Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2002.

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

There is a request for a Programming Sub-Committee, and I propose to suspend the Committee for a few minutes to allow that meeting to take place. All those who are not eligible to remain in the Room must withdraw.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Committee [11th December] relating to programming, as amended [13th and 18th December] be amended by substituting for the entries for the ninth and tenth sittings the following—

9thClauses 44 to 48, Schedule 4, 11.20 am

10thClauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5,

Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, 5 pm

Clauses 57 to 61

We want the guillotine to move from 11.25 am to 11.20 am, and to fall between schedule 4 and clause 49.

Question put and agreed to.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government are trying to be as amenable as possible to the Opposition. The Minister was disappointed that we did not discuss all the clauses on Tuesday morning. We offered the Opposition an extra three hours to debate those items, if they would make up the time later in the evening. We did not disagree that the extra three hours would be useful, but we failed to get consensus because the Opposition decided that they would agree to the extra three hours only if we moved the middle knife. I conclude from that that they were happy to debate for another three hours, as long as we made no progress. That would seem to be illogical, except for the fact that I have a copy of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Conservative party chairman, which spells out the tactic of—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. This is not really a point of order.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I think when I have finished, Mr. Pike, you will see that it is relevant. It is important that we place on the record that Conservatives have adopted a tactic on Standing Committees of trying to take up extra time, while sending imperfectly scrutinised legislation to the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I am sorry but that tactic is outlined in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We have a short amount of time. I have already ruled that this is not a point of order.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I seek your guidance on another matter. Is it helpful for the Government Whip, in expressing his one-sided view in a highly prejudiced and silly manner, to refer to the discussions of the usual channels, which are intended to facilitate our proceedings? He quoted from a letter that I certainly have not seen. It is not the custom of the House to remark on any leaked letter. The Opposition are seeking to scrutinise an important flagship Bill under a timetable imposed by a majority on the Floor of the House that cannot be second guessed between elections. We are faced with an attempt to truncate discussions. Progress was certainly made at the last sitting, and it is completely tendentious of the Government Whip to suggest that there was any dragging out of proceedings. No tactic is being deployed in Committee that would even remotely equate to what he has suggested. The Opposition are making a genuine attempt to scrutinise the legislation properly.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We have spent enough time on this matter. While I understand the points that have been made, I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and I am committed to the agreed programming system, and I am sure that those arguments will be debated again when we come to decide whether the procedures, which are still experimental, should be made permanent. It would more appropriate to debate those points then.Clause 44 Admission forums

Clause 44 - Admission forums

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 29, line 6, at end insert—'Admission forums'.

I welcome you to our Committee, Mr. Pike. Your arrival coincided with a few moments of consensus across the Committee, which we seem to have lost. I am sure that amendment No. 210 will lead to a fresh outbreak of consensus. It inserts a heading into the text of the Bill. It has no impact on the meaning, but ensures that the format is in line with the rest of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will welcome it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike? I congratulate your town on having a fine victory in the FA cup on Saturday against Canvey Island. As a former Burnley trialist and as someone who grew up in the town, I am sure that you will bring a special glow to the proceedings and will support the comments that I am about to make.

I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether, during future consideration of the clause and the other clauses on admissions, he will consider the issue of schools that are part boarding and part day. I refer specifically to colleges such as Wymondham college in Norfolk, which has written to the Minister—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is speaking to amendment No. 233,

which stands in my name and is tabled for discussion under clause 45. That may be a more appropriate point for his discussion to take place.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I think that the point of order is valid, Mr. Willis.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I was just seeking an assurance from the Minister that that important issue will appear in future Government amendments.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We can deal with that when we discuss amendment No. 233. Would you agree, Mr. Timms?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes, I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in Government amendments, and it will be debated.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

As the Minister said, the amendment is uncontentious. I do not want to waste the Committee's time, but I would like to ask the Minister whether, in relation to amendments such as have been tabled and the more substantive parts of the Bill that will be debated today, he is willing to place on his Department's website a summary of where previous Acts have been amended. I refer to amendments to admissions policies because many people have told me that they find it difficult to consolidate schedule 4 or chapter 3 with previous enactments, especially if they do not have them to hand. They may have obtained a copy of the Bill, but not realised that they also needed copies of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Could the Minister make that promise?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

That request is made from time to time: it has not been made previously in this context, but I will carefully consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 29, line 8, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

The amendment gives scope for another outbreak of consensus. It would remove a requirement on local education authorities, and would enable them to make decisions that take account of appropriate circumstances in their area. There are more small local education authorities in this country than there used to be, and many now deal with only a few schools. The City of London and the Isles of Scilly are unchanged, but Rutland has only two secondary schools and the Isle of Wight has only five. If the existing arrangements work satisfactorily, we should not require LEAs to establish a system for determining admissions and other policies. We are fortunate in my constituency, because we do not have many admission authorities and there is no controversy about the arrangements. That is the case in several small LEAs, and my amendment would remove the mandatory requirement and allow them discretion.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I join hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. It brings back fond memories for me because the first

Committee I was appointed to, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, was chaired by you. Like the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I wish to refer briefly to football. Mr. Pike, I apologise for the fact that my football team destroyed yours by winning five goals to one in the Christmas period and now heads the first division. I hope that you will not hold that against me during our proceedings.

To return to serious matters, amendment No. 124 is consistent with other amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), in that it seeks to replace a mandatory requirement with a voluntary one. Our view on the issue is straightforward. The vast majority of stakeholders who responded to the consultation believe that we must improve admissions co-ordination and communication throughout the country. Admission forums are an appropriate structure for doing that.

We made it clear in the documents that we circulated that admissions decisions will remain with the admissions authorities. However, the measure is in the best interests of pupils and parents, who experience significant difficulty with admissions from time to time. We should remember that the issue may be stressful for parents. Rightly, a major concern of parents is the education of their children. It can be a worrying and anxious time for both pupil and parents if there is confusion or ambiguity about the school that the child will end up in, and if the parents do not have knowledge of that in good time. Mandatory admission forums in all parts of the country are appropriate and, on that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I did not hear anything that shows the need for the arrangement in every local authority up and down the country. The chapter does not refer to the City of London or the Isles of Scilly. There is only one school in the City of London and, I believe, only one school—it may be a secondary school—in the Isles of Scilly. Admissions arrangements are sometimes contentious in authorities with a small number of schools, but the problems would not have been solved by a forum. The contention was between a majority who accepted what was proposed and a minority who did not. The majority view will be represented through a forum in exactly the same way as it is through the local education authority at present. The Minister has not explained why a forum is necessary in my constituency, the Isles of Scilly or Rutland.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I am tempted to respond that size does not matter, but that might be regarded as frivolous. Smaller authorities have the power under the legislation to join a neighbouring, perhaps larger, authority to create an admission forum. If an authority decided that an admission forum of its own was not necessary or appropriate, it could join a neighbouring authority to create a larger forum that would be more serviceable and use resources more sensibly. I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's problem.

The Government carried out comprehensive, extensive consultation. Of those who responded, 78 per cent. thought that the proposal was eminently sensible and accorded with their experience of

admissions over the years. What is contentious about legislating to introduce a structure that supports good co-ordination, better communication and will help to remove the significant stress and anxiety that parents and pupils too often experience in this country? Problems do not arise in every authority but they do in several. That is why we want to provide a structure to minimise, if not eliminate, the possibility of problems arising in the future. Surely we have a duty and responsibility to do so, particularly when the proposal enjoys widespread and consensual support among most of the relevant stakeholders in the education sector.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am tempted to ask the Minister how many responses the 78 per cent. represents. He is now talking about the majority of stakeholders and I doubt whether 50 per cent. of all the parents, teachers, school governors and local education authorities in the country responded. The Minister is talking about a majority of a self-selecting group of respondents to a Government consultation exercise that was conducted with many other such exercises. As consultation exercises always do, it consisted of impenetrable papers and complicated jargon quite inaccessible to the majority of users of the education service.

I would like to know how many of my constituents responded to this exercise. The Minister has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the education system in parts of the country. My local education authority does not have a neighbouring authority to which it would be convenient to join for creating an admissions forum. The Isles of Scilly may have a neighbouring authority even further away than mine, as it takes 45 minutes to travel to the mainland. It would be absurd to set up a joint Cornwall-Isles of Scilly forum, on which Cornwall would have an overwhelming preponderance of representation and the Isles of Scilly would be lucky to have one primary school governor in a corner. That would not represent the Isles of Scilly, but it would be equally absurd for the isles to set up its own admissions forums.

The Minister has provided no evidence of the need for such forums. The fact that local education authorities established so few admissions forums when they had the power to do so, demonstrates further that they had no desire to set them up at all. The Minister has not made a case for this proposal in any shape or form.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I cannot promise, but I will attempt to provide the hon. Gentleman with a breakdown of responses to the consultation exercise or write to him to provide the information. If I displayed an astonishing lack of understanding of the world of education, it is not as bad as displaying an astonishing lack of knowledge of one's own constituency.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but the Isle of Wight specifically expressed an interest in establishing a joint forum with another education authority [Hon. Members: ''Ah''.] It is bizarre that while I am learning the trade, the hon. Gentleman remains blissfully unaware that his own constituency expressed interest in going down the road open to smaller education authorities, if they feel it is appropriate. The hon. Gentleman rubbished that as

an option and implied that it was a nonsensical suggestion that would not work in most cases. Only this week—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make a couple of phone calls to confirm it—his local education authority expressed interest in forming a joint forum.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

No, the Minister will not.

It all reinforces the point that was made at the outset of our proceedings. The Government believe that it is appropriate to put the measure in legislation, because it will aid co-ordination and communication. The hon. Gentleman feels that that is not appropriate and wishes the voluntary arrangement, which LEAs can opt into, to remain. That is the difference between us. If the hon. Gentleman presses the amendment to a Division, we can all place our views on the record, but I ask him to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has offered some additional information, which I should be grateful to receive before the Report stage. [Interruption.] He promised me information about the number of representations made from my authority, which I should like to see. 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. 330, in page 29, line 19, at end insert 'including religious observance'.

I did not move amendment No. 331, but I am sure that the Minister would have been extremely disappointed if I had not moved amendment No. 330. This is a probing amendment, because it is important at this stage to ask the Minister to place on the record the Government's thinking, particularly about faith schools and the way in which admission arrangements will be organised in the light of their declared intention and the Minister's strong support for a significant expansion of faith schools.

I agreed when the Minister said in response to amendment No. 124 that admissions were an incredibly stressful issue for parents and children. I do not know whether you were a pupil in Burnley years ago, Mr. Pike—from your accent, I suspect that you were not—but those of us who were remember that time clearly. My brother went to Rose Grove secondary modern school, but I passed the 11-plus and went to Burnley grammar school. The huge divisions in our family and the community as a result of the awful day when the 11-plus results were announced at Rose Hill primary school are ingrained in my heart and memory. Other hon. Members will have similar recollections, so admissions problems are not new. At that time, there was a simple way of deciding who went to which school. Those who passed the 11-plus went to a particular school, and those who did not were allocated to another. Off my brother went to the secondary modern without a uniform or a bus, while I had my cap, badge, socks and all the rest.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

Socks?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Yes, we had socks as well. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not remember the days when we

were required to have our house colours on the top of our socks. In addition, we were not allowed to wear long trousers until we went into the sixth form, and as I was 6 ft 2 at the age of 13, that was something of a problem. [Interruption.] We were allowed to wear short trousers; we did not go to school in just our underpants. In fact, we were so poor that we could not afford underpants.

Admissions forums are not new, and it was rather disappointing that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) did not—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I hope that hon. Members with mobile phones or other audible devices will put them on vibrate mode while they are in Committee.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not press his amendment. Although there were some positive responses to the consultation on admissions forums, they were by no means overwhelming, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Many of us feel that forcing local authorities to accept a particular form of organisation is unacceptable. They are perfectly capable of organising admissions, as they have done for decades, in a modern way that is compatible with Government thinking. However, the clause provides for admission forums.

The job of the forums will change as a result of the powers to innovate. The Minister has failed to take one factor fully into account. If significant changes are made to the way in which schools innovate and a plethora of new specialist schools exercise their 10 per cent. right to select by aptitude—technically speaking, half the schools in Britain could do so by 2005—so we have an acceleration of voluntarily aided, single faith schools with their own admission arrangements, we will have a different situation from the one for which the Minister is legislating in the Bill. The job of the forums would become incredibly complicated. It is important, therefore, that we give them and local authorities as much flexibility as possible in deciding the overall framework for admissions. That is partly the reasoning for the amendment.

I congratulate the Minister on the school admissions regulations for the admission forums. They were very helpful and answered many of the questions on which I was lobbied when the Bill was published. I have one question, which is that if a school, at the request of its governors, were taken over by a private sector company, would members of that company's board be allowed on the admission forum in the category of

''other persons, not being members of the LEA but who appear to the core members to represent the interests of any section of the local community''?

That is an important issue and I should like the Minister to respond to it.

Page 2 of the proposals details the

''Issues for forums to consider and advise on'',

and provides an extremely helpful list. Throughout, it says that schools are part of broader communities, not just entities in their own right. The list includes

''how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of local children and parents; reaching local agreement on new or controversial issues; the comprehensiveness and accessibility of the LEA's admissions literature and information for parents; local co-ordinated arrangements'',

and all point rightly to the fact that the forum and the LEA must take wider issues into consideration when developing an admissions policy. It is helpful that the Government have made that clear.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the creation of more single faith schools could have a serious impact on other schools' admissions. One does not have to be a genius to work out that in an authority like mine, where there are six high quality comprehensive schools, of which two are church schools, the creation of another church school would have a significant impact on the schools that are not single faith. That is stating the obvious; it is not rocket science to work that out. I am arguing that the admission forums and local authority should be able to consider grounds of religion in deciding the admissions policy.

Although you are slightly older than me, Mr. Pike, we are both of an age to know that faith schools have been around a long time. Following the Education Act 1870, there was an attempt to fill the gaps in primary education that were left by the National Society, which provided Anglican schools, and the British and Foreign School Society, which provided non-conformist schools. It was not until Butler's Education Act 1944 that we saw the present arrangements for funding secondary schools and school transport. Those who take a keen interest in the issue—as many Committee members do—will know that most of the school transport arrangements arose from the 1944 Act.

Since then, there has been a general concordat that in return for funding and transport, there would be no expansion of faith schools, particularly at secondary level. That worked extremely well until the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which let the genie out of the bottle. It made it clear that other faiths could receive state funding for the establishment of schools in the same way as other voluntary-aided schools from the Church of England, Roman Catholic Church and the Methodists. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had little option at the time, and Liberal Democrat policy supported him. It was illiberal to say that Anglicans could have schools but Muslims could not. I accept that point.

We have had some arguments about this, so I want to make it clear to the Minister that, like him, I speak from the basis of having a strong faith that has been an important part of how I conduct my life and business since I discovered it during my work in Chapeltown many years ago. I have no objection in principle to faith schools, and our policy is not to dismantle them and create a secular system. The amendment is aimed at trying to convince the Government that we cannot have an unbridled expansion of faith schools without

considering its impact. We must ensure that admission arrangements protect the broader community from segregation, of which we have seen the worst effects in Northern Ireland, parts of the United States and other countries where there is a sharp division in schools in religion and race.

Had the Government not made comments about wanting to extend the number of faith schools and encouraged the Church of England in its quest to establish another 100 secondary schools, we would not be having this debate. Everyone got along fairly well together, and there was no great demand from the Muslim community for single faith schools. The Minister can tell us how many have been created since 1998, but I believe that it is only three, so we are not talking about huge numbers. However, Lord Dearing's report, ''The Way Ahead: Church of England schools in the new millennium'' clearly showed that the Church of England wanted to create another 100 schools to fill the gaps and to be on a par with Roman Catholic secondary school provision. An argument in favour of that was that the Church of England has a significant number of primary schools. That is historic. The Church of England has generally provided primary education in villages throughout the country successfully and harmoniously. To be fair, the Roman Catholics have done the same, and there is no great problem with that. The issues arise at secondary level.

The problem has arisen through encouragement by the Prime Minister, who has been clear about his own faith and his belief in church schools. The Minister has also made his views clear. The Government's position was clear in the Green Paper and in the White Paper, and we have also had the Government's unilateral decision to reduce the capital requirement of faith schools from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. without any debate in the House of Commons. That was a major decision that affected the capital requirements of schools and directly affected local authorities, but there was no debate about it. The decision was taken by the Department for Education and Skills to further a policy that has appeared by stealth over the past two years.

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have stated openly that the basis for the Government's policy is their belief that church schools do better than other schools. I flatly refute that argument. There is only slim evidence that that is the case. The research paper that was produced for the Bill shows that examination results of five A to Cs are better in Church of England schools, and I accept that logic.

However, one must consider the make-up of Church of England secondary schools and the number of free school meals in those schools. It is a pity that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales is not here today, because the National Assembly has done some excellent research that shows that when the other factors are taken into account, church schools do not do significantly better than other schools.

It is clear that church schools do well because they have superb head teachers. There are two such schools in my constituency—St. Aidans and St. John Fisher—

which the Minister has visited. I regard Dennis Richards at St. Aidans as the best head teacher with whom I have ever had the pleasure to work. The school also has a largely committed parent body that supports the youngsters. If the catchment area is broadly middle class, the leadership is excellent and the parents are supportive, the school will be successful, because those are the ingredients for success. I defy the Minister to say anything different.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned my visit to St. Aidans in his constituency, which works closely with St. John Fisher. They jointly organise sixth form provision, which is a good example of partnership in which we envisage faith schools increasingly taking part. Given the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric about faith schools, I was impressed by the school and was intrigued to discover that the chairman of the governing body is his constituency assistant. She made a good speech that celebrated the value of the faith ethos of the school, which is rather different from the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman changing the policy of the Liberal Democrats? He has been hostile to the concept of faith schools up to now, but he sounds more accommodating this morning.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I object to those comments. The Government are thrusting a policy on us without debate, so I have every right to question and scrutinise it.

It is unfair of the Minister to bring my casework into the debate. That is rather below his usual standards. I have always been at pains to point out that some church schools are brilliant and turn out good products. Where I, Bishop Blackburn and Canon Hall, the chief executive of the Church of England's schools board, stand is fundamentally different from where the Minister stands. I believe that church schools, like those in my constituency, should be run by faiths for communities. They should not be run for faiths, which is fundamentally different.

One positive aspect of religion—and it applies not just to the Church of England or Roman Catholicism, but to Islam, Sikhism and Greek Orthodoxy—is that it brings value systems into schools. I have no objection to using such values as part of a school's ethos, but I have a fundamental objection to the state paying for the promulgation of a faith within a school. That is wholly unacceptable.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My understanding of the two excellent schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that they have a 100 per cent. faith requirement. Is that not associated with the high level of parental commitment that he identified as being at the core of their success?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I have already admitted that. I acknowledged that various factors contribute to highly successful schools—mainly middle class catchments, supportive parents and excellent leadership with a clear direction. A faith is not necessary to achieve success. King James's school in Knaresborough is another brilliant school in my constituency with a real sense of purpose and direction achieved through its technology and

teacher training status and so forth. I am most proud of the fact that my constituency has the largest ecumenical sixth form in Britain.

I disagree with the Secretary of State who said on Second Reading that faith schools should have tangential relationships with each other; it should be a fundamental bringing together of Roman Catholics, Church of England and others. Both schools in my constituency include some youngsters who do not have a faith. It is simply not the case that 100 per cent. have a faith. Surely the Minister would accept that.

We should not be encouraging schools to be run for faiths, but promoting the coming together of faiths. We want far more ecumenical work in schools. We should encourage the multi-faith schools that have been so successful in Liverpool, which is very much a polarised city in terms of religion. The Minister should visit Liverpool to see those schools at work.

The amendment is designed to question the Government's thinking. An excellent research paper points out that support for more faith schools has not come from the public. An NOP survey showed that only one in 10 people were strongly supportive of having more faith schools. The National Union of Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the Local Government Association have all strongly questioned whether the policy will bring communities together and offer a broad education.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that those organisations have not supported an increase in faith schools, what about the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities at grass roots level? Those groups want that increase, and in those circumstances it is difficult for the Government to push the process forward. He has overlooked that.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I regard him as a friend in this House, but I have not disregarded that. I visit Bradford often, and I also visited Oldham and the hon. Gentleman's constituency recently. I accept that elements of those communities have made demands. It would be absolutely wrong to say that the massed ranks of the Muslim community want their children educated in Muslim schools. When I visited Dixons city technology college in Bradford, it was interesting to meet Muslim, Sikh and Hindu youngsters who declared that they and their parents wanted good schools. They were happier to work with their white counterparts in Bradford, rather than being in ethnic ghetto schools, which was the exact phrase one of them used. The evidence is, and the Minister knows it full well, that fewer than one in 10 people regularly go to church or are a member of a single faith group. The national demand that the Prime Minister—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman about that last point. As participation in organised religion has undoubtedly declined, it is interesting that the number of parents wanting to send their children

to faith-based schools has increased considerably. Does that not say something powerful about parental choice?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I have allowed you to range widely, as I think that you have recognised, Mr. Willis. I hope that you will now return to the amendment and move towards a conclusion.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

You have been most generous, Mr. Pike, but the Committee will appreciate that the issue is important. I am grateful to the Minister for raising that point because it is the big flaw in his argument. The Minister must listen to my answer: if he considers his league tables, he will notice that at the bottom of those tables—which I find quite abhorrent—are a significant number of church schools. That is absolutely true. If the Minister can tell me that there is a clamour from parents who want to go to those schools, I shall sit down, but there is not.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

No, I want to finish making my point. Parents want their kids to go to good schools. I want any community to have access to good schools.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Gentleman did not address the specific point that I raised. Never mind league tables or other diversionary issues: it is a fact that as adult participation in organised religion has declined—there is no dispute about that—the percentage of parents who choose to and wish to send their children to a faith based school has significantly increased. That is a fact.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With the greatest respect, the Minister knows that that is not a fact. Neither he nor his Department have any evidence to support it because they have not collected statistics to back it up. The Department said that it thinks that that is the case. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will jump to his feet now and tell me that the 161 grammar schools—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

One hundred and sixty-five.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The number has increased since our last debate. Significant numbers of children apply to go to the 165 grammar schools, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman—

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is getting exciting. I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Rossington high school in my constituency. It is not near the top in any league table for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, such as the catchment area, which is a poor mining village. However, the school is applying to become a Church of England secondary school.

The hon. Gentleman earlier raised the matter of admissions policies. Will he comment on the statement made by the diocese in response to the question,

''Would not a church school be divisive and deny places to children who were not of the faith?''

In reply, the diocese said:

''The ultimate aim is the establishment of an inclusive school that serves all the Rossington community and is a positive force in the school's quest for continual improvement in attainment.''

It also said that although it may be open to children of the faith outside the catchment area, the children of Rossington will come first in terms of the admission policy, whether they are of the faith or not.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I could kiss the hon. Lady. She has succinctly supported the amendment, the aim of which is not to stop the expansion of faith schools. I will do that at another time and in another place. What I propose is not controversial—the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) put her finger on the button. I want faith schools of the future to be inclusive, not to become exclusive and to turn away at their gates children of the local community because they are not of that faith or because they are of other faiths. It is abhorrent that a school in a largely Muslim area deliberately sets out to deny Muslim children access to the school. It is equally abhorrent that in one Lancashire Church of England school—I will not name it in Committee, but I shall do so privately if anyone asks me to do so—the policy deliberately sets out to stop people of a different denomination of that faith from getting in because they are not good enough to go to that school. That is not acceptable, and it should not be acceptable to a Labour Government.

The admission forum and the local authority should have the right to tell all their schools that they cannot be entirely exclusive in terms of their faith. As the Cantle report on the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, and as Lord Ouseley recommended, all the schools should be obliged to take children of other faiths and of no faith. If the Minister is right that people are clamouring to get their children into those schools, we should consider why they are doing so. We should ask what is the quality of the school's leadership and what it is they offer, which should be open to all. Youngsters in many constituencies, including yours and mine, Mr. Pike, are denied access to the so-called good schools by an accident of birth. That is not right.

The amendment seeks from the Minister an assurance that in future no church school will deny children access because they are not of that faith or of have faith.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. It is a pleasure to see you, although I hope that we have not worn out two Chairmen already. I am sure that we have not, because they are such estimable Chairmen.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on the amendment, so I intend to be brief. Initially, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough went very wide by recalling the old debate about grammar schools and secondary moderns. He took us right back to the 1950s or perhaps even earlier.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The 1870s.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Indeed. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman's good fortune was to go to school wearing socks, while his brother was forced to go to school sockless. I cannot help observing that had his parents had his egalitarian zeal, they would have given

each child one sock, which would have been a fairer outcome, but enough of that.

I am sure that we shall return to the question of faith schools later in our proceedings and perhaps later in the Bill's progress, but it is important to comment briefly now on the official Opposition's position. We support, and have always supported, the freedom of parents to have the maximum choice in the schools that are available to them.

I have not checked the Hansard record of the Committee that considered the School Standards and Framework Bill in 1998, but I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I tabled an amendment that was designed to facilitate schools of whatever faith community becoming part of the maintained sector. I cannot recall whether the amendment was selected, but we have always been clear, as has been said, that it would be wrong to allow Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, but not Muslim or other faith schools.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough seems to have reached the position, which I am not sure is tenable, that faith schools are acceptable and perhaps even a good thing as long as they have no faith requirement or overly religious content.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I never said that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The hon. Gentleman's position is clear. He does not feel that it is acceptable for schools to specify the pupils whom they admit on grounds of faith, but it is difficult to see how a Church of England school with no Anglican children could function as a faith school in a meaningful sense.

I think that the Minister for School Standards is in a different part of this territory. In an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, he said that underlying the strong parental involvement in and support for schools in Harrogate and Knaresborough was the near 100 per cent. faith involvement in those schools.

The Conservative party's position is that schools must largely have control of their admissions policies. It would be dangerous to suggest that faith schools be prohibited from selecting their intake on the basis, partly at least, of pupils' faith.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

The hon. Gentleman's party supports faith schools, and he says that it is important to have people of the relevant faith in those schools. Does he believe in religious education or religious instruction in those schools? There is a wide gap between the two, and the answer to that question will determine his party's position.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue may go even wider than that to the ethos of the school, what we have a right to expect a maintained school to teach and how we would expect such a school to educate pupils in the broadest sense. Apart from the national curriculum requirements, which might be suspended for some schools, according to earlier discussions in the Committee it is legitimate to impose equality of treatment for boys and girls and other requirements and expectations. It is proper that faith schools should

be able to instruct in their faith and maintain the religious ethos of the school.

We each have the perspective of our own experience. There are Church of England and Roman Catholic primary schools and three Roman Catholic secondary schools in my constituency. The environment in which they operate gives the lie to anyone who makes the superficial argument that faith schools per se cause social or religious divisions within a community. Clearly, they do not. The Blessed Thomas Holford school, an extremely good Roman Catholic high school in Altrincham, has been in the maintained sector for a long time. My constituency also has two Roman Catholic grammar schools, St. Ambrose college and Loreto convent school. As a brief aside, that school was an independent school maintained by charitable trusts. It was so attracted by grant-maintained status that it opted in to the maintained sector. That is a good illustration of the attractiveness of the former grant-maintained regime.

The diversity of provision works well in the interests of local parents who can make a choice about the schooling of their children on the basis of religion, as well as other aspects.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned diversity. On the principle of diversity, would his party support a Muslim faith school that decided that the girls should wear the hijab?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I made it clear in my earlier comments that there are expectations which may appropriately be placed on maintained schools regarding, for example, equality of treatment for boys and girls. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a case regarding the wearing of school uniforms at the Secretary of State's former school. Such an issue is difficult and must be handled with sensitivity. The school handled it sensibly, and came to a reasonable settlement that maintained the ethos of the school. It was not a Muslim school.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

So the hon. Gentleman believes in limited diversity, and that the demands of faith schools should be limited.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Inevitably, we must consider trade-offs when we discuss maintained schools and taxpayers' money. It is proper and reasonable for the state to have a view about what is acceptable in such schools. I do not advocate maintained schools of any religion or sect behaving in whatever way they see fit, without any regulation. However, it is crucial to consider why faith and church schools work well. Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools have worked well for many years. On principle, it would be wrong to deny such forms of education to those of other faiths, and I hope that all members of the Committee take that view.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend shares my experience of faith schools. Church of England schools tend to be better at supporting, encouraging and educating pupils of all religious backgrounds in the full range of religious beliefs, knowledge and understanding. In recognising

and being sympathetic to the various cultural dimensions of children of other religions, pupils develop a greater sensitivity towards other faiths in faith schools than in many non-faith schools.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Can we try to keep a bit closer to the amendment before us? I know that they are important issues.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

These are important and far-reaching issues, but I shall certainly try to keep closer to the amendment. I have been led down various paths. I shall try to resist the blandishments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Crucially, there is a question mark over the genesis—if that is not an inappropriate term—of the Government's policy. I fear that the Government hit upon the idea of an expansion of faith schools based on the broad statistical fact that church schools tend to perform better than the generality of schools. They then fell into the trap of believing that church schools will be good schools, and that if more church schools are created the quality of education as a whole will rise. I caution Ministers not to believe that that is necessarily the case. Parents want good schools: that underlies the debate and the demand that the Under-Secretary flagged up. There is a dearth of good schools in many areas. If parents know of a good church school nearby, they will want to send their children to it or to one like it. There is a danger that the Government see the success of existing church schools as an easy route to raising standards overall.

I said at the outset that I did not want to speak at length. We will deal with this issue on later amendments in more detail. It is an extremely important debate. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government's policy of allowing an expansion of faith schools where there is demand—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks. He is not addressing the fundamental part of the amendment. Does the Conservative party believe that school admissions policies should be able deliberately to exclude all children in those communities, other than those of a single faith?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I probably responded to the amendment very much in the spirit that the hon. Gentleman proposed it. We may have wandered from the particular words on the amendment paper. His last comment bears little relation to the substance of his amendment. Certainly, church schools and faith schools should be able to take faith issues into account in their admissions policies.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

One hundred per cent.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me where I do not want to go. We should stress the essentially liberal point that, if parents want a particular religious context for the education of their children, they should be able to have that whenever possible. It is worrying that the Liberal Democrat position now appears to be that faith should not be

taken into account in the admissions process of existing faith schools as well as new faith schools. That is regrettable. I support the Government's thinking, in so far as it enhances parental choice, but I give a strong warning that Ministers must not fall into the trap of regarding an expansion of faith schools as a shortcut or an easy route to raising school standards overall.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It is clear that this is an important and emotive issue. There are tremendous passions on all sides of the argument. It is appropriate that we use a variety of forums for a mature debate. Before addressing the wider issues raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough I shall respond to one or two of his specific questions. He asked me about the representation of private companies on the forum. If a private company is involved in a city academy or a city technology college, a representative of that company on its governing body would be eligible to stand for election to the forum, but only in his capacity as a governor of the institution. A head teacher of one those institutions would have the same right to be a member of an admission forum in that capacity, but not as a representative of a private company per se.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Could a representative of 3 E's, which runs the Kings College in Guildford, be a member of the forum, not as a head or governor but as one of those other persons

''not being members of the LEA who appear to the core members to represent the interests of any section of the local community''?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

If it were felt that a private sector company played a significant role in education within the relevant area, although not linked to an individual institution, the forum could decide that it was appropriate to include a representative of that company.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the reduction in capital liability of voluntary-aided schools from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent., there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether that is a desirable objective. We made it clear in our election manifesto that that was our intention. It is unfair to accuse us of not allowing or encouraging any form of debate in the House. The measure will be implemented through a regulatory reform order procedure. There will be the opportunity to have a significant and comprehensive debate.

I turn now to faith schools. Unless I missed it, both hon. Members who spoke ignored one important issue. Since 1997, a number of the requests to become voluntary-aided schools and to move into the maintained sector have come from schools that were operating in the private sector without any requirement to deliver the national curriculum and without being subject to the same accountability, transparency and standards. That is an important factor to take into account in the context of the debate. Many parents choose to send their children to private sector schools because of their religious or cultural ethos. Surely it is good if pupils attending those schools return to the state sector. It is in the best

interest of pupils to have access to the same curriculum, standards and inspection regimes and, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, to feel part of the family of schools in the community.

It is right to find ways of bringing pupils back into the maintained sector. We should be realistic and honest enough to acknowledge that parents who choose to send their children to private faith schools would be unlikely to send them to schools in the maintained sector if the faith-based option were not available to them. Parents' beliefs and values are important, so maintaining faith-based schools within the state sector provides a viable and valued option.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is extremely knowledgeable about the whole education sector and he is an individual of great integrity. I say that not just to butter him up. However, an intellectual inconsistency is evident in what he and others say about faith schools.

Fundamental criticisms have been expressed in Committee and elsewhere about faith schools, which have existed for many years and made a massive contribution to education in this country. Arguing for change in a big way amounts to asserting that faith-based schools as historically and currently constituted have made and are making a negative contribution to society. If faith schools are making a negative contribution to community cohesion and relationships between people, it would be far more honest—and politically brave—to come off the fence and admit it.

Single faith schools most concern the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. As I understand it, the majority of faith schools through history have been predominantly single faith. It is perfectly respectable and reasonable to criticise such schools on the basis that the concept of a single faith school is negative and undermines the very fabric of the society that we all want to live in. That is a consistent argument, but it is inconsistent to maintain that position while acknowledging that some single faith schools are good.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments.

I shall try to explain my views in a nutshell. The Minister has mistaken my position and that of my party. I want children who are not linked to a particular faith or who have other faiths to have access to good faith schools. I want the Government to ensure that no faith school can, through its admissions policy, discriminate against children of other faiths or of no faith. Kids in my and other constituencies should have access to those schools irrespective of their particular faiths. The Minister seems unable fully to appreciate that concept.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should understand that some parents choose a particular school for their children precisely because it is a single faith school or predominantly of one faith. That is a significant part of a school's attraction to a parent. Whether we believe it is right or reasonable for parents to choose on that basis, we

must respect the principle of parental choice. Parents choose a school for a range of reasons.

I agree that it is wrong to present all single faith schools as good, or to claim that they are the only schools with a strong ethos, sound principles and good leadership. That is nonsense. Some faith schools are excellent and some are under-performing. However, if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that as many levers as possible should be put into the system to prevent the creation of single faith schools, he is effectively denigrating their contribution over many years to this country's education as negative, destructive and divisive. If that is what he is arguing, I respect his position, but I cannot agree with him.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

In a moment. I disagree with that analysis of the contribution that faith schools have made to the development of the British education system. Evidence suggests that such schools have met parental preferences and provided young people with high quality education. It is wrong to put those schools in a box labelled ''bad for society, undermines the fabric and cohesion of society''.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The record will show that I have never uttered any such comments about faith schools. I have been at pains to point out that some faith schools are excellent. Why cannot the Minister understand that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent faith schools from excluding youngsters of no faith or of other faiths? Parents in a local community who want their children to go to the good church school should be able to send them there even though they do not share the particular faith. That is my point, not that faith schools are bad schools or harmful to society.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not say that. I am explaining my view of his perception of the historical and current contribution of single faith schools. The clear corollary of his and his party's position is that faith schools undermine the community and society that most of us want to create.

I want to make another point, though it does not relate to anything that the hon. Gentleman has said in Committee, and I respect the fact that he has not used these arguments. I disagree with the people who jumped on the bandwagon after 11 September and the summer disturbances in northern towns—including those in the constituency of our Chairman—and used those incidents to justify their opposition to the principle of faith-based education. They used current events to justify an intellectual position that they had held before. The hon. Gentleman, to his credit, has not used that argument as a justification for the position that he and his party hold.

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

I am not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon. As a liberal humanist all my life, I have seen the danger of faith schools. I understand the Minister's point, but the recent examples that we have seen in Northern Ireland have worried me. The

division between the Catholic and Protestant communities is an example on our doorstep.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We are having an important debate about crucial issues that prompt strong feelings on both sides of the Committee. The matters must be dealt with, whether now or later. I make no criticism of the Minister, who has given a full response to what was a full opening speech by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I spoke briefly in the debate, and I do not think that the Government Whip or any other Member could believe that Opposition Members have attempted to delay proceedings this morning.

However, under the programme motion that was agreed first thing this morning, a knife will fall in approximately 19 minutes. Given the way that discussions are proceeding, I would be surprised if clauses 45 to 48 and schedule 4 were not left unconsidered by the Committee. Important amendments have been tabled for consideration; I draw attention to amendment No. 233, which deals with the concerns of the state boarding school sector. If we do not reach such amendments, the Committee will have had no opportunity to consider adequately this part of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I am bound by the programme motion that was agreed by the Committee this morning. A change could be made only if a request was made to suspend the Committee for a short meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. I would be prepared to accept that, but otherwise I must follow what was agreed at the start of this morning's proceedings.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Pike, and I request a short meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

If there had been this concern, it should have been raised at the Programming Sub-Committee this morning, when we could have dealt with it. I tried to make this point earlier. We have offered the Opposition extra time on several occasions, but they have refused it, so they should not now complain about not reaching particular clauses or amendments. If they want to propose any amendment to the programme motion for extra time, we will be happy to consider it. If they want to start early, work late or even sit on a Wednesday, we will consider it. I must point out that the information from the Opposition, which in effect said that they would try deliberately to—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Unless the Government indicate that there is any useful purpose served by suspending Committee for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, there is no point in me allowing it. At this stage, I cannot see any indication of that possibility. That does not stop any informal proceedings, and if the Government Whip indicated within the available time that a suspension would be useful, I would be prepared to allow it. However, we do not have much time.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I was hoping to intervene on the amendment and did

not do so because we were having an extremely wide debate. I am not criticising you, Mr. Pike, but much of it was wide of the amendment, particularly the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. His contention of what the amendment would provide for is simply inaccurate. New clause 4, which has mysteriously disappeared from the amendment paper, would have provided for that debate. The hon. Gentleman seems to have chosen to use that debate for this amendment.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. This is my first Committee in the Chair, and I was extremely lenient during the debate. I cannot turn back the clock. The only procedure that I could follow would be for a short suspension of Committee for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. If the Government Whip indicated that it would serve any useful purpose, I would be prepared to accept that, otherwise we are just wasting what is already limited time.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I shall try to move on swiftly. I pointed out what I believe is consistent with the position that was articulated by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. [Interruption.] This is a first in my experience: a walkout by the Official Opposition.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It should be recorded that the Conservative Front Bench spokesmen have walked out of the Committee and are not using what little time—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The point has been made.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

This issue will continue to be debated, but I must respond to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), which I failed to do earlier. We would all accept that the behaviour and actions of people in Northern Ireland in recent weeks is intolerable and heinous. The problems of Northern Ireland are much more complex and cannot be related merely to faith-based education.

That was my point in relation to Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. There are deep-rooted difficulties in some of our towns, and we have a responsibility to address them. I do not part company from those who have identified faith schools as an issue in the debate about why those disturbances occurred and how we bring together people from different religions, cultures and backgrounds. However, some people have claimed that faith-based education is the primary cause of such difficulties in communities and society. I do not accept that premise.

I remind the Committee of the basis on which a new school must apply if it wishes to establish itself in the maintained sector. It would have to apply to a local school organisation committee, which would then decide whether the creation of the new school was in the interests of, broadly, the local community and, narrowly, the family of schools. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough knows that the Secretary of State has given some initial suggestions on the guidance that will be available to those committees, although more detail will follow. That guidance will make it clear that a new faith-based

school must demonstrate either a partially inclusive admissions policy or, if it does not feel that that is appropriate, a commitment to and strategy for working with other schools in the area of another faith or no faith. A new school must be approved by the school organisation committee, which would make a statement about whether establishment of the school would be in the best interests of the local community. The decision would be made according to guidance from the Secretary of State, and would address the issues of collaboration and partnership and the need to bring young people of different religious and cultural backgrounds together. The introduction in September of citizenship education as a statutory part of the national curriculum will be an important step forward in encouraging young people to think about and discuss mutual respect and tolerance of people from different religious and cultural backgrounds.

I wish to conclude by telling the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that his amendment will not achieve the objectives that he articulated in his lengthy presentation. The legislation gives admission forums the power to form a view and express an opinion on admissions criteria for all schools, including faith schools. They will not be able to change admissions policies, but they will be able to express an opinion, which must be taken into account by the school. However, responsibility for admissions policy will remain with the school. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak. A considerable amount of the Committee's time has been wasted, because it appears that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough does not understand either the clause that he wishes to amend or his own amendment. The clause is clear on the powers of admission forums. It says that they can advise admissions authorities on

''such other matters connected with the admission of pupils'',

but he wants to add ''including religious observance.'' It is an advisory body, yet he wasted much time on new clause 4, which was on the amendment paper at the last sitting but has now disappeared for some reason.

At the beginning of the sitting, the hon. Gentleman attempted to discuss amendment No. 233. We would have reached it had he not so clearly misunderstood the purpose of clause 44 and his amendment. Neither of the objectives that he described in his introduction, the length of which the Minister noted, could have been achieved by the amendment. He wasted our time by trying to persuade us that that was not the case.

I share with the hon. Gentleman a great interest in the future of religious schools and in the Government's proposals for the creation of more faith schools. I do not necessarily share his opinions, but I share his interest. The issues could have been discussed under new clause 4 had he not withdrawn it from the amendment paper, as I assume he did. However, he raised several issues at enormous length, and I wish to deal with some of them.

The hon. Gentleman argued with the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and

Sale, West that he not only wanted to amend the admissions policies of faith schools, but the Liberal Democrats objected to the transmission of faith within the maintained sector. Speaking from a sedentary position, he denied that that was the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West responded and referred to admissions policies. As the Minister said from a sedentary position—I, too, put it on record—the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Committee does not think it appropriate that faith schools should be used for the transmission of faith.

If the hon. Gentleman believes that I have misrepresented him, perhaps he will say so. I seem to have got it right.

The hon. Gentleman consistently denied the Minister's assertion about his reasons for objecting to the admissions policies of faith schools. The Minister said, fairly, that if one wishes so effectively to undermine the admissions policies of state schools, there must be a jolly good reason for doing so, and he thought that perhaps that jolly good reason was that faith schools were so damaging to communities that they should be destroyed. That was what the Minister asserted that the hon. Gentleman believed. The hon. Gentleman denied it but he gave no other reason. In the absence of any other reason being given by the Liberal Democrats, we must draw our own conclusions. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to give a reason.

The Liberal Democrats have been hostile to faith schools since time immemorial, certainly since 1870. I remind the hon. Gentleman that church schools existed in this country and were doing an excellent job long before the state education system was born or even thought of and it is no good his pretending, without reason, that he can undermine faith schools as new clause 4 and the amendment propose. There must be a reason, and I want to know what it is. The only reason that the hon. Gentleman has given is that some children who are nearer to a faith school than others who happen to be of the faith may be turned away. If that is his reason, if he is saying that we have to draw a line round the London Oratory school—I take that example at random because I was speaking to the headmaster last night—and it admits, say, 240 boys a year—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Was the hon. Gentleman negotiating a contract?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister will be glad to know that I was doing no such thing.

As I was saying, if we draw a line around the London Oratory school to include 240 boys—or however many it admits—who live in the area, it would just about reach Fulham Broadway station. Such is the attractiveness and popularity of that school, that under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would be prevented from taking its historic mission to the Catholic children of London, which is the purpose for which that school, St. Luke's school, Portsmouth,

and Catholic schools throughout the country were established. As an Anglican, I accept that it is not the same as the purpose for which Anglican schools were established.

What the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is proposing would mean the destruction of most of the Catholic education system and a good part of the Anglican education system. If the hon. Gentleman dislikes the Bluecoat school in Liverpool or is hostile to the Bluecoat school in Oldham, it would help if he said so.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that the reason why the clause was withdrawn is straightforward? It is the political consequence of the Liberal Democrats appearing to articulate the destruction of a significant majority of faith based schools, and the reaction of the leader of that party when he realised the implications if new clause 4 were to be accepted. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is an entirely reasonable assumption. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is notorious for taking a laid-back approach to politics. However, I suspect his laying back has been sadly jolted by the understanding of what would happen if new clause 4 were to be implemented or if—and thank goodness it cannot be—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough's amendment were accepted.

It being twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Question put, That clauses 44 to 46 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 47 - Admission appeals

Schedule 4 - Admission arrangements

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I do not want to upset those on the Opposition Front Bench. I realise that they were upset about not being able to discuss certain clauses in the previous sitting. If they look ahead to next week and want to spend any extra hours to get through business, we would be happy to accommodate them on Tuesday or Thursday evening, or even on Monday or Wednesday.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I fear that the Government Whip fails to understand the problem that he has caused. Because of so-called knives in our proceedings, we lost the opportunity to discuss 11 clauses on Tuesday, and a further four this morning. Those of us who believe that we come here to do a job, and do not want to accept public funds in our salaries under false pretences, are angry that we are not able to do that job properly. Regardless of how we plan ahead, we cannot know how the debate will pan out in practice. This morning was a case in point.

We arrived amicably at an agreement with the Government on the basis that we could deal with matters during the morning sitting. As it happened, through no fault of my own or my Conservative colleagues, who spoke little during the sitting, we had no chance to deal with most of the business on our timetable. The fact that the Government were not prepared to listen to our reasonable concern has now prevented us from considering those aspects of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Both sides of the Committee have made their point. I hope that each side has taken note of the other's position, but we cannot turn the clock back as far as this morning is concerned. I have to apply the agreed procedures. I carried out the motion in accordance with what had been agreed previously in the House and in Committee. I hope that negotiations take place behind the scenes: the issues just raised are not points of order for the Chair.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I would like to make a slight correction, and a partial apology to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the information relating to the views of the Isle of Wight's local education authority on admission forums. Isle of Wight LEA requested approval to form such a forum on a voluntary basis, in advance of that being made statutory, because it is keen and convinced that it is the direction to take. It has not, however, asked to join

another local authority in creating that forum, which slightly contradicts the position of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I wanted to place that correction on the record.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The Minister's point is not really a point of order. I will call the hon. Member for Isle of Wight in a moment, and he may respond to it when he speaks to the next amendment.Clause 49 Exclusion of pupils

Clause 49 - Exclusion of pupils

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 32, line 32, leave out subsection (1).

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 148, in page 32, line 36, leave out from ''Regulations'' to end of line 1 on page 34, and insert:

''may make provision—

(a) to allow a panel constituted in accordance with sections 64 to 68 of the School Standards and Framework Act to consider the interests of the whole school community;

(b) that a defect in the procedure leading to exclusion shall not invalidate any decision made to exclude a pupil; and

(c) to amend Schedule 18 to the School Standards and Framework Act to assist headteachers to maintain discipline in schools.''

No. 261, in page 33, line 5, at end insert:

''(e) as to matters to which an appeal panel constituted in accordance with the regulations shall have regard, including in particular the health, safety and welfare of persons employed to work at the school or pupil referral unit as the case may be and the protection of such persons from false and malicious allegations of misconduct.''

No. 262, in page 33, line 5, at end insert:

''(ee) as to the duties of local education authorities and/or governing bodies to make sufficient provision for any emotional and behavioural difficulties of any pupil to which this section relates.''

No. 341, in page 33, line 5, at end insert:

''(e) outlining specific circumstances in which an appeal panel can over-rule an exclusion''.

No. 117, in page 33, line 10, leave out ''any'' and insert ''the''.

No. 143, in page 198, line 19, leave out ''Sections 64 to 68''.

No. 144, in page 198, line 51, leave out ''to 18'' and insert ''to 17''.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for his words. One of his hon. Friends was right to say that I was embarrassed to hear what he was saying this morning, but I am glad that what he was saying has not transpired.

Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 are significant because they would restore most of the clauses from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which the Bill will otherwise remove. The Government accept the status quo and are saying, in effect, that it is better to have a clear status quo than to have shifting sands. In common with much of the Bill, the problem

with what the Government propose on exclusions is that it presents schools with the danger of constant changes to the rules on exclusions.

The Government have done that because from time to time court cases and other proceedings decide that the law was not exactly as they thought it was. In some cases, the law was not as anyone thought it was until an especially enterprising lawyer came on the scene. I accepted that in amendment No. 148, which would insert the most recent set of reasons why the Government have proposed that the statutory regime should be more flexible. I accept that it is important that a panel that is constituted in accordance with the law should be able to take account of the interests of the whole school community. I also accept that a defect in procedure should not invalidate a decision to exclude a pupil, and that the Secretary of State should be able to make further amendments to the framework to assist head teachers to maintain discipline. I do not accept that the whole structure should be taken out of the law and put into regulation, which is what the Government are seeking to achieve.

Although it might appear to the contrary, amendment No. 145, which would delete clause 49(1), does not have the effect of preventing head teachers from excluding pupils, because amendment No. 148 would reinstate section 64(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I will not trouble the Committee at great length, but we are all familiar with the question whether the framework should be in the Bill and the details should be in the regulations, or even whether little of the framework should be in the Bill and most of it in the regulations, which is what the Government seem to be proposing.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Am I right in thinking that I can speak to amendment No. 117 in this group, and that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has spoken to the other amendments?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The lead amendment was moved, but the others within the group are open to debate. Amendment No. 117 is within the group.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Is it in order for me to speak to it?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Yes.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. He raised an important issue of principle. If the Government do not want to include detail in the Bill—they made it clear that they want to leave as much as possible to secondary legislation—it is important that any advice and regulations are precise. By leaving out ''any'' and inserting ''the'', the amendment seeks clarification from the Government about their policy and the proposed regulations on exclusions.

After admissions, to which I will not return, the issue of exclusions is one of the most vexing areas for schools and parents. Parents often believe that their children have been treated badly, and heads and teachers often believe that they have been treated too

leniently. It is crucial that guidance is precise so that both parties know exactly where they stand in cases of exclusion, particularly if a child has been excluded permanently. If we are to have regulations, they must be precise.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I rise to put the case in favour of my amendment and those of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 261 would introduce an important protection for those who are at the heart of our education system: teachers and other employees working in schools. All members of the Committee will be familiar with cases over many years—the numbers seem to be increasing—of allegations made against school staff members. Sometimes they are completely unfounded. Perhaps of greatest concern are physical attacks made on teaching and non-teaching staff. The most difficult cases are those that not only call into question the conduct of a member of staff but suggest that if the action were to be repeated, there would be a serious possibility that the safety, health and—at the least—the professional standing of the member of staff and their ability to maintain discipline in the classroom may be undermined.

What I seek to do through amendment No. 261 is to ensure that certain elements are included in the regulations referred to in clause 49(3). Paragraph (a) states that regulations may require

''prescribed persons to be given prescribed information''.

Paragraph (b) requires

''the responsible body, in prescribed cases, to consider whether the pupil should be reinstated''.

Paragraph (c) requires

''the local education authority to make arrangements for enabling a prescribed person to appeal'',

and paragraph (d) sets out the procedure for such appeals.

Amendment No. 261 would add a fifth paragraph, (e), that would allow the regulations to set out

''matters to which an appeal panel . . . shall have regard, including in particular the health, safety and welfare of persons employed to work at the school or pupil referral unit as the case may be and the protection of such persons from false and malicious allegations of misconduct.''

I shall take the two categories separately. First, it is self-evident that if an outstanding disciplinary matter involves, or appears to involve, a physical or other assault on a member of staff, the appeals body should be required to have regard to those circumstances in carrying out its functions. If a pupil who has made a physical or verbal assault, perhaps making grossly offensive remarks, is readmitted to the school by an appeal panel, it may have a serious effect on discipline in the school, in the classroom and, potentially, on the life, career and perhaps the mental state of a member of staff. The member of staff who suffered at the hands of a violent or abusive pupil may be forced to encounter that pupil again in the classroom, but even if they are not, the pupil and the teacher may encounter each other in the school, which may have serious consequences. It may lead to a repeat of an earlier

problem and perhaps to a tit-for-tat conflict in which the parties may be drawn into reciprocal action, which would be regrettable.

If Ministers want to take seriously the health, safety and welfare of people in schools they will accept the amendment, which would be of major benefit to teaching and other school staff.

Secondly, allegations of physical or other abuse and other types of malicious and false allegations made by pupils against members of the teaching staff cause great anxiety to the teachers who are accused and to those who observe the effect of such allegations. Many teachers live in fear that they may be subject to a false and malicious allegation, which, given the nature of some allegations, may have consequences for their professional and personal lives. We can all imagine the effect of certain allegations on anyone living in a community—particularly if, like school staff, they occupy positions of trust and respect.

The problem has been a matter of growing concern and many people within the teaching profession would like it tackled more effectively. Amendment No. 261, in dealing with health and safety implications and providing protection against damage to reputation and career as well as physical wellbeing, would make a real contribution to improving the position of those who teach and work in our schools. I hope that Ministers will accept it, or at least agree to deal with the issue by framing their own proposals. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Amendment No. 341 is designed to provide more detail by introducing another paragraph to outline the specific circumstances in which an appeal panel can overrule an exclusion. It is intended to generate debate on what Ministers view as appropriate circumstances for such overruling and to generate a power to set out those circumstances in regulations, which would improve the Bill.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to refer specifically to amendment No. 341, which deals with an issue of great concern to heads and chairs of governors in my constituency—and, I suspect, in other parts of the country. Recently, schools have often been overruled by appeals panels, leaving both the head and chair of governors profoundly unhappy as they feel that they cannot exercise authority in their own schools.

I know of two specific cases in which head teachers permanently excluded pupils for drug dealing in school, which is a criminal matter. The pupils appealed to an exclusion panel and were reinstated. That creates immense difficulties for heads and chairs of governors. When a pupil has been seen dealing in drugs, thus committing a criminal act in school, has been expelled but is subsequently reinstated by an appeal panel, it totally undermines the ability of heads and teachers to manage and maintain discipline in their schools. When other teenagers see that it is possible to get away with it, relatively few sanctions can be applied. It leads to the attitude: ''I was reinstated on appeal, so you cannot touch me''.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

May I just clarify whether the police or courts confirmed that teenagers were dealing in drugs within the particular school?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

To the best of my knowledge, the schools chose not to involve the police, which was probably appropriate in the interests of the teenagers concerned. When we discover kids doing that, we do not always want to involve the police. I am not a great believer in criminalising young people if it is not necessary.

My point is that the Government should give clear guidelines on what is permissible in the exclusion process. Heads and governors must have certainty that when they opt for exclusion, they are on reasonably safe ground and will be overruled by an exclusion panel only in certain circumstances. There will always be grey areas and uncertain cases, but there should be a benchmark. I remember another case in which a head teacher went into an exclusion panel without any representation to find a raft of legal and professional advisers set against the school. They had an intense and difficult argument that led to a reinstatement decision being taken. We need a framework to enable everyone involved—teachers and panels—to be certain of the ground on which they operate.

The amendment would not make specific provision in respect of what those circumstances or guidelines should be. It would give the Secretary of State the right to issue regulations to set them out, and I know from conversations that such guidelines would be enormously welcomed. It is not a question of telling the Government what to do, but giving them the power to respond to something for which I know that heads and chairs of governors are asking. The Government have been reluctant to accept Opposition amendments, but I hope that they can agree to this one. It does not tie their hands to do anything beyond providing guidelines if they deem it to be appropriate. In that spirit, and given that heads and chairs of governors want to see a greater structure to the appeal process, I commend the amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I will address amendment No. 262, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) briefly alluded. It concerns an additional category that we believe should be added to clause 49(3), which is that local education authorities and governing bodies should have set out in regulations guidance on how, when and in which circumstances sufficient provision should be made for emotional or behavioural difficulties of a pupil who has been excluded under the clause's provisions.

We believe that the matter should be addressed in the Bill is because it relates to the particular difficulties that education authorities and governing bodies have with pupils who have special educational needs. As I have mentioned in earlier debates, the range of needs is enormous: from small behavioural problems that can be put right if recognised early, to large problems that, if exclusion became necessary, would mean that

the pupil's parents should have the comfort of knowing that their child's condition was taken into specific consideration.

Yesterday in Westminster Hall we had a good debate on autism, which a few members of the Committee attended. It is now recognised as an important and serious mainstream problem, not just a rare illness. I noted that no Education Minister was present. I make no criticism: Ministers are very busy. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), responded to the debate, and did so extremely well. However, as no Education Minister was present, Ministers in this Committee may not be aware of the conclusion that was reached by all sides yesterday.

The problems of families with children with autism and autism spectrum disorders have been sidelined. This is autism awareness year. In the spirit of making people who are responsible in this area aware of the problems I believe that this matter should appear on the face of the Bill. [Interruption.] The Minister is muttering that that is not what the amendment says. Although the word ''autism'' does not appear, it is covered by the term ''behavioural difficulties''. If the Minister wishes to intervene I am happy to give way to him.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I will speak later.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

It is generally accepted—the Government accept this and previous Governments are also culpable—that education authorities, social services departments, health authorities, school governors and others in authority have not had a comprehensive plan for dealing with autistic children. This is yet another place where such a problem can arise, but there is no specific duty, nor indeed guidance, for any of those Government bodies to address it in a particular way. It ought to be here in the Bill.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

A set of circumstances in my constituency has caused a great deal of concern to me and my constituents. Some autistic children have been classified as suffering from emotional and behavioural difficulties, although it is debatable whether that is appropriate. That is a side issue and we should not stray too far. However, I would not wish it to be misunderstood. One of the biggest issues in my constituency, and I know that I am not alone, has been the reduction in facilities and places for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. There would be scope under amendment No. 262 to make it absolutely clear in regulations what has to be taken into account when making provision for such children. It therefore seems sensible to include it in the Bill.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If Parliament gives local education authorities, governing bodies and any other body

power to do something, we should set out in primary legislation what we expect them to do. I seek the Minister's assurance that notwithstanding the absence of Education Ministers from yesterday's debate on autism, they have accepted the subject's importance and that they will keep it at the front of their minds and not treat it merely as a side issue when considering the need sometimes to exclude children with particular behavioural problems. The vast majority of families of such children are already under enormous stress because of the child's medical condition, and it is only fair to families and children that the matter be given prominence.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

We are discussing an important subject on which there is a large degree of consensus about objectives and priorities. We are dealing with a variety of issues. One is the balance between the best interests of an individual child and the overall interests of a group of children comprising a class or a whole school. Classroom teachers and head teachers must try to strike the right balance day to day, but it is not easy.

As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, it is important to minimise any feeling of fear or intimidation among teachers. It is impossible to ask the members of any profession to work to the best of their ability if they feel, as a result of personal experience or the experiences of colleagues or family, that doing their job is dangerous. Government and other politicians have a responsibility to support teachers and head teachers in that respect. It is sad that they do not always have the right level of support from parents when children behave in an unacceptable and threatening way. We hope that in most civilised communities and societies, teachers receive the support and backing of parents. I think that the whole Committee wants to send a message about what teachers and head teachers should be able to expect from parents and others in the community.

We also have a responsibility to excluded children and we must ensure that decisions are fair, transparent and objective, not subjective. Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) used an example that showed some of the difficulties vividly. Anecdotally, he referred to a head teacher's view that some young teenagers had been caught dealing—a strong word—drugs in the school. They were excluded on that basis but were allowed back to school on appeal. However, there was no evidence that any objective observer of the situation, such as the police, the courts or the criminal justice system, had verified or confirmed that the young people had been dealing drugs. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman responded to my point. He said, rightly, that schools are often reluctant to involve the police and the criminal justice system because they do not want to criminalise children.

However, excluding a child from school, particularly permanently, is potentially equally stigmatising and damaging to their development, educational progression, career and adult life. I have never experienced exclusion—perhaps I should have—but it is a powerful, traumatic and stigmatising experience not only for the child, but for most families.

We accept that one difficulty is that some families show insufficient interest in their child's education and behaviour at school.

For the vast majority of families, the permanent exclusion of a son or daughter from school is traumatic and stigmatising. Legislation must ensure a genuinely fair and objective system that allows the right to appeal on reasonable grounds. It is a matter of natural justice. Young people and their families must have that right.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I pretty much agree with the Minister, who makes a good argument in favour of our amendment. Where a child has been caught dealing drugs but the school, reluctant to criminalise, seeks to adopt civil rather than criminal redress, it is important to ask whether the case has been seen through in a proper judicial way. Does that example not reinforce the case for heads and exclusion panels to have some guidelines? If the police had not been brought in and the child not convicted of the offence, without compelling evidence, the normal inclination of the appeal panel would be to quash the exclusion. That demonstrates how guidelines could enormously facilitate the whole process.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of guidance and support. We are talking about young people being excluded from school for dealing drugs. Appeals panels would consist of strange and unreasonable people if, having examined the facts—not anecdote or an off-the-record conversation with an MP—and concluded that the youngsters did indeed deal drugs in school, they decided that the exclusion had been wrong.

The hon. Gentleman concluded that the teenagers were drugs dealers, but did not provide the Committee with enough detail about the evidence to justify the panel saying that the case made by the person who saw the drug dealing was borne out by the evidence. Although clear and constructive guidance may be helpful, a panel of reasonable people considering evidence should not be expected always to find in favour of the head teacher and the school. If it did always find in favour, there would be no point in having a fair and objective appeals process.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I still do not disagree with the Minister. In these cases, two governing bodies and two head teachers were deeply upset. They felt that their authority within the school had been overruled and that they had been let down by the appeals process. The amendment is simply designed to give the Secretary of State the power to issue regulations and set a framework for a process that will reduce the likelihood of one or other side feeling deeply let down.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The clause makes it clear that the Government will issue guidance to set out the parameters, the roles and responsibilities of the appeals process and the people who conduct it. I am referring to guidance rather than regulations. The hon. Gentleman wants the people taking these decisions to be guided to examine facts appropriately and follow a robust and transparent process. Surely making it clear that the guidance suggested by the hon. Gentleman

will be issued is every bit as powerful and achieves exactly the same objective as the amendment that would require the Government to issue regulations. It is no different from the hon. Gentleman's example of the decision that was taken in that particular case. What matters is that the appeals panel has guidance and understands the basis on which it should make decisions sensibly, objectively and fairly.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

That raises another significant point. The Minister said that guidance will be issued. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell gave the example of pupils who are found to be dealing in, and probably by extension, taking, drugs. The Home Secretary recently decided to downgrade the treatment of certain illegal drugs and to treat them differently, especially marijuana. Will the Minister make it clear whether the guidance will require schools and appeals panels to treat marijuana as an illegal drug, or are the Government happy to go along with the Home Secretary's approach of downgrading the seriousness of that drug? The Minister knows that there has been confusion in some LEAs about that.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I will try to address the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West later in the debate. It is important that we make progress.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked whether it is appropriate to include some of the material in the regulations rather than in legislation. We have had that debate throughout the proceedings, and have disagreed about whether it is more appropriate and effective to include some of the issues in the regulations or whether it should be in primary legislation. It is clear that secondary legislation will have the same legal effect as primary legislation. If one considers the legislative framework, moving matters to secondary legislation will in no way lead to reduced rights for individuals or change the fairness of the procedures for schools, pupils or teachers. I want to make it clear that at this stage there is no intention to make changes to the current system other than to those on which we have consulted and that are in the public domain. Several other important points have been made that are related more to the substance of policy than to whether these matters should be in primary or secondary legislation.

The Government have sympathy with the intentions of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and his hon. Friends in tabling amendments Nos. 261, 262 and 341. We largely agree with their objectives, which are similar to our own. The differences are in the approach to achieving them. On amendment 261, the health, safety and welfare of staff and other pupils at a school or pupil referral unit will be an element.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The Minister made an important point and gave a good example of where the Government intend to provide a statutory framework within which exclusion panels will operate. I am not sure why he is reluctant to broaden the framework.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I addressed that in my contribution. The Opposition's objective will be achieved by the Government's proposed course of action. Surely, the key issue for parents, pupils, teachers, head teachers and those who sit on appeals panels is that we achieve the objective in a transparent and up-front manner.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This is an important part of the Bill. There is not a million miles between the Minister, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and me. What schools require from the system, and what we are arguing for in our different ways, is consistency across the model. Nothing is worse than an appeals panel making decisions following one interpretation of the guidance and another making exactly the opposite decision somewhere else. That causes problems and is why it is crucial that we have clear definitions about the circumstances in which an appeals panel would make its decisions.

The Minister is trying. We want him to go further and provide details of the guidance. I hope that we will be able to see it before the Committee concludes its business.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I have made it clear that guidance will be issued and that we will ensure consistency and co-ordination across the country. I will attempt to provide the necessary detail to the Committee before it concludes its deliberations.

I wish to deal with the second part of amendment No. 261, which is about false allegations against people who work in schools, particularly teachers. We are already taking measures to deal with that. We are establishing a network of regional co-ordinators to ensure that any such allegations are dealt with fairly and quickly. We are revising and updating existing guidance to schools and LEAs about allegations and child protection, and we are also setting up a website with guidance model procedures and examples of good practice.

We believe that that will be more effective than legislation, because regulations in themselves do not offer protection. They may only offer a remedy, and the remedy of exclusion already exists for allegations that are proved false. The Government's actions achieve the objectives of the second part of amendment No. 261.

Amendment No. 262 deals with another important issue. What happens to children who are autistic or who have other special educational needs? Current legislation places a duty on local authorities and governing bodies in respect of pupils with special educational needs, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. If a pupil of compulsory school age remains out of school as a result of exclusion, the pupil's local education authority is under a duty to provide—these are the key words—''suitable education'' for that pupil, which is defined as

''efficient education suitable to [the pupil's] age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have.''

There is already a specific legislative requirement that addresses the anxieties that have been expressed about children with special needs.

I shall refer briefly to refer to the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) who has had to leave the Committee—I hope that it is not because I said anything to offend her. Autism is an important issue that has not been taken seriously enough. Society and the Government must do more to recognise the importance of the issue and the strain that autism puts upon families. Special needs put more of a strain on families when there is a collective denial that it is such a big issue. Members of the Committee may be surprised when I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is a member of the all-party group on autism, which has recently produced a most helpful report on the subject.

The Government are committed to ending the collective denial and to tackling autism seriously. We are taking measures such as considering how to collect data on pupils with autism from 2003 or 2004; we have funded the National Autistic Society to pilot its accreditation programme in the maintained sector and we are considering how the results of that pilot can be used to spread good practice more widely. The Government's autism working group, which includes representatives of the National Autistic Society, PACE—Parents' Autism Campaign for Education—and others, will produce guidance on good practice in providing for children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder.

As to training, of the £82 million we are providing this year for special educational needs under the standards fund, £30 million is intended for training. We intend to increase that fund to £91 million next year and will suggest that local education authorities consider autism as a priority in training staff in future. The Government will not perpetuate the past denial of the problem or the insufficient status and importance of autism. In view of the legislative requirement to ensure that children with special needs are included and have access to the education that they deserve and given the Government's initiatives on autism, I hope that Opposition Members will accept that we are addressing the matters that they raised and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

On amendment No. 341, the circumstances in which an appeals panel should be able to overrule an exclusion should be a matter for guidance rather than legislation. It is important that panels take into account the Department's guidance in taking a decision, but in the final analysis, they must remain free to take their own decisions, having considered the circumstances of the case, which, as the example quoted earlier showed, can be complex and difficult. Taking decisions on appeals against permanent exclusion is not straightforward and it would be overly constraining to make the circumstances in which an exclusion can be overruled a matter of law. If people going through the system are to feel a sense of justice, it is vital to treat every case on its merits. I reiterate my view that guidance is the most appropriate route to ensure that the aim of fairness is fulfilled.

Officials are currently consulting on draft revised guidance that has been developed in partnership with the National Association of Head Teachers, which

proposes to make persistent bullying and carrying an offensive weapon reasons for exclusion for which the Secretary of State would normally regard it as inappropriate to reinstate. The guidance would make it clear that such behaviour would be grounds on which appeals panels should not overturn an exclusion decision. Those are tangible examples of where revised guidance can make a difference, and will support appeals panels in taking the right decisions in difficult circumstances.

It is a statutory requirement that head teachers, governing bodies, LEAs and independent panels must have regard to guidance. We believe that the guidance will address many of the concerns expressed by heads and others about the lack of clear direction for panels. In that context, it is not necessary or desirable to constrain the panel further, as the amendment proposes.

I can also confirm, in relation to amendment No. 117, that we intend to keep guidance in force under the new provisions. That amendment can, therefore, be withdrawn. To respond to the question of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West concerning drugs, we hope to issue the revised draft guidance on exclusions next week. It will make it clear that in normal circumstances, the Secretary of State would regard it as inappropriate to reinstate a pupil who had been permanently excluded for misuse of a controlled drug. As far as I am aware, cannabis remains a controlled drug, and nothing that the Home Office has said contradicts that. The guidance will make it clear to appeals panels what their responsibilities will be in cases such as that referred to by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West concerning dealing or using cannabis.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful that the Minister dealt with my question concerning the use of illegal drugs. His response partially answers my concerns, in that he says that the guidance will preclude reinstatement of a pupil permanently excluded on the grounds of misuse of controlled drugs. Will he go further and undertake that the guidance will also inform schools and LEAs that permanent exclusion should remain the typical course of action if a pupil is misusing illegal drugs. The Minister is saying that the Government will issue guidance about how appeals should be handled. However, he is not giving guidance, which schools desperately need, about how the Government expect them to treat cannabis now that it is regarded in a less serious way by criminal law.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

That is a contradictory argument. We have heard a lot of arguments during the proceedings about schools, and those in positions of responsibility being trusted as professionals to make sensible and reasonable and decisions. The issue is straightforward. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to a head teacher who did not want to criminalise the young people in question, which is why he did not call in the police. Whether one thinks that is right or wrong, it is a reasonable judgment for a head teacher to make. Each head teacher will judge a case on its

merits. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell used the word ''dealer''. The vast majority of head teachers would take a different view of a young person who was dealing drugs within a school or its vicinity than they would of a young person who was found for the first time in possession of a small amount of marijuana.

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to tell people outside the Committee that an Education Minister says that it is okay to carry marijuana to school, because it is clearly unacceptable for children, or anyone, to break the law of the land, which says that cannabis remains a controlled drug. We are engaged in grown-up politics and know that head teachers must make difficult decisions about complex issues every day of every week. It would be wrong to take that discretion away from head teachers.

The majority of the debate has been dominated by permanent exclusion. The option is available to teachers to use fixed-period exclusions, and there are different levels of unacceptable behaviour for which individual head teachers must decide a management of discipline policy. From a good practice point of view, everyone in the school should be aware of, signed up to and involved in it, and understand clearly the consequences of particular forms of behaviour. A good head teacher will ensure that that happens and not simply deal with each case randomly. It is unacceptable to take any illegal substance to school, but it is right that head teachers are allowed the discretion to make judgments about the powers at their disposal, whether that is no action, fixed-period exclusion or a permanent exclusion.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister's response is incredibly reasonable. I was pleased that he mentioned fixed-term as well as permanent exclusions, because they are two specific categories. It would worry me enormously if the Minister were to issue guidance that said that someone could be permanently excluded for a criminal offence without being reported for it. That would be an unacceptable contradiction.

There is also a difference between the Home Secretary's proposed declassification of the possession of cannabis from class B to class C—and in some guidance coming from the Police Federation about how it is tackling the drugs problem on the streets—and his insistence that there will be no let up in the pressure on dealers. I largely agree with the Home Secretary's approach, and we must consider what is happening in Brixton. The local police superintendent has said that they will not stop and charge people for having small amounts of cannabis on them, which surely must apply to young people. If those people were dealing, they would be dealt with.

The same issue arises with weapons, and they are the two issues that reflect a growing problem in our schools and are a real threat to members of staff and other students. When the Minister produces his guidance, before the Bill is passed if that is possible, will he pay specific attention to those two issues?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will address those two issues in the way that he suggests.

If I may, I shall make a partially flippant point. The Committee will remember the Conservative party's debate about drugs immediately before the general election, and it is likely that more than half the shadow Cabinet of the day would have been permanently excluded from school and had their life stigmatised—although they may have ended up with a better career—had we adopted the simplistic view expressed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to treat this important subject seriously. I asked for clear and sensible guidance because schools, whether in Brixton or elsewhere, are unsure of what is expected of them by the Government and communities that they serve. They perceive the law to be in a state of flux. Specific instances of schools in Oxfordshire were raised, in which they were given guidance by the LEA that was then amended. There have been problems, and it is unacceptable for the Minister to refuse to give any proper guidance about how the Government expect the matter to be addressed. It is not fair on heads and governors to expect them to be left in the dark and arrive at whatever position they see fit. The Government are stimulating a debate and changing the lie of the land, and schools have a right to know where the Government want them to stand.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Gentleman intervened after I made it clear what the draft guidance on the issue will say. It will say that the Secretary of State would normally regard it as inappropriate to reinstate a pupil who had been permanently excluded for misuse of a controlled drug—and the drugs to which the hon. Gentleman referred are controlled. That is clear. When the hon. Gentleman intervened, he asked me about head teachers and gave a particular example of the action that he believed should be taken in a particular set of circumstances. My point was that a head teacher has at his or her disposal a range of disciplinary options when a child is in breach of the law of the land or, short of that, the rules of the school. We must continue to allow professional leaders of our schools to use their experience and good judgment to make the right decisions about the available range of sanctions. On the vast majority of occasions in this country, those head teachers and governing bodies take the common-sense, reasonable decisions.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I shall give way, but we really should make progress.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am intervening only because this is a particularly important point. The Minister has just read from the draft guidelines, which effectively said that a teenager who is found smoking a joint in school can be excluded and that an exclusion panel would not normally have the right to overrule. There is a different level of offence between a teenager caught smoking a joint behind the bike sheds and one caught selling joints across the school, but decisions taken by

different heads may vary because it is a subjective judgment. In setting out guidance rather than using a statutory framework, the Government are leaving the judgment to the subjective decision of heads and exclusion panels in a way that could lead to different judgments in different areas for the same action. I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I would feel much more comfortable with a statutory and regulatory power rather than guidance.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before I call the Minister, I echo his comment before he gave way. I recognise that this is an important debate, but we should be making progress.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Every day of every week, head teachers make difficult decisions in difficult circumstances and, hopefully, possession of all the facts. That is why they are head teachers; they are paid to take that responsibility. We are trying to reach a judgment with partial information and with no knowledge of a child's family circumstances, of other behaviour that the child may have exhibited in the school in the past, of the effect of that behaviour on the rest of the class, of whether it is a one-off incident or whether a problem child is causing mayhem in the school every day of the week.

This is becoming a fatuous discussion. It is clear what the draft guidance will tell appeals panels. We trust the professional judgment of head teachers to make reasonable and sensible decisions on these matters. In view of the reassurances that have been given and the fact that our objectives are similar, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has the lead amendment in this group and he may wish to comment on the amendments that stand in his name. I rise to respond to the Minister's remarks on amendments Nos. 261 and 341. Amendment No. 262 raised some important points and it was useful for them to be given an airing, but it was very much a probing amendment.

Amendment No. 261 is deeply serious. I am grateful that the Minister paid proper attention to it and gave credit for an attempt to tackle something that is accepted by the Government as a serious concern. He said that a statutory duty would be created under the Government's proposed regulations to balance the interests of the staff, the pupil and the rest of the school community. He went on to describe it as a matter of natural justice. We can all agree with much of that. My concern is that there is still a long distance between a requirement to balance the interests of the excluded pupil with those of the school community as a whole and our objective in amendment No. 261. It would give statutory footing to an attempt to protect the teaching and non-teaching staff of a school if health and safety issues or the possibility of malicious allegations come into play.

These are extremely important questions. I am not entirely satisfied that the regulations that the Government propose are sufficient to deal with the problem, notwithstanding the other measures that the Minister enumerated. I do not intend to press amendment No. 261 to a Division, but I stress the importance that the Opposition attach to the issue. Unless we see Government amendments or draft regulations that go a little further, we may table an amendment along those lines at a later stage.

We had an important debate on amendment No. 341, which has not reached a satisfactory conclusion. We could consider two different aspects, one of which I would characterise as the desire of heads and governors to have clearer criteria in regulations. That would be welcomed, and the amendment would allow more details to be provided. I am minded to ask my hon. Friends to support me in pressing the matter to a Division.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Will my hon. Friend make the Minister aware that the amendment would protect head teachers, not dictate to them about their decisions, because different decisions would be taken in different places? Once heads had taken a decision, they would know what the framework would be.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has led me to my next point: the illuminating discussion on the Government's attitude towards exclusions of those possessing or dealing in illegal substances. That was an important debate, but it was not dealt with satisfactorily. The Minister did not take seriously some of our points.

Heads and governors have to deal with endless difficult decisions and perform balancing acts daily. They should have the maximum discretion to run schools as they deem appropriate, supported by their communities. There is a difference between what the Minister characterised as an attempt to constrain the freedom of heads and what we are seeking. We want to assist heads and governors by providing them with clear guidance on what is expected in a complicated area, which the House has not debated. Perhaps the Government do not have that in mind because it is not fashionable for the House to have a say in such matters. Ministers have initiated a debate on the treatment of illegal substances by criminal law, and that continued in the press. Heads and governors do not know where they are expected to draw the line on certain categories of illegal substance.

It is a matter of fairness to heads and governors to give them guidance, not an attempt to restrict their freedom. The Minister should note that the legislation and guidance would have a strange effect. A head teacher could decide permanently to exclude a pupil in one set of circumstances, whereas at a neighbouring school, in the same circumstances, the head may arrive at a different conclusion. The Government's guidance would perpetuate an imbalance, because it says only that it would be inappropriate to reinstate a permanently excluded pupil. If the Minister would really like to see discretion and flexibility, it seems odd

that he is happy to have, in one instance, the decision of a head set in stone, yet in the same circumstances his guidance would not prevent reinstatement.

Ministers have considerable thinking to do, and I hope that they do it quickly on a matter that is important to schools throughout the country. Schools are looking for guidance, and if Ministers refuse to give it, they will be left to drift and struggle with this difficult problem.

As I said at the outset, heads and governors want greater clarity in regulations about what is expected of them. In that context, I shall have to divide the Committee on amendment No. 341.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances on amendment No. 117. Without actually seeing the regulations—I am glad that we will see them—it is difficult to decide whether they are comprehensive or appropriate enough to meet the particular circumstances. I am prepared to wait, and I urge the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West not to press the amendment until we have had a further opportunity to debate the matter on Report.

The National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association are relatively happy with the Bill. They do not, however, want to be straitjacketed. They want clarity in regulations and in the process of fixed exclusions, and I am pleased that Government have provided some reassurance on that.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to make a few brief points following on from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The Government have decided not to use regulations, but guidance. Amendment No.341 is designed to give the Government the power to use regulation if they want to. It would ensure that when a head teacher takes the difficult decision to exclude—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, as a former head, will recognise that it is difficult—he can be sure that a clear statutory framework will be followed and that he will not be confronted with subjective decisions, based only on guidance. The reversal of a decision makes a significant impact on a school, so we want to provide for the power to deliver a statutory framework.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With respect, clause 49(6) clearly states: ''Regulations shall make provision'', which meets the hon. Gentleman's objections, but it is for the Government rather than me to respond.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call Mr. Turner, let me make it clear that he is replying to the debate on amendment No. 145, which is the only amendment moved at this stage. Depending on what happens in the next few minutes, we can dispose of that amendment. Amendment No. 340 will be called. If Mr. Brady then wishes formally to move amendment No. 341, he can do so, but no further debate on it is allowed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful, Mr. Pike, for the clarification that we are debating amendment No. 145, but I would like to make some comments on the amendments grouped with it.

The Minister is at least right about being consistent. Previous legislation provided a skeleton and regulations put the flesh on it. With much of this Bill, we have removed most of the skeleton's bones and are left with a backbone in statute. The bones are the regulations and I am not sure where the flesh comes in—perhaps it does not come in at all. I sometimes get the impression that the Bill is sponsored by the Law Society, because it enables Ministers to change the law certainly every year and perhaps more frequently.

I realise that we tend to have an Education Act every year, but thankfully not all the Acts are as long as this measure. They are certainly not all as long as the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The law that relates to exclusions has been in place, unamended, since well before that year, because the 1998 Act largely repeated law that was already in place.

When Ministers have the power to fiddle, the danger is that they will fiddle. They will change a word in the regulations here and another word in the guidance there. I am sure that they think that that is terribly important and achieves a major objective, because that is what they are there for, but the consequence will be litigation and uncertainty.

That is why I said that the Bill seems to be sponsored by the Law Society. Lawyers have an interest in finding out the absolute meaning of every fresh word that is introduced into legislation, whereas head teachers, governors, pupils and particularly parents have an interest in knowing where they stand and in legislation not changing as a result of constantly shifting interpretation because of the constant addition of a new word here and there.

Unlike last time, I have read the policy statement that the Minister kindly supplied. There are a few differences from what is going on at the moment, but I cannot see why it is necessary to make this shift in the way in which the legislation is implemented. However, that is the Government's wish. I shall not waste the Committee's time by pressing the amendment. 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. 340, in page 32, line 35, at end insert—

'(2A)No penalty shall be applied to the budget of a school as a consequence of a decision to exclude a pupil or pupils.'.

I shall be brief. This probing amendment is intended to elicit comments from Ministers on the question whether and to what extent decisions taken by head teachers to exclude pupils for whatever period should feed through to a financial implication for the school. Ministers will be aware of the financial penalties policy that was applied by the previous Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, to schools that failed to meet exclusion targets that he had set rather arbitrarily.

The Government have chosen to row back from that policy and rightly so, because it had a damaging effect on schools, which felt that they could not exclude

pupils who rightly and reasonably should have been excluded. The fact that the Government chose to change tack, albeit rather belatedly, was welcome.

In the policy statement on the exclusion of pupils, which was helpfully circulated to Committee members, there is no comment on that aspect of the Government's desires and policy. This is a useful opportunity to ask Ministers to comment on how they see policy in that regard developing, whether they remain convinced that it was right to end their previous policy, and whether they will make a commitment that the current regime will continue. I said that I would be brief. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's remarks, and then I shall conclude.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I, too, will be brief. As the Minister probably will have gathered, governors and head teachers regularly beat a path to my door to raise issues with me. Feelings on the issue run high among governors and head teachers. The impact of an exclusion decision, especially on a smaller school, can be to remove £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 from its budget, which has a practical impact on a head teacher's disposable income after fixed costs have been taken into account. There is therefore a need to ensure that a school that takes the decision to reduce its roll by removing a pupil who has caused significant disruption does not end up financially disadvantaging other pupils during the rest of their time at that school.

The Government must ensure that a decision to exclude can be taken entirely on the facts of each case, and that the financial factors do not and cannot affect the decision or the school after a decision has been taken. I hope that if the Minister will not consider the amendment, he will seriously consider the principle of ensuring that exclusion decisions can be taken free from financial constraints or consequences.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

That is an important issue, but we must take account of the fact that we still have a responsibility to those children whom it is appropriate to exclude, even permanently, from school. In the past, children were often excluded permanently—

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

They were left to roam the streets.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps from his Burnley experiences, children were left to roam the streets, often with no socks—but we will not go into that.

That was the reality, and that is what happened under the Government supported by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. That is not satisfactory for the young people concerned nor, equally importantly, for the communities in which they live. It creates all sorts of social problems. There is also a danger that the child is permanently excluded not only from school, but from society in the long term. The Government and society have a moral duty to ensure that even the most challenging and difficult young people, whom it is right to exclude from school because of their behaviour, have an education in another setting of the highest possible quality to give them the chance to get back on the right track and to have a decent life. The resources from the pot of money

to which the amendment refers are being used specifically to fund the pupil referral units that are working well, and which we hope will work even better in the future, to ensure that challenging young people with complex, multi-faceted problems get the quality education that they deserve. I therefore reject the amendment, because the resources would not be available to ensure that we give children who have been excluded permanently from schools access to high quality, full-time education in another setting.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made a point about the Government's general attitude towards the interests of the individual child as against the interests of the school. The Government are clear that we must have a fair and balanced approach to that extremely difficult and sensitive issue. We have a responsibility to maximise educational opportunities for every child. Most head teachers accept that they must do everything in their power for the child, who may be experiencing serious problems at home. He or she may be part of a dysfunctional family or have psychological problems. The majority of classroom and head teachers do a tremendous amount to make things work within the school. We must actively support teachers and governing bodies, and encourage them to adopt that philosophy and set of values.

However, sometimes the behaviour of an individual is so unacceptable that there is no alternative to the professional judgment that the child must be withdrawn from the school or classroom. The effect of the child's behaviour on staff or other pupils is such that it cannot be tolerated: weighed in the balance, it is too destructive and negative.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

There is common ground on the difficult judgments that it is necessary to make. There is a point at which hard decisions must be made. Does the Minister not agree that, without the inclusion of the amendment, there is a potential perverse incentive to retain the child in the school, especially if school cash flows are taken into consideration? Much of the money for the child has already been spent by the time the decision is made, and the school's budget would be seriously affected if the money were taken away.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I sympathise to some extent with the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the money that is generated in that way is meant to help schools and LEAs deal specifically with the children who are the most disaffected and disengaged, and who are causing the most difficulty. There is no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a perverse incentive. Increasingly, the evidence suggests that head teachers and governing bodies try to make decisions that will achieve the balance that we have discussed.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. His position is perfectly respectable, and I suggest that the Opposition press the amendment to a Division if they support it. However, I do not accept his view that the pot of money forces head teachers and governing bodies to follow a particular course of action. It is to

be used to ensure that difficult young people receive full-time education in an appropriate environment, and to tackle disengagement generally.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

There were two different issues, and I was confused by the amendment. First, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had a target that schools had to meet for reducing the number of exclusions. If they did not achieve the target, they were penalised. Will the Minister confirm that that policy no longer exists? If so, that is fine.

I do not have a problem with the second issue, because the situation would be the same if a child moved from a school in other circumstances: the money must follow the child to the next school. Whether it comes belatedly as a retrospective payment is irrelevant. I agree with the Minister's response, but he has not answered the substantive point about whether the policy is now defunct. It would be useful for the Committee to have that on the record.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I can confirm that the targets that were set by the former Secretary of State are no longer part of our policy. Those targets no longer exist. We take the view that we need a balanced approach. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I suppose that I should start by thanking the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing the Minister back to the one point that I had made in my opening remarks. The Minister can rest reasonably easy. I said that it was a probing amendment. In that context, it is reasonable for me to take unto myself the luxury of defining the terms. As my opening remarks suggested, the use of the term ''penalty'' was not intended to imply that this would affect the flow of funds, which naturally go with the pupil, but was a reference to the application of a penalty related to particular numbers of exclusions. Perhaps rather belatedly, the Minister confirmed that the targets no longer exist. We know that. I was seeking a slightly clearer and more forceful exposition of the view that the Government have reached that not just the targets, but the application of penalties in that regard was the wrong policy to follow and that this penalty regime would not re-emerge. Given that this was a probing amendment and we have had an assurance, albeit limited, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 341, in page 33, line 5, at end insert—

'(e) outlining specific circumstances in which an appeal panel can over-rule an exclusion'.—[Mr. Brady.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Clause 50 - Attendance targets

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This is another example of targets being introduced and we do not quite know what will be done if schools fail to meet them. Attendance is a problem in many schools. One issue is absence for holidays, which has now become a real scourge for many schools. A significant number of youngsters take their statutory two weeks as part and parcel of their overall provision. That has a significant effect on attendance.

My main worry, however, concerns schools in the poorer areas of Britain. One of the Government's objectives, quite rightly, is social inclusion and tackling social deprivation. You will know, Mr. Pike, from your constituency—if I keep referring to it, you will feel at home—that there is proven evidence of the link between social deprivation, poor housing and ill health. Ill health is a major cause of absence from schools in some of those areas. There is also increased family ill health.

I have spent most of my time working in such areas and some hon. Members do not understand the huge pressure that is sometimes put on adolescents who are often full-time carers. We do not make enough allowances for those different groups of youngsters who are off school, often unauthorised, but for genuine reasons. Can the Minister ensure that his Department commissions some research into school attendance and looks at ways of supporting youngsters in areas where attendance is poor to attend school or provide them with alternative means of education.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I welcome the clause. Once again the Government are following in my footsteps. I will give hon. Members the evidence for that. Pupils cannot be taught if they are not in school. That is perhaps the most obvious statement that one can make but it is one that the previous Administration did not seem to understand. They did not seem to understand that the first condition of getting a child taught is for him to be sitting in a class in front of a teacher.

When the London borough of Southwark was found to be failing and I was pleased to help advise it on how to privatise the management of that education authority—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

As a shareholder?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Yes, as a shareholder in a company. I have mentioned that before. The officials from the Department for Education and Employment—as it then was—who told Southwark that targets were needed, were very concerned that it stuck to the targets for unauthorised absence. However, I and other members of staff of the education department at John Smith house—for that is where I worked at the time—[Interruption.] It was great fun. They understood that one cannot teach children unless they are in the classroom. Whether they are absent for good or bad reasons is irrelevant. We had some difficulty persuading officials that the private companies competing for the contract would accept such targets and difficulty persuading them that it was appropriate to go beyond the targets already required by the Government. We were successful in persuading three or four private companies to compete for the contract; the one that was successful accepted the contract and the targets to reduce all absence, not just unauthorised absence. In the end, the Department for Education and Employment was happy and gave considerable assistance to the council and to the private company to ensure that the contract bore fruit.

I am pleased that the Government are following in my footsteps and I am happy to support the proposal.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

One is always struck by the modesty of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I hate to think what John Smith might have been thinking.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised important issues. There is a often a direct relationship between the stresses and strains of living in difficult circumstances, whether they are due to family income, mental health problems or physical disability, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the responsibilities of young children who care for sick or dependent parents. When considering school attendance, society does not give enough attention to the strain and pressure on young carers. Their contribution in caring for their relatives is not always conducive to their good health or to their best interests. We often talk in a negative way about young people, but those youngsters are fulfilling what they regard as their responsibility for someone they care for.

The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that the Government will report in September on the current in-depth research into the causes of truancy and absence. I will speak to the commissioning officials to ensure that special regard is paid to the role and responsibilities of young carers in that research. I hope that that will allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

Clause 50 allows the Secretary of State to ask schools to consider the issue of authorised absences, which is as important and valid as that of unauthorised absences. As the hon. Gentleman said, a debate could be conducted on the subject of lengthy holidays during

school time; although they may be authorised, it does not make them right. Head teachers are sometimes under tremendous pressure to authorise such absences, even when they think that they are not in the interests of the class or the individual pupil.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the penalties would be for not meeting the targets. I reassure him that there will be no penalties as such but there will be a requirement, or expectation, that those schools will work closely with local education authorities to consider why they have difficulties in meeting their targets. They will be encouraged to ask questions about their procedures, to see whether they can improve their strategy on absence, and the processes that operate in the school. There will be no negative consequences for not meeting targets in that area, but if a school does not meet its targets that would identify issues that it should examine. We would expect the local education authority to support the school in considering and resolving such problems. On that note, I urge hon. Members to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 54 - Power of lea to provide for governing body to consist of interim executive members

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I want to elicit further information from the Minister. I would like to know what an interim executive member of a governing body is, as distinct from an appointed member of a governing body. I particularly want to understand the use of the word ''executive'' in this instance. In most schools, executive responsibilities belong to the head teacher. I would have thought that such powers should rest with head teachers, in accordance with the new head teacher and governor code of practice.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

In the interests of time, I have not asked any questions on the preceding four clauses. I am concerned that we should use the time to hold Ministers to account for the more contentious elements. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has asked some important questions about the clause. By a clever process of osmosis between us without looking at each other, most of his questions pre-empted mine. For the sake of brevity I shall not repeat them, so as to leave time for the Minister to answer those questions, and to explain further some of the later clauses that we must rush through.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am sorry if I ask this at the wrong time, but it is important that the Minister responds. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Secretary of State had powers to intervene if schools were recommended for special measures. The Bill will allow her to intervene if schools show signs that give

cause for concern. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why those additional powers are necessary. What evidence does he have that they are needed, and what proportion of schools give serious cause for concern? Will the Minister clarify his views on that? I apologise to him for not raising the issue through a formal amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Clauses 51 to 54 have two basic objectives—to allow more rapid intervention by overcoming delays in the original mechanism and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, to increase the focus on schools with serious weaknesses. Local education authorities could intervene previously, but under these powers the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if schools have serious weaknesses and special measures are required.

The number of schools needing such measures has significantly fallen: 303 at the end of last year compared with 515 in 1997. The process of turning a school round is also faster now than when we first started, so we can focus more attention on the next tier of schools—those with difficulties but are not actually failing. That is the rationale behind the proposed changes. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of problem schools. About 500 schools have serious weaknesses, so they fall within the scope of the Bill.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister is right, and the whole Committee is delighted that fewer schools now attract special measures, and that the speed at which schools can be turned round has improved. However, the reality is that local authorities are turning round 97 per cent. of those schools. What evidence does the Minister have that local authorities are not doing a good job, and why are these extra powers needed?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right that local education authorities are doing a good job. I expect the bulk of the work envisaged in the Bill to continue to be carried out by local education authorities. The issue is acutely highlighted by the clause, which deals with appointing an interim executive board, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked about. The difference between that and what came before is that in the past an LEA could appoint additional governors, whereas clause 54 allows us to replace the governing body altogether if necessary—hence the interim executive board.

I expect it to be rare for an LEA to take this step--I expect perhaps only one or two interim boards to be set up in a year--but I expect it to be even more unusual for the Secretary of State to exercise the power given her under clause 55. I hope that that explains the position to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Clause 54 provides for the appointment of the relevant people by the LEA.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Governing bodies consisting of interim executive members—Schedule to be inserted in Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 as Schedule 1A

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I shall try to be brief and helpful. In some cases, the school's leadership will have been the problem—the governing body and the head teacher. The head teacher may have been an ex officio member of the governing body being replaced, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that individual may have been a significant part of the problem. In those circumstances, rapid changes to the school's senior management may be needed, and one of the first challenges facing the interim executive board may be to replace the head teacher. That would be much less easily achieved if the head were a member of the board as of right, so I cannot accept the amendment. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will probably accept that. However, we expect the interim executive board to involve and work closely with the head teacher in improving the school. That will be made clear to the boards through guidance.

In circumstances that are not as I described—this will be made clear in guidance—I expect the head teacher to be a member of the interim executive board, as in normal circumstances heads would be members as of right of the governing body. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, in certain circumstances, it would not be appropriate to extend the as-of-right membership of a governing body to an interim executive board, for the reasons that I explained.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I think that we all accept that, in the specific circumstances to which the Minister alluded, there should be an important exception. Does he expect the guidance to encourage the practice that, once a head who is deemed to be a problem has been replaced, the replacement head ordinarily goes on to the board without delay?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes, I do.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am glad that I tabled the amendment, because we are discussing an important difference. I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and the Minister. If the school's management has become so poor that extreme measures have to be taken and the head needs to be replaced, that is clearly a reasonable step to take. I ask the Minister to reflect on the schedule and to try to find an appropriate form of words that makes it clear that, if the head teacher or management of a school is replaced, the new head will automatically be a member of the interim board.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I expect to do that in the guidance rather than the schedule, which I hope will meet the hon. Gentleman's request.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 57 - Powers of secretary of state to secure proper performance of lea's functions

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I seek clarification of the clause, which I hope that the Minister would have offered in any case. It is clearly an important aspect of the Bill, arising from earlier legislation, and I accept that it largely involves consolidation. However, I should like to press the Minister a little on the effects that the aspects of the Bill that we have debated will have on the interpretation of the powers under this clause. I am thinking particularly of the powers to secure proper performance of the LEA's functions. The Minister will be aware that the LEA's function has in many ways been redefined, not always predictably, by measures that are likely to become law under earlier clauses. I direct him to clause 2 in particular, which relates to exemptions from terms of existing education legislation. If one or more schools are exempted from an expectation to follow the requirements of aspects of education legislation, that will affect Minister's expectations of the LEA and its delivery. Implicit in much of the Bill is a transfer of powers and responsibilities in various directions and differing circumstances. That is perhaps most extreme in the case of schools that are granted powers to innovate, potentially in large numbers. Sometimes that may be at the invitation of the local authority, and other times at the behest of individual schools. It is in those cases that the effect on the LEA and what Ministers may expect will be the most stark.

Perhaps more profound in its effect will be the process of earned autonomy or

''exemptions related to school performance'',

as it is phrased in the Bill. The Minister told us that he envisages about 10 per cent. of schools qualifying for earned autonomy, which would be a starting point that would build consistently over a period. Reasonably, he was not prepared to be drawn on how quickly he expected the proportion to grow, but if it starts at 10 per cent., it does not require a long stretch of the imagination to realise that in a few years it could account for 50 per cent. or even 75 per cent. of schools. In which case, it could account for only 10 or 20 per cent. in some LEA areas but every school in others. That would have a dramatic effect on the role and responsibilities of the LEA.

In different circumstances, one could also envisage an interrelationship between the performance of the LEA and an individual school's responses to it. Schools may seek powers to innovate and operate more flexibly to free themselves from certain practices or use the earned autonomy route. It may become a particular objective of schools in a certain LEA area to pursue that, although not as earned autonomy because the Minister has said that he will try to define clear criteria by which schools will automatically gain it. If that is the case, schools will not automatically be obliged to take advantage of all the available freedoms. However, it is easy to imagine that schools in some LEA areas would be more keen to do so than in others. It is an important point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an explanation.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Clauses 57 and 61 concern interventions by the Secretary of State in LEAs, but they are really a response to the lessons of the past few years rather than anything fundamentally new. I was pleased to note that only one amendment was tabled, which reflects the general consensus that the mechanism has worked effectively in the past few years.

I am not sure that the measures on earned autonomy will have much of a knock-on effect on the way that the process works. The intervention would be triggered by an inspection and report from Ofsted. The character of LEAs will not change much. The central task of school improvement that we have identified for LEAs will continue to be at the heart of what they do, and it is an important role. The schools that have exercised their rights under earned autonomy to variations on teacher pay and conditions and the curriculum will not affect the way in which the process will work. There will be some detailed changes to the day-to-day operations of the LEA, but the process that the clauses describe and affect will not change. I welcome the fact that there is largely consensus about the fact that the way in which those interventions have been carried out over the past three years has been helpful.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I accept much of what the Minister said, but I would like his comments on the changed geometry that might affect the LEA's role and therefore what is expected of it. I spoke about schools without earned autonomy but with exemptions to innovate, such as city academies, the excellence in cities programme and others. That removes some schools in part from the day-to-day supervision of the LEA. In some LEA areas, it is not difficult to imagine that that could become a majority, or at least a large proportion, of schools. In that case, the measures applied to LEAs may be rather different if an LEA has 30 schools, of which one is perceived to be failing but the other 29 are succeeding. If an LEA is left with two or three schools, and one or two of those are failing, the LEA may largely be responsible.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to our debate on earned autonomy. The autonomy that we envisage here is tightly circumscribed. It is certainly not the case that schools that take up earned autonomy will no longer have dealings with the LEA. The LEA's central role is its concern for improvement

in all the schools in its area, although he is right that that does not include city academies. That role will be central to the Ofsted inspection. The question will be whether that school improvement role is being exercised effectively. If it is, no intervention is needed. If it is not, intervention may be needed. The clauses allow us to make some modest changes to the rules relating to interventions to ensure that they work effectively.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister is doing his best to deal with my points. Where schools with earned autonomy seek to vary curriculum measures, will the Minister say how the LEA can be held to account for a school improvement function where it may believe that it has no control over the content of the curriculum that is being taught in those schools?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The principle is that intervention by the LEA is in inverse proportion to success, so I would not expect the LEAs to be kept busy on school improvement matters for schools that acquire earned autonomy. The focus will be elsewhere. I do not think that the earned autonomy clauses have much of an impact on the way this works.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I seek clarification from the Minister about the breadth of the powers in this clause. Clearly, the heart of their purpose is directed towards the educational function of the LEA. For the past four years, I have been involved with an LEA that is going through a process of reorganisation. In my view, and that of many others, it is beginning to make a monumental mess of it because its timetable has gone totally awry.

I want clarification about whether the Government intend the powers of intervention under this clause to go beyond purely the educational and into the broader remit of educational management? If an LEA got the reorganisation process wrong, would the Secretary of State have the powers to step in and take over the management of that reorganisation?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The Ofsted inspection covers the full range of the LEA's responsibilities, and any decision from the Secretary of State as to whether any intervention is needed will be based on that inspection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 58 and 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Power to require lea to obtain advisory services

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, page 40, line 38, at end insert:

''which shall be the subject of guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales''

In response to an earlier comment from the Minister, the lack of amendment to these clauses reflects not consensus but pragmatic resignation—this is what the Government are going to do and we have to make the best of it.

It is interesting to note that Haringey, Islington, Hackney, Leeds and Bradford where these powers have been used extensively have yet to come up with a solution that is as good as the one in Liverpool where it is the good old LEAs that have turned the authority round. In the words of Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, it is the best example of an authority improving itself.

The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. We envisage that contracts will be issued, perhaps even to the company of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, although I trust that he will declare an interest if he participates in this debate.

We agree with the Minister and the Government that we cannot allow LEAs or schools to fail, and intervention is important in those areas. If the private sector is involved, there is usually a contract with a number of penalties. For example, Islington has a contract with Cambridge Education Associates, and because there was a failure to reach the required five GCSEs at A to C, there were penalties. It also failed to reach the appropriate level of improvement at key stage 2 standard assessment tests, and there were penalties. Equally, if the targets are met, there is a bonus, but that is payable only if the head and the teachers in those schools perform far better and achieve the required results.

It seems to be perverse that, under the current system, if an LEA is failing in the eyes of Ofsted or the Audit Commission, the private sector can be brought in as the result of a direction by the Secretary of State, a profit can be made on that contract but the schools, heads and teachers do not benefit. Will the Minister assure me, in the minute that is left, that schools, heads and teachers will benefit from the contracts if there is real improvement?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We will introduce guidance on the way in which LEAs might use external partners. The hon. Gentleman has attached guidance to the wrong part of the clause. I accept the need for guidance, which might include model contracts, to simplify matters. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With that wonderful assurance of yet more guidance, I will take guidance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Tuesday 15 January at half-past Ten o'clock.