any amendments to the national curriculum that a head might seek. There are certainly schools that at present could not move into the maintained sector because of the national curriculum requirements currently in place, which are, none the less, highly effective schools, such as the Rudolph Steiner schools. I believe that consideration is currently being given to the Rudolph Steiner schools being admitted to the maintained sector.

It is important to realise that the idea of the national curriculum started as a basic entitlement. It was quickly translated by those implementing the law—not those who made the law—into an all-embracing, highly prescriptive and dangerous document that attempted to cram into a limited number of hours in a child's life a huge number of detailed requirements that neither schools, teachers, parents, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher felt were appropriate when the provisions were enacted in the Education Reform Act 1988. It happened because of the way in which the national curriculum was constructed.

The curriculum was constructed by a range of different subject committees, each with many specialists all wanting to grab their own specialism within the subject and to ensure that that was properly laid out in the curriculum's requirements. Each of those committees, having worked not to the lowest common denominator but the other thing—I forget what it is called—then put everything into its bid for

what should go into the national curriculum. Every subject was then allowed as much as possible of what it was seeking.

That was a highly damaging process. I declare a little history here because I was involved in the policy group that led to the 1987 Conservative election manifesto, and I have to say that there was no idea at the time that the national curriculum was anything but a basic entitlement. My considered belief is that the officials in the Minister's Department had a national curriculum document tucked away in their drawers which they then hauled out as the quid pro quo for what they saw as some rather dangerous proposals to allow freedom to schools, which they would never have considered in a hundred years if they were not to get something in return. The national curriculum was the balance for the freedom that we wanted to give schools through local management of schools and grant-maintained status. You may feel that I am veering too far into history, Mrs. Adams, but it is sometimes important to put such matters on the record.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We know who was to blame.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Yes, we know who was to blame. If I may say so, it was neither my noble Friend Lord Baker, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, nor I.

The amendment brings the objectives of the national curriculum back to basics. It requires schools to observe those basics without being constrained by the highly artificial and dangerous superstructure that was erected on those few words. I confess that I would like schools to experiment just as widely with the curriculum that they offer as they do with teachers' pay and conditions and other aspects of legislation, in the interests of innovation and raising standards. They do not need to deliver the American west in year seven. They do not need to deliver the curriculum through IT, as long as they deliver a basic entitlement. At the moment, I understand that Rudolph Steiner schools are prevented from being absorbed into the maintained sector because they do not wish to deliver through IT at an early age, and they do not recognise that as necessary. The amendment sets out exactly the kind of provision to which pupils should be entitled, without restraining schools as they are currently restrained.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had an interesting debate on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has been especially informative, and one of the things that we discovered from his remarks was that whoever was in charge of the Department of Education and Science in 1987—as the Department for Education and Skills was called at the time—it certainly was not the Ministers. Of course, nobody would say that now.

May I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to clause 6, as he was suggesting that once a school has met the performance criteria it will have untrammelled freedom to do whatever it likes? That is not the case. As I said at the outset, the freedom that is available is tightly circumscribed—schools will be able to take advantage of designated exemptions and modifications under clause 6.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 propose that schools cannot earn autonomy in respect of the general requirements of the curriculum. They refer, respectively, to clauses 74 and 75 for England, and clauses 95 and 96 for Wales. I am grateful to Opposition Members of both parties for tabling those two amendments, as they raise important points, and provide an opportunity for me to put some important responses on the record. I hope that I can persuade Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary. If Committee members turn to the relevant clauses, they will see that that part of the Bill—in part 6—comes under the heading

''General duties in respect of the curriculum''.

Clauses 74 and 75, to which the amendment refers, come under that heading. Only when we reach clause 77 does the heading

''The National Curriculum for England''

appear. The Welsh clauses are structured in the same way. Clause (5)(3) states:

''In this Chapter—

''curriculum provision'' means—

(a) in relation to a maintained school maintained by a local education authority in England, any provision of the National Curriculum for England''.

In other words, subsection (3) relates to clause 77 and subsequent clauses in the case of England, and to clause 93 and subsequent clauses in the case of Wales.

Subsection (3) does not relate to clauses 74 and 75, which relate to England and are referred to in clause 29. Nor does the subsection relate to clauses 95 and 96, which relate to Wales and are referred to in amendment No. 30. Under the Bill, schools can earn autonomy only in respect of the national curriculum. The clauses referred to in this group of amendments do not deal with the national curriculum but are restricted to the general requirements of the curriculum.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the question of religious education. Clause 76(1)(a) mentions

''provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school...as apply in relation to the school''.

That is also outside the scope of the variations identified in clause 5, so I reassure him on that point.

The two broad aims of the school curriculum are set out clearly in ''Curriculum 2000''. First, it should provide all pupils with the opportunity to learn and achieve. Secondly, the curriculum should promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and prepare all pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. We remain committed to those aims.

I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised in amendments Nos. 29 and 30, but our discussions have ranged over more than just those amendments. When we discuss the amendments tabled to clause 6, we shall have a wide-ranging debate on the nature of the exemptions available under the provision. I shall be interested to hear the views expressed in that debate. We shall consult on those points in the coming weeks.

Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would ensure that no school that earned autonomy under the Bill's provisions could earn autonomy from the provisions for charging for school activities, which are set out in

sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996. I reassure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that no maintained school will be able to operate outside those charging provisions.

Sections 449 to 462 will remain in force for schools that have earned autonomy as well as those that have not. That is because ''curriculum provision'' is defined in subsection (3) as

''any provision of the National Curriculum''

for either England and Wales. That definition is contained in sections 353 to 369 of the 1996 Act, which will be replaced by clauses 77 to 92 for England and clauses 93 to 114 for Wales, and by orders and regulations made under those clauses. The Bill does not provide the power for the regulations to extend to sections 449 to 462 of the 1996 Act. I hope that that is clear.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. The best that I can say is that the matter is as clear as it can be. Will he give an assurance that schools would not have the leeway to apply for exemption from education legislation under part 1? Would it be possible for schools that benefit from exemptions in connection with innovation to suspend the requirements of the Education Act 1996?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting and important question. As I have repeatedly said, chapter 1 clearly enables the Secretary of State to make provision that would confer on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid, but I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education. That would not be raising standards as required under that part of the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been adequately reassured about the amendments. We now know that amendments Nos. 69 and 70 will not be pressed to a Division, but I hope that he is reassured about amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister, not least for resisting the temptation to highlight drafting irregularities under amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I appreciate the openness with which he has dealt with the broad points that have been raised.

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clear assurances that Ministers would not, in his words, ''ever seek to relax the relevant aspects of education legislation in order to allow charging''. However, he said earlier that he could speak only for the present Secretary of State. The Minister confirmed that, under part 1, the scope and breadth of the powers allowed for exemptions from education legislation in respect of innovation could be interpreted so broadly that it would be possible to end the principle of free education in the maintained sector. While that does not apply to clause 5 as it stands, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a cause for some concern. Members of the

Committee must reflect on agreeing to primary legislation that could remain on the statute book for a considerable time.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I say categorically, on behalf of my party, that under no circumstances would we do that. I hope that the h G would give the same reassurance on behalf of his party. Any future Government could repeal sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996, and that would have that effect, but I think that we would both wish to give the assurances that our parties would not do that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister is almost repealing the relevant section of the Education Act 1996. The Bill provides the power to repeal its clauses. Should I occupy his seat in the future, I would have no intention of charging for places in maintained schools. Given the outbreak of consensus and unanimity on that matter, which might extend to the Liberal Democrat spokesman at the end of this Bench, would now be a good moment to restate the commitment of all political parties to the principle of free education?

Before moving to the other amendments to which I shall allude briefly, I want to ask the Minister to reflect on whether it may be possible for the Government to table their own amendment at a later stage and put into the Bill a restriction that members of the Committee have agreed would be welcome. It would prevent any future Secretary of State, without recourse to primary legislation, from moving in a direction that we would all want to avoid.

I come now to amendments Nos. 20 and 30. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight speculated about the policy-making process in the then Department of Education and Science. The Bill may have dropped off a cliff with many open-ended powers and little detail on how they will be used because of its origins in the Downing street policy unit before the architects moved on to other things in June. We may never know, but perhaps we will be enlightened as to how the policy-making process works in the Department for Education and Skills.

We had a useful debate on the question of a balanced and broad curriculum. I was not seeking to ascribe views to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am grateful to him for clarifying one point. In considering the relaxation of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, we do not intend to depart from a broadly-based curriculum. We want genuine flexibility that could lead to a more appropriate form of education to interest 14 to 19-year olds who are not adequately engaged in the education process.

It may be appropriate to cite an example from my constituency. An excellent sports college, the Ashton-on-Mersey school, has a close relationship with Manchester United football club. I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is forming a crucifix with his fingers, and I am sure that he would want that on the record for the benefit of constituents who do not share his views. However, the benefit to the

school's prestige, the development of the sporting faculty and other curriculum areas is considerable. It also works effectively for the club to continue the broader education of some of its apprentices at the school. That is an interesting model of how the process can progress. I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's position on that and I endorse it.

The Minister pointed out the later clauses that protect a broad and balanced curriculum. Although I have reservations that protection does not remain for schools under part 1, I was satisfied by the Minister's helpful explanation of how it would remain for earned autonomy schools under clause 5. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Exemptions available to qualifying schools

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 25, leave out ''may'', and insert ''shall''.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 68, in page 4, line 26, leave out ''any curriculum provision'' and insert—

''any of such curriculum provisions as shall be prescribed by order approved under the affirmative resolution procedure''.

No. 44, in page 4, line 26, after second ''provision'', insert—

''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.

No. 12, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsections (1)(b) and (c) and insert—

''(b) designate the modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available as of right, and

may—

(c) designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provisions as attracting discretionary exemption''.

No. 45, in page 4, line 28, after second ''provision'', insert—

''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.

No. 46, in page 4, line 31, after ''provision'', insert—

''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.

No. 47, in page 4, line 33, after ''provision'', insert—

''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.

No. 35, in page 4, line 33, at end insert—

''except insofar as every school must demonstrate that the curriculum it offers remains consistent with the objectives of the national curriculum.''

No. 66, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—

''(f) provide for the manner in which statutory provisions in relation to the inspection of schools, and the publication of information relating to school performance shall be applied in relation to a school in respect of which an order under subsection 2 is made''.

No. 13, in page 5, line 13, leave out ''(1)(c)'', and insert ''(1)(b)''.

No. 14, in page 5, line 24, leave out ''(1)(b)'', and insert ''(1)(c)''.

No. 81, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—

''(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school.''

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

If the Minister were a charitable man, he would have spoken at length on clause stand part. However, I cannot expect quarter to be given if none is asked for.

The amendments would advance our key concern with the earned autonomy provisions: the exemptions related to school performance. In many respects, the phrase ''earned autonomy'' is not borne out by the Bill. We have rehearsed questions of ministerial discretion and the extent to which Ministers' opinions may be considered valid criteria. In clause 6, we see again that more discretion lies with Ministers than is appropriate or can readily be explained or justified, given their claims that they want an open and transparent process through which autonomy can genuinely be earned.

Amendment No. 11 deals with a specific aspect of ministerial discretion. In line 25 on page 4 of the Bill is the wonderfully open-ended word ''may''. The Minister says that autonomy will be earned through the fulfilment of appropriate, objective and transparent criteria. This evening, he has kindly undertaken to give the House before we complete our consideration of the Bill at least an inkling of what those criteria will be, for which I have thanked him.

However, even when we cross the initial threshold and achieve the criteria, and a school has seen whether it qualifies and whether its achievements will earn it autonomy, we reach another gateway in clause 6(1). It states:

''Regulations may for the purposes of this section...designate any curriculum provision''

and so on. Through the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14, my hon. Friends and I seek to restructure the clause. They would rearrange subsection (1) to differentiate the two paragraphs that set out exemptions as of right and the two that set out discretionary exemptions.

If something is exempted as of right, there should not be ministerial discretion as to whether regulations are produced to allow that exemption to take place. Being a fair-minded man, I am prepared to accept that Ministers should have the discretion that exists in the Bill if they are openly saying that something should be available on a discretionary basis. That makes perfect sense. If something is available as of right, however, it does not make sense that the Minister can choose not to make regulations to allow that to happen.

In wishing to re-order subsections (1)(a) to (d), I am seeking to change the burden on Ministers accordingly in order to ensure that current subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) are covered by a requirement that regulations shall designate as of right. For the two paragraphs (b) and (d), which provide for discretionary exemption,

the amendments leave the current wording that regulations may designate, which seems entirely sensible and appropriate.

The aim is to create a process that brings into play a dynamic that will impose certain obligations on Ministers, if the criteria that they have set out are met, instead of the stop-start process whereby Ministers examine individual applications to determine whether someone qualifies or whether a school has genuinely earned autonomy. It would increase the degree of certainty for schools, so that they can know what will happen as they move through the process. The amendments are particularly relevant.

Amendment No. 68 deals with the question of parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister raised the issue—perhaps with a degree of irony—and said that it was important. The amendment would require that regulations are introduced under an affirmative resolution procedure, rather than moved by Ministers under a negative procedure. While it is my intention to make life easier for schools, when possible and appropriate, I do not have a similar concern for Members of Parliament, who should do their job of scrutinising legislation. My amendment would increase the burden on Members of the House, who would be expected to earn their living by scrutinising the regulations under clause 6(1).

By accepting the amendments, we would improve the transparency of the Bill and the dynamism of the process. We would make life easier for schools, as they claim what they rightly regard, in many cases, as their entitlement to greater autonomy based on their performance and achievements.

Amendment No. 66 would create a power under clause 6(2) to provide for inspection of schools and publication of performance information. It is entirely consistent with the Official Opposition's approach to raising standards in schools. I was pleased that the Secretary of State, when challenged by one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading, confirmed her admiration of and gratitude for the actions of the previous Conservative Government in setting out the agenda for publication of performance data and ensuring rigorous inspection of schools. It would be a retrograde step if, under the earned autonomy provisions, we were to lose some of the levers and tools that are available for assessing schools' performance, particularly given that, as the Minister has said, some of the performance indicators might at least in part be the basis on which autonomy would be earned. If schools with earned autonomy did not have to continue to submit performance data, we would have no way of finding out about the effectiveness of the earned autonomy. We would not know whether the school continued to qualify for it, or whether a problem had arisen, making it appropriate to review the situation.

I should be interested in the Minister's comments. My hon. Friends and I would want the matter of earned autonomy to be dealt with by way of an open, predictable process in which schools would know where they stood. However, we would want a quid pro

quo; the public, Parliament and Ministers should have a right to know what was going on in the school that had been granted autonomy and how it was working. My amendment would provide for a power to prescribe measures for inspection and publication of performance data. As far as I can see, there are no such measures in the Bill.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to make some comments, with respect to amendment No. 35, about the future of the national curriculum. I have not been completely reassured by the Minister's comments.

Two possible scenarios seem possible. If the Bill is intended to allow a school the flexibility to modify its curriculum to reflect its desire to be innovative and specialised and to offer an additional dimension to its teaching while retaining the fundamental principles of the national curriculum, that is logical. However, if the Government want to bestow complete freedom to move away from the national curriculum, we need to understand that. If the former possibility is what is intended, clearer signposts should be provided to show that there will be limits on a school's ability to make radical changes to its curriculum that would override the basic provisions of the national curriculum.

If the Government intend the first of the two scenarios that I have suggested, the amendment does not amount to a radical change; it would draw the line between sensible curriculum modification and a move towards curriculum anarchy. If it is not intended that schools should be allowed to depart entirely from the national curriculum, the Minister should be able to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. I seek substantial clarification of the safeguards in the legislation that would stop a school from heading down a path so radically different from that of the national curriculum that it would fundamentally change the nature of the education that pupils received.

I strongly believe that the national curriculum has made a significant contribution to education. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has mentioned the limitations of the scope and nature of the curriculum. Nevertheless, it is essential for schools to have a fundamental platform on which to base their teaching if standards are to improve. I would feel deeply uncomfortable if the Bill did not close loopholes that might allow that platform to be removed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am listening with care, but I am not clear what my hon. Friend understands the objectives of the national curriculum to be.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I see the objectives as providing a basic set of signposts for schools about the teaching that they are expected to provide in basic subjects such as maths, English and so forth. It is a framework to enable schools to deliver the fundamentals of teaching, and we should ensure that that remains so. We do not expect many schools to move off at such a tangent that they radically change what they are doing. However, the legislation would allow a school to re-engineer its

curriculum entirely away from the standards set by the Government. A line should be drawn between freedom to innovate and freedom to make wholesale change in a way that changes the nature of teaching. That is the line that I hope we will not cross.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I shall speak about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and me.

Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 are probing amendments. They build on what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was trying to deal with in his amendments. I am trying to find out from the Minister whether the total limit of earned autonomy is simply the national curriculum and pay and conditions, or whether it will touch on other areas. In each of the amendments, I have sought to insert a phrase that broadens its scope. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, is he saying that earned autonomy extends purely into those two areas and nowhere else, and that the Government do not envisage any extension to it? Last weekend, head teachers spoke to me about issues including selection, admissions policies and religious education, particularly for children from single-faith schools who come into the maintained sector. I should like an assurance on the record that the Minister does not propose any extension in terms of earned autonomy. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Amendment No. 81 picks up the issues raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I understand his concerns. While I had grave reservations about what was done to us in 1988, we now, particularly after Lord Deering's review of the national curriculum and what has happened since, have a workable national framework. That has a number of advantages. My party and I still believe that it is too prescriptive and that schools need more flexibility within a broader framework. I think particularly of what constitutes a modern foreign language. It is quite insulting that we cannot use many eastern European or Arabic languages, which would be appropriate in certain areas. We seem to think of foreign languages as being only European—basically, French, German and Spanish.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Schools in my constituency tell me that it is no longer possible to recruit teachers of French, Spanish or any of the other modern European languages. The avenue that the hon. Gentleman is exploring might help solve some of the teacher recruitment problems.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I shall not rise to that.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell makes a valid point about what has been achieved. One achievement has been the recognition that today's society is much more mobile than previous ones. My family—and perhaps the families of those hon. Members who are 20 years younger than me—lived most of their lives in the same place. We grew up, went to school and went to work in the same areas, but that does not happen now. In some inner London

constituencies, one family in three moves each year. That is massive mobility. For that reason, stability in the curriculum is important.

The Minister has not yet made clear what parts of the national curriculum schools can disapply under part 1. I am sorry, Mrs. Adams, to have to speak about clause 80, which helpfully brings the Education Act 1996 up to date. Is the Minister saying that no school will be able to disapply the core subjects of mathematics, English and science in key stage 3, but that schools will have the opportunity to vary the foundation subjects, from technology to a modern foreign language, under the powers given in part 1, if not in parts 5 and 6? If they are not allowed to vary those subjects, what is the use of having that power?

I am trying to be objective and to accommodate the legitimate points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but we need to allow experiment. I must tell the Minister—this will take only an hour—that I visited Stockholm recently to look at secondary education provisions there. I visited a school with a significant number of Turkish immigrant children. It also had a fairly large population of Kurdish children and Finns and other nationalities that lived in the area.

Although Swedish, English and mathematics were the core national curriculum subjects, the head teacher decided that everyone would be taught in English, not Swedish. The whole curriculum was taught in a foreign language. In the playground, children spoke Swedish. At home, they spoke their mother tongue. At school, they were taught in English. I found that environment incredibly exciting and vibrant. If the Bill is applied literally, as the Minister suggests, we would not be able to do such things here. That would be a great sadness, because innovation can be enormously exciting. With amendment No. 81, I am trying to get clarity from the Minister on that important area.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, although he did not make this specific point, on the need to maintain a broad balanced curriculum for youngsters through to the age of 14 and the end of key stage 3. I have no objection to a subject framework, but we should not believe that a collection of subjects equates to a curriculum. A curriculum is far more than that, and I want schools to be able to approach those subjects in many different ways and deliver an exciting and vibrant curriculum to young people. They need to turn them on, particularly in those areas where they are not turned on and are opting out of school earlier and earlier.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

On modern languages and flexibility, I applaud what the hon. Gentleman said about considering other forms of languages and mother tongues in communities. However, I would like to address a situation that certainly exists in schools in my constituency, where children have huge problems with their mother tongue of English. No matter how much I might, in my heart, like all children to learn a second language, it concerns me greatly that some children who do not feel confident with their own language are placed under enormous stress by being expected to start on a foreign language as well.

Special needs children come in 1,001 varieties, but some have very difficult communication problems, particularly with their own language of English, verbal or written. I hope that that would be considered. Such consideration should not be absolute, but until children reach a certain level of competence in their own language, we should be mindful about pressuring them with a second one.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. A full debate is required to do justice to it. I agree with a significant amount of what she said. My personal view is that 11 is too late an age at which a child should start to learn a modern foreign language. If we genuinely want to engage young people in a foreign language, it must be done much earlier. I would like children to do something exciting with languages at the end of key stage 1.

I have reservations about some of the things that the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) have said about immigrants and language. Although I accept that the issue is important for young people, if we are going to integrate people whose first language is not English into our society, we must first recognise them as individuals, and recognise their culture, faith and language.

One of the exciting things that one finds in Scandinavia is a statutory right for children from other countries to be taught in their own language for a minimum time each week. That immediately says, ''We value where you've come from, your language and your heritage, and we will build on your skills.'' If we can combine both those ideas, we can start to do some exciting things.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I should like to finish, because time is short and I have strayed off piste.

In conclusion, the point before us is important and worth spending some time on.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had an interesting and valuable debate. The Bill provides for schools that have earned their autonomy to be trusted to take responsible decisions in partnership with their stakeholders over pay and conditions and the national curriculum, and our discussion has focused on the national curriculum. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to legislate for areas beyond those two. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked me a direct question about that. It may well be that, in due course, as a result of people taking up the power to innovate, we will come up with examples of successful innovations that we might want to apply more widely through the earned autonomy powers. If that were the case, we should want to look at the possibility of legislating further to include those freedoms within earned autonomy. The reassurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted from me was that if we were to do that we would have to come back with fresh primary legislation. I can give him that

assurance. Without any more primary legislation, the ability to exercise earned autonomy will be just in the two areas set out in the Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Could I ask the Minister to revisit the point that he made in responding to an earlier amendment that, on the expiry of exemptions under part 1, one of the mechanisms that might be employed to extend innovation for a further period would be to extend the earned autonomy regulations? Before he concludes, will he elaborate on which aspects of the earned autonomy provisions could be extended in that way in order to fulfil that objective?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It would involve expanding the list in clause 6(1)(a) to (d) and saying that we could designate some other provisions as well. Those would be available for exercise either as of right or on a discretionary basis under the terms of that part of clause 6.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I remind the Minister that he said to me in response to an earlier amendment that there were three different approaches that could be taken. The first was to use primary legislation, the second was an extension of the earned autonomy provisions and the third was a deregulatory order. Is he now saying that it could only be done through primary legislation extending the earned autonomy provisions, or could earned autonomy standing in its own right fulfil the objective that he described?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am not sure whether it is ''no'' or ''yes'', but the position is that to extend earned autonomy—the second of the options that the hon. Gentleman identifies—would require primary legislation. The regulatory reform order route would not, but extending earned autonomy would.

We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as simple and as unbureaucratic as possible. Wherever possible we should like to make those flexibilities available automatically. However, we have retained in clause 6 the ability to make both automatic and discretionary areas of exemption in the regulations, and the ability to respond to experience. We currently expect to make proposals for regulations under clause 6(1)(a), that is, exemptions as of right, not under clause 6(1)(b), the discretionary exemptions, nor under clause 6(1)(c), and to consult as to whether we want discretionary exemptions under clause 6(1)(d). I hope that that explains why it is appropriate to leave the word ''may'' in the first line of clause 6, rather than replacing it by ''shall''—that allows some flexibility about which of the four is implemented.

As far as possible, we would like the exemptions to be available as of right to schools that meet the criteria and therefore to minimise the discretionary elements of the list.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It would appear that the earned autonomy is a reward for performance, whereas the unearned autonomy is meant to raise standards. I say that because clause 1(1) mentions the objective of

raising standards, but only with reference to chapter 1. Does the Minister agree that the raising of standards is not one of the objectives of clause 6?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, I do not agree. Raising standards is an objective of the entire Bill, but because the discretionary aspect does not apply to earned autonomy, it is not necessary to specify that as a criterion. Schools that meet the criteria will be able to take advantage of the exemptions, but the purpose of their doing so will be the raising of standards. That theme runs through the Bill.

We had an interesting discussion of the national curriculum. That has been a feature of the landscape since 1988 and we heard something about its genesis in an interesting contribution. It is well understood by parents and pupils, and everyone associated with schools lives in the climate of entitlement that it has led to, and the common understanding that children need, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, a broad and balanced curriculum if they are to rise to the opportunities of the 21st century.

Earlier I read the aims of the national curriculum—about which an exchange took place on the Opposition Benches—as we set them out in curriculum 2000. We remain committed to the two broad aims that we set out there. We would not want to return to the days when pupils and parents had no idea what would be taught in schools. The hon. Gentleman's point about mobility is important in connection with that. However, we want to give successful schools greater freedom to provide a broad, balanced curriculum that suits them and their pupils.

We firmly believe in the place of the core subjects as set out later in the Bill: English, maths and science. They should remain the core curriculum. However, we need serious debate about what else might be considered part of the core curriculum for pupils in successful schools. We propose to consult on that issue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I envisaged that the core as set out later for key stages 1 to 3 would continue to be the core. The answer is yes. However, we think that there is scope for variation in the other, foundation, subjects.

I should have responded earlier to the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between key stages 1 to 3 and key stage 4. He will see that a distinction is made in the Bill; clause 80 deals with key stages 1 to 3 and clause 81 deals with key stage 4. That reflects the distinction that he has drawn and the need for us to be open to the idea of further flexibility with respect to key stage 4—for just the reasons that he and other hon. Members have given.

We heard an interesting debate between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I found the point of view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the more persuasive of the two. We are interested in the debate on freedoms in the present context, and will be consulting on it in coming weeks. I can give an assurance that we shall produce a

document setting out the options, as a basis for consultation, before the Bill leaves the House. I hope that that will help members of the Committee.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I welcome some of the reassurances that the Minister has given, but in many ways he has highlighted my greatest concern about the Bill—the extent to which the Government's word has to be taken on trust. So many of the provisions are indeterminate. They relate to matters on which the Government will consult, publish papers and create new guidelines. The legislation seems terribly imperfect, so I should welcome the Minister's comments on why it is necessary to leave so many important issues open. Why can such important legislation not to be more detailed and less of a wish list?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. As he takes part in more proceedings such as ours in the years ahead, he will find that what he describes is a common characteristic of them. Members of the Committee need to take a view on whether they think it right for the provisions to be in primary legislation. Beyond that, I am suggesting how we intend to use the powers set out. We will be able to spell out how we will do so in more detail before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I hope that what I have said is enough to show hon. Members that the measures will help to bring about the needed changes, on which there is wide agreement across the Committee.

My final point returns to some of the flexibility for which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough expressed an aspiration. I agreed with much of what he said, especially about the need to engage a large number of young people who cannot see the point of what they are asked to do in school. It might be possible to do so by disapplying programmes of study rather than subjects themselves. That is one option on which we shall want to consult in coming weeks.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister has not dealt with amendment No. 66, which relates to inspection and publication of performance information. I should be grateful if he would do so.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Amendment No. 66 was on the tip of my tongue. We do not want to dilute accountability through our inspection arrangements or performance tables. We do not believe that any exemptions given under earned autonomy will require statutory changes to the inspection system or to performance tables. When account needs to be taken of developments under earned autonomy, Ofsted can do so by issuing guidance to inspectors. We continually review the operation of performance tables to ensure that they accurately reflect the wide range of high-quality qualifications available. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

David Miliband (Labour, South Shields)

One thing that has troubled me about the last hour or so of debate is that the concept of earned autonomy has been treated as though schools either have it or do not. My understanding is that

schools will progressively achieve greater freedom across a range of issues as they become more successful. The Minister mentioned inspection. Am I wrong to think that the more successful a school is, the less regular the inspection cycle and the less intrusive the inspection regime will be? Should we not think of earned autonomy as a gradient rather than a switch that is turned on and off?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes and no. On some matters, schools that qualify for earned autonomy will be natural candidates for greater freedoms, and those will not depend on legislation. Light-touch inspections are certainly one successful example of that. However, that is outside the legislation. In terms of the legislation, the question is whether schools meet performance criteria. If the answer is yes, they can take up all the exemptions and modifications set out.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I shall not attempt to deal with all the long and diverse group of amendments. We have had a useful debate, and the Minister has genuinely done his best to answer the questions and points raised by hon. Members, especially in his response to amendment No. 66, which he was burning to give to the Committee. We are all grateful for his reassurances.

I want to comment briefly on the Minister's remarks about the amendments that I tabled to clause 6(1)(a) to (d). He helpfully enlightened the Committee about those aspects, which, even at this early stage, when the enabling legislation is still wet on the page, the Government either do or do not intend to use, or intend to discuss before making a decision.

During the course of the day, I have frequently amazed myself at how helpful I have been to Ministers—I have fallen over backwards to help them. My amendments would break down paragraphs (a) to (d) in a helpful way, in that the application of the word ''shall'' under my amendments would apply to paragraphs (a) and (c), of which the Government intend to make use and which deal with exemptions as of right. The word ''may'' would continue to apply to what are now paragraphs (b) and (d).

I do not intend to press the amendments to a Division, but I am slightly disappointed. We sought to add real context to the way in which decisions were taken and to reassure schools that they would proceed when they met the criteria and would not have to wait for Ministers to decide whether to allow them to proceed.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 66 has taken on enormous importance? The Minister accepted that, in terms of the foundation subjects of the national curriculum, the Government intend to be able to disapply programmes of study. That is an important breakthrough, because they would also, therefore, have to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in all those subjects.

That is a fundamental change, and it is a pity that the Press Gallery is not packed because it is the most important matter to arise today. If 50 per cent. of schools can have earned autonomy as a result of

achieving their five plus A to Cs and meeting the standards, and 80 per cent. are not operating under special measures or with serious weaknesses, 80 per cent. of schools can aspire, under earned autonomy, to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in terms of programmes of study. In relation to amendment No. 66, the inspection arrangements that exist would have to be changed dramatically to meet the new circumstances.

That is a major breakthrough, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. Brady: Indeed.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I leap to my feet in the dying minute. I urge the Committee to take careful note of the points that I made and the words in which I expressed them. I said that we would consult on options that would embrace the changes that I indicated. That is different from the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock till Thursday 13 December at five minutes to Ten o'clock.

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Chairman)

Bailey, Mr.

Brady, Mr.

Coaker, Mr.

Flint, Caroline

Francis, Dr.

Grayling, Chris

Heppell, Mr.

Kumar, Dr.

Laing, Mrs.

Laws, Mr.

Miliband, Mr.

O'Brien, Mr. Stephen

Purnell, James

Timms, Mr.

Touhig, Mr.

Turner, Mr. Andrew

Willis, Mr.