Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2002.

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. At this morning's sitting it is likely that, once again, we will fall into the trap whereby important and controversial clauses to which a number of amendments have been tabled might not be reached because of the knife that is due to fall at 1 o'clock. I want to make it known that, through the usual channels, Conservative members have sought a Programming Sub-Committee this morning. Although the Government frequently say that they are willing to offer more time, they are, again, showing no flexibility over the guillotine, which we believe to be the origin of the problem. It is regrettable that we have not reached an agreement about it. We shall do our best to ensure that the important clauses are dealt with this morning, but it is important to record the fact that there has not been agreement on the way in which we should proceed.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

That is not a point of order. It is should be dealt with through the usual channels.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Although I made it plain last week that any Opposition request for extra time would probably be accepted as long as it was received in time, by last night we had had no such request. As a result, the Minister suggested that it would be useful to have extra time on Tuesday night in order to advance the work of the Committee. I gave a note to that effect to the Opposition last night. At 9.20 pm we were told that they had a proposal. I said that if that were put to us, we would consider it. However, I cannot see the point of convening a Sub-Committee until I know what the proposal is.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Now that we have discussed that, we can get on with the main business.Clause 62 Academies

Clause 62 - Academies

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move, amendment No. 476, in page 42, line 9, after 'may', insert

', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment: No. 477, in clause 66, page 43, line 31, after 'may' insert

', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.

Amendment No. 478, in clause 66, page 44, line 13, after 'may', insert

', and where section [Parents' Demand for Additional Schools or Academies] applies, shall'.

New clause 7—Parents' demand for additional schools or academies:—

'(a) Where the conditions in subsection (b) apply the prescribed person shall consider the establishment of a school of a description in section 66(2).

(b) The conditions are:

(i) that an initial proposal, generally conforming to a form prescribed by regulations, for a new school has been published;

(ii) that a number of parents of pupils likely to be eligible for admission to the school have indicated in writing their support for the initial proposal;

(iii) that the initial proposal and the indications of support shall have been delivered to the prescribed person.

(c) The prescribed person is (in the case of an Academy) the Secretary of State and (in the case of a community, foundation or voluntary school) the local education authority.

(d) The Secretary of State shall by regulation, to be approved by positive vote of both Houses, set out the content of the form of initial proposal mentioned in subsection (b)(i) above, that content not to require the provision of information not generally available to members of the public.

(e) Where a initial proposal has been considered the prescribed person shall either give in writing his reasons for the rejection of the proposal (which must be from among those set out in subsection (f) below),or use his best endeavours to establish a new school or academy broadly conforming to the initial proposal.

(f) The reasons for rejection are:

(i) that there are sufficient places available for pupils of the age and number mentioned in the initial proposal in schools within reasonable travelling time of the pupils' homes, such schools not being in special measures or having serious weaknesses, and

(ii) that there are sufficient places available for pupils of the age and number mentioned in the initial proposal in schools of the character mentioned in the initial proposal within reasonable travelling time of the pupils' homes, such schools not being in special measures or having serious weaknesses, or

(iii) that insufficient parents have indicated their support for the initial proposal to make a school of the size and character mentioned in the initial proposal reasonably viable, having regard to current patterns of expenditure on schools in the area, or

(iv) such other reason as the Secretary of State may add by regulations to be approved by both Houses.

(g) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to assist in the development of initial proposals under this section.

(h) ''Proposals'' in this section does not have the meaning in section 66.'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Griffiths.

The amendments and the new clause are simply to probe the Government's thinking. They seek to obtain an explanation as to why, on the establishment of additional schools or academies, the Minister once again, deems it to be necessary for sole discretion to be in the hands of the Secretary of State. Clause 62(1) states:

''482 Academies

(1) The Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with any person under which—'',

and in subsection (4) we learn that the Secretary of State must consult but

''shall make any payments dependent on the fulfilment of—''

conditions imposed. Of course, those conditions are imposed by the Secretary of State. The whole import of the clause turns entirely on ministerial discretion.

The contention of the amendments is that there are circumstances, other than ministerial whim or diktat, whereby the need for additional schools or academies may be accepted.

The amendments and the new clause consequent on them propose a transfer in the balance of power. Amendment No. 476 would add a provision about parental demand. Its point about parents in the locality wanting additional schools or academies is picked up by amendments Nos. 477 and 478. New clause 7 effectively seeks to set conditions that would require the establishment of new schools or academies. At the least, it would set out a process that would be more automatic and transparent, and would again take some discretion away from Ministers. It seeks to provide a clearer process for the establishment of schools and academies where there is a need or demand for them.

The amendments are intended to be probing so as to draw out the Minister's thinking, and we will be interested to hear what that may be.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I apologise to hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for arriving in the middle of those remarks. I was able to hear that he had not progressed so far as the detail of new clause 7, and I want to add a little flesh to its bones. As he said, it would put more power into the hands of the consumers of the education service, and in certain circumstances would require the Secretary of State or the local education authority to take note of the desires of parents, as surrogates for the pupils, for the provision of additional school places.

There may be two different reasons for that desire. First, many local authorities are seeing a rapid increase in their school populations. Traditionally, most local authorities have coped with that not by creating new schools, but by adding a few forms of entry to individual schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) told me this morning in conversation that that is the position in his constituency, and he asked me to draw it to the Committee's attention. The consequence is that some comprehensive schools become extremely large. He foresees the time when three or four of the comprehensive schools that serve his area will have 1,750 pupils.

I taught in a comprehensive school with a similar number of pupils. Such a school presents different challenges from a school of 700 or 1,000 pupils, although those challenges vary depending on the area and the quality of the management and internal organisation of the school. The challenges to organisation are one thing, but the challenges to the pupils are entirely different. In many cases, pupils find it difficult to adapt, especially when they have been in small, rural primary schools. It is hard to move rapidly from a primary school of, say, 60 pupils to a

comprehensive school of 1,750 pupils, however good its internal organisation.

With 12 forms of 30 or so pupils each, there would be more than 240 pupils in a year group. Such a group would be far bigger than a child aged 11 would be used to coping with. Not unreasonably, parents believe that they should have a choice when such a choice can be realistically provided, and that there should not simply be a constant bolting-on of more permanent classes, let alone temporary ones, to existing schools. That is one reason why it would be right to enable parents to express a view about the need for new schools or academies to be provided, which is why we have tabled the new clause.

The second reason is the quality of the schools available. I have detained the Committee for far too long with stories from my experience to want to go over them all again, but the quality of education is not what it ought to be in some areas. Parents in those areas have to hope to be lucky enough to get their children into faith schools, because they do not have sufficient confidence in the community schools available to express first preference for any of them. In parts of London and, for all I know, other parts of the country, there are simply not sufficient places available that parents are prepared to put as their first preference. As a consequence, we have seen an efflux of pupils from inner London to the outer London boroughs. There is congestion in the schools of outer London boroughs, as well as serious traffic problems and severe dissatisfaction with the education available.

Some local authorities seem prepared to respond to the problem, but others do not. I welcome the fact that some seem able to respond, but we cannot simply leave the problem to local authorities if they are unwilling to respond to the demand of parents for adequate education. Nor, realistically, can we leave schools that are not satisfactory, and in which parents do not have confidence, in the hope that they will improve. Of course they should do so, but we cannot leave the problem until they do. A school that takes three years to improve takes three years out of the education of even those pupils who join it once the need for improvement has been recognised, let alone those who attended it beforehand.

Think how difficult it must be for parents in inner London boroughs who know that they are not of the Catholic faith and cannot apply to Catholic schools, know that they do not live near to perhaps the single community school that is not failing, does not have serious weaknesses or does not lack the confidence of the local community, and are not fortunate enough to gain admission for their children to city academies. I welcome the Government's creation of such academies in inner London boroughs and elsewhere, in the model of our city technology colleges. Think how difficult it must be if one is forced to send one's child to a school in which one does not have confidence, and if the only hope on the horizon is that three or four years down the line, the school will go through Ofsted inspections and special measures and drag itself up.

There is a serious weakness in the supply of good quality schools. It is a supply issue, so the demands of parents have to be realistically taken into account. I

genuinely welcome the Government's proposals for city academies, and their work to provide new schools in some areas with the support of sensible local education authorities, but not enough has yet been done. The new clause is designed to set out a procedure whereby parents can draw the need for additional schools to the attention of the local education authority in respect of schools, or of the Secretary of State in respect of academies. We suggest that when a small group of parents puts together an initial proposal, which must not be too detailed or onerous a task, when several parents have shown support for that proposal and when the proposal has been delivered to one or other of the prescribed persons—the Secretary of State or the local education authority—those authorities should be required to consider whether the proposal is realistic.

People should be able to say when they are not satisfied with what the council is providing and that they want a school of their own, as parents did in Bermondsey at the beginning of the last academic year, supported by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I am glad that the council in that area was prepared to work with the hon. Gentleman, and helped to provide a school to tide over those parents until the Government's proposal for a city academy came on stream. In some areas, however, people will not be so fortunate. They may not be represented by a Member of Parliament who believes that they are right to take up such a cause. They might not have such a responsible local authority or a Secretary of State with her ear as close to the ground; one reason why her ear was so close to the ground in this case is that Southwark is only five miles from this place. People in other parts of the country do not have such an intimate communication with the Secretary of State, either through their councillors or through other means, but they should be able to bring to the Secretary of State's attention the need for an additional school. The Secretary of State or local authority should consider the proposal and, as we suggest in subsection (e) of the new clause, either reject it in writing, giving reasons so that those who made the proposal understand its rejection, or use their

''best endeavours to establish a new school or academy broadly conforming to the initial proposal.''

As we have said, we are not referring to the kind of proposal found under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; it is not a formal proposal on which consultation is carried out. That is a job for the authorities, but the authorities would then have to use their best endeavours to create a new school or academy in line with the rest of this part of the Bill.

We set out the reasons why the Secretary of State might, rightly, consider rejecting the proposal. He does not have to reject the proposal in those circumstances, but he can do so. As always, we have allowed the Secretary of State latitude to introduce additional reasons for the rejection of proposals, given that we may not have been quick enough to include them in the amendment. Subsection (f)(iv) says that

''the Secretary of State may add''

other reasons

''by regulations to be approved by both Houses.''

Our proposal is an imaginative attempt to enable parents, when they are seriously dissatisfied with education provision, to ask the Secretary of State or local authority to take their concerns seriously and think about establishing one of the new schools of the kind that the Government are proposing. They should be able to ask the Secretary of State or local authority to do for them what was done for the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey with the support of Southwark council. That is how to satisfy parents.

I am convinced that it contributes greatly to the success of a school if the pupils want to be there, if the school has the confidence of the parents and is a community effort. The school should not have to act in isolation with a group of pupils who are there reluctantly, however good the school is, because they could not get into the school of their choice.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.

I listened with interest to the brief speech made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and the longer one from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). When I read the new clause, I thought that the arrangement would be commended on the basis that it is similar to the one operating in the Netherlands. I recall an article on that subject written by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). However, it was not mentioned, so I shall not draw on the extensive research that I have undertaken only to refer to it in passing.

The scheme may based on the Dutch arrangement, under which parents are famously able to put forward proposals for a school, which under normal circumstances is supported out of state funds. If it is based on that arrangement, it is a somewhat watered down version, which would add little, if anything, to the arrangements that already prevail.

The objection made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that the Secretary of State would be able to make decisions was rather odd, as that is where the decision-making power would rest under the free schools proposal that the Opposition used to—and perhaps still—support. In the Dutch system, the decisions must be made by the Minister.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As the Minister may have been going on to admit, under the amendments and the new clause, the Secretary of State would retain the final decision-making capacity. We seek to raise the possibility through the amendments that the balance could be tipped procedurally so as to give the Secretary of State, to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, an ear closer to the ground. The Secretary of State would have the ear of parents, who are likely to be acutely and rapidly aware of the situations in their locality.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Okay, so the amendments are about tilting the balance. I would argue that the

arrangements already in place work well in that respect. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that the aim was to ensure that the Secretary of State could have her attention drawn to people's needs. He generously paid tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which will please the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). He also paid tribute to the London borough of Southwark and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which the arrangements worked well when a problem occurred in Bermondsey. I suggest that that shows that the arrangements already in place allow those matters to be addressed.

Anyone can put forward proposals for new foundation or voluntary schools, or enter into agreement with the Secretary of State to establish an academy. It is the duty of the local education authority to provide sufficient schools for their area. The Secretary of State has the powers to direct LEAs to put forward proposals for additional places if, in her view, the supply in the area is insufficient. Under the new clause, the LEA would be able to refuse to bring forward proposals and the Secretary of State could enter an agreement for an academy only in the circumstances prescribed.

The prescribed circumstances are drawn broadly, for understandable reasons, but it reflects the fact that the existing arrangements, which have been in place in their essentials since the Education Act 1944, are there for a good reason. Proper consideration should be given before proposals are brought forward, with all interested parties having the opportunity to make their points in consultation. The arrangements also allow longer term planning, with supply and demand being considered over a reasonable period.

I suggest to Opposition Members that if the provisions in their new clause were taken seriously, they would not act very differently from the present arrangements. If there were insufficient places of that type in the area, and enough parents had indicated support for a school to make it viable, it would stand a good chance of going ahead under the existing arrangements.

Clause 66 already establishes new arrangements for additional secondary schools, which we think will provide the necessary encouragement to new providers. We want to encourage them—that is a clear feature of the Bill. The system that the Bill supports and amends is sufficiently broad to enable all proposals to receive proper consideration. The new clause would not add much and I urge hon. Members not to press it to a vote. I accept that in the sense of tilting the balance, as was argued by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, the proposal is very modest, but I hope that on reflection he will agree that it does not really add significantly to the current arrangements.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister who has praised me for both modesty and brevity, which is not always his habit. The thrust of his argument against the amendments and the new clause appeared to be almost entirely that the existing system works perfectly

well and, effectively, that it cannot be improved. It is unwise for any Minister to argue that no improvement is possible, particularly when the avowed objective of a proposal is a fairly modest, incremental change. We were keen to emphasise the importance of parents in this context and to attempt—in a way that was, perhaps, partly symbolic—to make it clear that parents must be in the driving seat.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I was astonished—and my hon. Friend has expressed his astonishment too—by the Minister's assumption that on the whole things are working perfectly well. Perhaps he did not say ''perfectly'', but he claimed that they were working fairly well. They are not working perfectly well.

In my constituency, where there is no Christian high school, and all the high schools are community schools, a group of parents has been working hard for three or four years to try to persuade the local education authority not that there should be a Christian high school but that there should be consultation on whether one is needed. The local education authority has consistently refused even to put the matter out to consultation. In its defence, it has a majority of Liberal Democrats, so it is not the fault of the officers, but there is total hostility to the idea of consulting parents about whether there should be a Christian high school.

What is proposed would require local authorities to take note of parents' views and, if there is reason, to use their best endeavours. I am sorry that the Minister did not appear to appreciate the problems that exist.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. I hope that interventions will be shorter in future.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, even if his enthusiasm drew it out a little more than he would have wished. He made an important point in a typically characteristic and even-handed way, demonstrating that he is prepared not only to praise the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey when it is appropriate, but to be the scourge of Liberal Democrats when they fail parents in his constituency. I expect that all hon. Members would endorse that stance.

My hon. Friend's intervention highlighted ministerial complacency. I shall try to be almost as even-handed as my hon. Friend in saying that for too long, education policy in this country has been characterised by too much complacency, for the reasons suggested by my hon. Friend. No one looking objectively at our education system, at the schools available across great swathes of the country and at the education available in inner city areas could say with confidence, hand on heart, that it works as well as could be expected. It does not. It is palpably not doing so, and the people being let down are the parents and children in the communities served by those schools—rather, in the communities not being served by those schools.

As the Minister observed, our amendments did not go so far as to replicate the Dutch system, although there may be some merit in it. In a more modest way,

we sought to give more power, more authority and more weight to the views and concerns of parents—not only in inner London, the example given by my hon. Friend, but throughout the country. In my area, we have extremely good schools; but a large flow of children comes across the boundary from the Manchester local education authority area, where the schools typically are not so good. That happens throughout the country. The Under-Secretary, who represents a constituency on the other fringe of the Manchester conurbation, is nodding. He clearly accepts that there is a problem.

In opening this short debate, I made it clear that the amendments were probing and that I did not intend to press them to a Division. However, it is an important issue, and Ministers would do well to reflect on the complacency inherent in their saying that our system works perfectly well at the moment. If, later in the day, they sit in a quiet room later and reflect on the importance and thrust of that statement, they will come to the conclusion that the system does not work adequately, because it does not serve all parents and children nearly as well as it should. A change along the lines suggested in the amendment would take us a little way in the right direction. 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. 467, in page 42, line 18, at end insert—

'(2) (a) An application may be made to the Secretary of State by the governing body of any maintained school seeking to become an academy.

(b) The Secretary of State shall have powers by order to give effect to an application under subsection (2)(a).'.

Now for something slightly more challenging for the Under-Secretary. Ministers do not always find themselves in familiar territory when they encounter an Opposition who think through the issues, who are prepared to engage constructively with the Government and who, when they find areas of Government policy with which they have sympathy, are prepared to say so. When we see the Government seeking to develop an initiative such as the city academy—now to be the academies initiative—a policy that has much to offer, because we believe that schools converted to academy status and the new academies have a real contribution to make to the education of our children, we are prepared to say so. Not only are we prepared to say that we have some sympathy with the Government's policy, and to say that the establishment of academies and the expansion and development of the academy model may be beneficial whenever Ministers care to give weight and momentum to the academies policy; we are also prepared to be even more helpful.

In amendment No. 467, my hon. Friends and I seek to extend the Government's academy policy. We seek to assist Ministers—perhaps they have been slightly over-cautious, perhaps they were concerned that, even though they believe that their academies policy has been a huge and unmitigated success, they should not extend it too rapidly or should not risk others extending it too rapidly. We propose to insert in clause 62 a new subsection (2), which states that

''An application may be made to the Secretary of State by the governing body of any maintained school seeking to become an academy.''

I will be most interested to hear the Minister's remarks in this regard, because I hope that he will share my enthusiasm for the academy policy. I hope that he will see that it has a great deal to offer, far beyond its current scope. I hope that the Minister will see an opportunity in amendment No. 467. By being slightly less timid and cautious than the Government—perhaps that is the privilege or prerogative of the Opposition—we are giving him an opportunity to embrace a far more radical policy.

I am sure that when the Minister responds he will immediately take us through the benefits and strengths of the academy model and what it has achieved in the situations in which it has been applied. I am quietly confident that the force of the Minister's argument will lead him inexorably in the same direction as the amendment. Ministers apparently believe that the academy model is fundamental to improving standards in failing schools, and in improving overall standards in areas where there are no good schools by injecting a new, good school into the local community. The amendment is intended to extend the values, opportunities and strengths in the academy model.

In speaking his mind about the great benefits of the policy, the Minister will surely recognise that the governing body of a school might see the model as an opportunity and decide that it would remove the shackles and difficulties of whatever sort that have held that school back in the past. The governors might decide that with academy status, their school could take great strides forward. Schools in areas where there are already other city academies might make such decisions. I remember discussing a potential danger with Ministers when the initiative was first proposed, in something like its current form, in the Committee on the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—is the Minister about to correct me on that?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The discussions to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place in the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Learning and Skills Act 2000, of which he was also a member.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I have attended too many such Committees. In the debates on the Learning and Skills Bill, we considered the possible impact of the creation of a city academy on the other schools in the area.

Some of those other schools might, not in a defensive but in an entirely positive way, see a city academy in the locality making great steps forward and say ''this is something that we should like to do—we believe that we can go in the same direction''.

Amendment no. 467 does not seek to place the Secretary of State in a dead end or to constrain her to accept any application from a governing body. It does not go so far as to say that all schools should become city academies overnight or have the freedom to do so if they wish. It seeks to open another route through which a school might move in that direction. I hope very much that, in sharing some of the enthusiasm

about the benefits that might flow from the expansion of city academies, the Minister might look sympathetically upon that new route, which would provide for a great blossoming of academies within and without our cities in the years ahead.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. My point is about the nature of the provision established by the amendment, and I should like to make a comparison with our earlier discussions concerning the rights and duties of governing bodies to take advantage of opportunities created by this legislation. I remind the Minister of our deliberations about earned enhancement, and the right to opt out of particular elements of the curriculum. We discussed the fact that governing bodies were expected by the Government to put forward formal applications. It was not something that would happen naturally; it was down to a governing body to submit an application to take advantage of the rights, privileges and opportunities set out in the earlier part of the Bill.

It therefore seems incongruous that those same governing bodies do not have, under the current legislation, the right to put in an application to become an academy. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has set out very accurately the potential benefits of the academy model. That has been recognised by the Government in the way in which they have put forward the proposal. In the spirit of the whole legislation, it would not be right for the Government not to permit the powers encompassed in the amendment for governing bodies when dealing with the academy model as well as when dealing with the rights of enhancement and so forth. I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, and ask the Minister to treat the amendment in the constructive sense in which it has been tabled and to give full consideration to allowing governing bodies to have the rights encompassed by the amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome the offer of support from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I look forward to witnessing delivery of that on numerous occasions during today's debate. I welcome, in particular, the support for academies expressed both by him and by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

It is important that we do not undermine the partnership approach that is working so well in the promotion of academies and replace it with something different and less satisfactory. The involvement of existing schools in plans for academies is important, and I assure the Committee that there is nothing to prevent maintained schools from approaching the Department and discussing the possibility of academy status for themselves. In the case of both St. George's school in Bristol and Edgware school in Barnet, it was the school that made the first inquiry to the Department about taking on academy status. The Department subsequently worked with the schools and local education authorities to help identify suitable

sponsors to establish an academy. In all the academy projects that are progressing so far, the schools involved have supported what has happened.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West invited me to celebrate the success of academies, which I should be keen to do, but I should point out to the Committee that none has yet opened. I am confident that they will indeed be very successful, but as we were reminded in one of our exchanges, it was the Learning and Skills Act 2000 that enabled the academies to be set up, and the first will open in September.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I simply want to ask whether the Minister agrees with those of us who regard the academy model as having emanated from the city technology colleges. Does he recognise the contribution that they have made and the precedent that they have set for the academy model?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have certainly learned from the city technology college model. Indeed, several of those institutions have been excellent schools and continue to be outstanding. However, with the benefit of hindsight—and some people made the point at the time—some elements of the model were unhelpful. I am particularly anxious, in responding to the amendment, not to repeat those mistakes.

Other elements of the academy partnership, beyond the school itself, are important. The academy sponsors have a critical role. That was an element of the city technology college model. The amendment would exclude it, I think. It is voluntary or private sector partners—whose involvement will be so critical to the success of the academies—who will make the formal approach to the Secretary of State, and it is the charitable company set up by the sponsors for that purpose that will enter into the funding agreement with the Secretary of State.

The amendment also ignores—and this is an aspect on which the city technology college model was seriously at fault—the role of the local education authority. Its opinion is important. Local education authorities should have a voice. Again, in every case so far, the local education authority has been a supportive partner in the establishment of the academies. Excluding LEAs when city technology colleges were established was divisive. The legacy of the problems that that approach created persists in some areas and I would not want those problems to be repeated.

The progress that we have made with academies makes it clear that it is possible to construct the partnerships that I have described. It is an important feature of what we are doing that those partnerships should be sustained.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has identified two issues that he considers to be defects in the amendments. I assure him that there was no intention to disregard the role of either local authorities or private sponsors. Indeed, I see no way in which those could be disregarded in the context of the rest of the clause. However, I note his opinion.

Is the Minister telling us that the Secretary of State would be willing, when a school proposes becoming an academy, to assist in finding a private sponsor, as has happened for new academies, and to connect existing schools with potential private sponsors?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We should certainly be prepared to work with a school that wanted to do that, to see whether the proposal was a possibility, to discuss it with the local education authority and to assess the local circumstances and the appropriateness of proceeding. There is no bar to schools doing that. We have said that we want 20 academies up and running by 2005, and we are close to that number. We would certainly be prepared to talk to schools about that.

Beyond that, I am not sure that the amendment adds much, if anything, to what is currently possible, especially as it is envisaged that the LEA partnership and sponsor continue to be part of the package. Given the assurances that I have made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am delighted to respond to the Minister. He has fully accepted the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered. We tabled it in an attempt to help the Government, and to extend the hand of friendship over a policy that we think offers opportunities. He responded in like manner, so I am grateful to him. Those outside the House who pay attention to our proceedings will be encouraged to find that, when there is genuine agreement on such matters, both Opposition and Government Members are prepared to express it.

The Minister raised the concern that the LEA or sponsor might be excluded by the amendment, which was refuted in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I want to emphasise that the amendment is designed merely to institutionalise an opportunity for the governing body to make an approach. The Minister stressed that governing bodies could do so already, and highlighted instances in which they had made such approaches. He also said that an important aspect of the academy policy was the involvement of existing schools in the process. That was all positive.

I tabled the amendment in the hope of engendering a moment of consensus and warmth in the Committee, and I think that I have been successful. In that spirit, 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. 464, in page 42, line 20, after 'agreement', insert

'these subject areas may include English, mathematics or any other core subjects'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 465, in page 42, line 21, after 'abilities', insert

'but not necessarily the whole ability range'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Flushed with success, having achieved my objective in relation to the previous amendment, I now want to do more of the same, as amendment No. 464 is intended to be even more helpful to the

Minister. I was most grateful to him for assisting my memory of the provenance of the provisions in statute. I want to take him back a little further, to the original policy on city technology colleges in the Education Act 1996.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell invited the Minister to celebrate the success of CTCs, which he more or less did, and we were grateful for that other moment of consensus. It is welcome that the Government have in some regard sought to build on the success of CTCs, and to take the idea forward with the development of the city academy legislation and now—albeit before any of the city academies are up and running, as the Minister said—by further changes to that legislation.

Let us consider the provenance of that form of school. Section 482(2)(c) of the 1996 Act contains the requirement that such schools have

''a broad curriculum with an emphasis either on science and technology or on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts.''

That was the initial vision set out for the city colleges, which were typically known as city technology colleges, although some were invited to specialise in the performing and creative arts. It was a prescriptive beginning, with clearly defined curriculum subjects appropriate for the development of specialisms.

The Government previously introduced legislation that sought to develop the city college model into the new model of city colleges and academies, as it was termed. Section 130(3) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 inserted new subsection (2A) into section 482 of the 1996 Act, defining other curriculum subjects in which specialism would be welcomed for city academies and colleges. Those subjects were clearly defined in the 2000 Act as

''(a) modern foreign languages;

(b) visual arts, performing arts or media arts (or any combination of them);

(c) sport;''

and—this is where the development of the policy begins to look interesting—

''(d) any subject specified by order by the Secretary of State''.

Although the promotion of specialism in some subjects was encouraged because they were specified in the 2000 Act, a little chink also began to open up in the restriction, suggesting that any subject might be included in the curriculum.

Clause 62 will replace section 482 of the 1996 Act with a new section 482 on academies that has a rather different formulation. Section 482(2A) of the 1996 Act, which Ministers went to considerable trouble to insert via the 2000 Act, specified certain curriculum subjects—

''modern foreign languages . . . visual arts . . . sport''

and

''any subject specified by order by the Secretary of State''—

for the city colleges and academies. However, within two years, and before any of the schools or academies has opened its doors, we have a new relaxation of the qualifying characteristics. New section 482(2)(a) of the

1996 Act, which is proposed in the Bill, contains the new formula, which is that the school

''has a broad curriculum with an emphasis on a particular subject area, or particular subject areas, specified in the agreement''.

We have moved from the formula arrived at in what seemed at the time to be an innovative policy but now seems rather tentative. The restrictive definition of those curriculum subjects that were acceptable only five or six years ago, at the time of the 1996 Act, was relaxed in the 2000 Act. For reasons that we look forward to hearing, Ministers now deem it necessary to enact a further relaxation—before even one city academy has opened its doors and started to accept pupils.

I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or the Minister will respond to the debate, but in response to an earlier amendment, the Under-Secretary was helpful enough to dismiss an amendment of a similar nature by saying that it should be opposed because it added nothing to the Bill. The same argument may be advanced now, because amendment No. 464 would simply specify what is implied in the Bill—which is that academies may specialise in

''English, mathematics or any other core subjects''.

The importance of that provision is that it gives form to the change in thinking apparent from the legislative changes made over the past few years. It will therefore be interesting to hear the Government's response. I would be happy to reflect on the matter if the Minister were to say that the amendment is unnecessary because it is already possible for an academy to specialise in maths, English, or any other core subject or combination of subjects. It would be an interesting acknowledgement.

Amendment No. 465 is similarly designed to draw out the Government's thinking on the selection of pupils for places in city academies. Again, we have to go back to the 1996 Act. Section 482(2)(b) specifies that the school

''provides education for pupils of different abilities who have attained the age of 11 and who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated''.

We then move on to the Bill, which states that the school must provide education for pupils of ''different abilities.'' It is interesting that the Government did not seek to make a dramatic change to the formula as they have done by degrees with the curriculum.

I am seeking to discover how Ministers would define the requirement that pupils of different abilities should be educated. The provision may allow for different abilities, which is the substance of amendment No. 465, but not an entirely comprehensive intake from the local community. For instance, looking at some of the curriculum proposals that Ministers advanced elsewhere in the Bill, it may allow a more vocational specialism. Perhaps, in seeking to provide the best possible education, they may want to allow such specialism for those pupils who would find it more difficult to achieve excellence in an academic context.

Within the strict terms of the Bill, it would be possible to develop that specialism for a certain percentage of the intake of the academy on the premise that more than one ability band, or more than one part of the ability range, would be welcomed into the school without there being a requirement for the whole ability range to be accepted. I look forward to hearing the Minister's thinking on that. The amendments are intended to develop the Government's thinking, which—judging by previous legislation as well as the Bill—has changed and developed over a relatively short period, given that it is only five or six years since the 1996 Act was debated. In that short time we have seen an explicit change in ministerial thinking, necessitating a change in legislation with regard to the curriculum.

On the ability range that will be encouraged to apply to the school, although there has been no change in the terms used in the legislation, there has clearly been a development in Government thinking about the need to specialise in a vocational or an academic route as well as—looking at some of the excellence in cities work—an acceptance that it might be appropriate in some circumstances to select a certain proportion of pupils on academic ability, giving them different treatment in a specialist context. I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We want academies to be inclusive schools in every sense. That desire lies at the heart of our policy on academies. Normally they will be replacements for existing, poorly performing schools, so they are intended to tackle deep-seated problems of underachievement. They will provide new opportunities for children and young people in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country, and will play an active part in each local family of schools, working with other schools and as a resource for the wider community.

The amendments appear to enshrine a very different vision, although that was not set out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He presented them as probing amendments rather than statements of policy. I want to make it clear that our vision for academies is firmly an inclusive one. Academies will serve children of all abilities in their local area. The reason why there is such a lot of enthusiasm for them across a wide range of interests and across the partnerships to which I have referred—from sponsors to schools and local education authorities—is that academies are designed to cater for all abilities, not just for a few children. They offer all parents the chance to secure a place for their child and they will be expected to provide a high standard of education for all of their pupils according to their individual needs. They will reflect the communities that they are built to serve.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has mentioned all abilities, but the Bill mentions different abilities. Are they the same thing?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think that they are. If there is any doubt, I shall be happy to make it clear that we want academies to serve the needs of children of all abilities.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

On a point of clarification, might I use the example of the LEA in which I was involved when I served as a councillor in the London borough of Merton, which has had some successful and some less successful secondary schools. If one of its schools were to become an academy with a specialism in technology, would all pupils who fell within the school's catchment area be able to attend the academy, or would the Merton academy be able to serve pupils across a range of schools who have an aptitude in its specialist subject? What do the Government intend?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am not familiar with the admission arrangements of schools in the London borough of Merton, but I would be surprised if a rigid geographical area applied to every secondary school. People move around the boroughs in London. In south London, as the hon. Gentleman knows, people often move across borough boundaries. I doubt whether the problem that he identified will arise. The establishment of a city academy might lead to changes in other schools' admission arrangements, but I would not envisage the rigid arrangement that he mentioned.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Is the Minister saying that it is inappropriate for academies to have the same ability as special schools to select up to 10 per cent. on the basis of specialism?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, I am not saying that that is inappropriate. I shall deal more fully with the point in a moment. The Bill makes it clear that all academies must have a specialism, though they are free to adopt a wider range than is available to maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman asked why the provisions are different from earlier legislation. We are seeking greater flexibility and want to remove the need to produce an order for new specialisms to be allowed. We want to promote some new ideas.

The choice of specialism would be part of the consultation process surrounding the establishment of an academy. The approach allows for a combination of specialisms—business and performing arts, for example, which has been taken up by one of the academies—and has proved attractive in several respects. That explains the difference between the Bill and earlier legislation. Subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, an academy may specialise in any subject area or any combination, so the Bill will not prevent academies from specialising in any of the subjects mentioned in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that when he moved it.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for going so far down the route that I invited him to follow. He says that the Bill will not prevent any of the specialisms in the amendment from being adopted, but would Ministers also be prepared to give full and open consideration to an application for any of them?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes. I have made it clear that under the proposals academies can choose those specialisms—or, indeed, others. Following consultation with other schools, the LEA and so forth, the decision would be written into the funding agreement with the Secretary of State. I am not aware of any difficulties so far, but if

there were any, they would be resolved by the Secretary of State.

To respond to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, the fact that a school specialises in a particular branch of the curriculum does not necessarily mean that it may admit pupils on the basis of their aptitude for it. The legal position is that it is open to schools with a particular specialism to admit up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of their aptitude for the specialism, where that specialism is prescribed in the regulations. Academies are not covered by the regulations, but we have made it clear that we want consistency with the law as it applies to maintained schools, and with the code of practice on admissions. Accordingly, academies may admit pupils on the basis of aptitude in subjects where it is open for maintained schools to do the same.

We have consistently made it clear that academies should be inclusive schools catering for pupils of all abilities. That lies at the heart of our vision for academies. I therefore vigorously resist amendment No. 465 and the suggestion that academies should restrict their admissions to only part of the ability range. That is radically opposed to our vision for academies, which is about tackling underachievement in some of our most disadvantaged communities and achieving high standards for the young people living in them. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West did not press it hard. If he had, it would have shown his intention to undermine our central vision for academies to operate as inclusive schools.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

We have had an instructive debate. The Minister stressed at the outset that academies should be inclusive in every sense. He then observed that where the Bill states that schools cater for different abilities, it means the same as catering for all abilities. Perhaps rather inconsistently, he went on to allow some selection in admissions. He allowed that the same regulations and admissions law that apply to maintained schools would apply to academies, although the mechanism is less direct or clear.

On the matter of providing for 10 per cent. of selection by aptitude, I shall not go into lengthy debates about how the definition of aptitude supposedly differs from the definition of ability. From the standpoint of the ''Oxford English Dictionary'', the two words are effectively interchangeable. Looking up the one invites the reader to consult the definition of the other, but I shall not dally on that semantic point.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, the Minister said that no rigid catchment area would apply to an academy in the London borough of Merton. He sought to construct a rather flimsy defence on the grounds that such an academy might be expected to cater for the local community in the same way as any other school, but that there was no such thing as the local community for such a school.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend has pointed to an interesting gap in the Minister's defence of the position. One change in the Bill is the deletion of the

word ''city'' from academies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister did not make it clear what will happen in areas where there are, by means of geography or politics, much clearer catchment areas?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and the Minister may want to intervene and provide some clarity. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill will delete the original requirement for the schools to serve urban areas. The Minister says that there is no such thing as a catchment, even in urban areas, so he watered down his inclusive community school rhetoric. In rural areas, or perhaps an island community, other circumstances may apply, and it might be possible to define a more rigid catchment area.

On amendment No. 464, the Minister went on to confirm that the Government are looking for greater flexibility and wanted to remove the need for an order to be used to introduce new specialisms. He said that the Bill would have the benefit of allowing a combination of specialisms, and he highlighted the instance of an academy specialising in both business and the performing arts. Helpfully, he went on to say that Ministers would give full consideration to an academy's application to specialise in any of the subjects that are mentioned in amendment No. 464—English, maths or any other core curriculum subject.

If I said that we have now a clearer idea of the Government's intentions, I would be going a little too far, but we have clearer idea of the scope and freedom that Ministers intend to enjoy under the legislation, which will extend to the academies' intake, allow limited selection on aptitude and allow English and maths to be included as specialisms for which the academy may require evidence of aptitude. We may therefore see academies wanting to specialise in what would have been traditionally regarded as the academic end of the curriculum. That is positive. Ministers have made it clear that they are trying to be open and flexible on how the new academies operate. Through discussion of the amendments, we have established to an extent the way in which those flexibilities will apply. They will allow any potential specialism and limited selection on aptitude in that specialism. This has been a valuable exercise, and we have drawn out a little of the Minister's thinking.

I do not see any sign that the Minister intends to rise again to give further clarification on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about how catchment areas will apply outside urban areas. I hope that he will see an opportunity later in our discussions to put more flesh on the bones.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I envisage the catchment areas for academies varying in the same way as they do for maintained schools. Admissions arrangements can be framed in a great variety of ways, and I do not expect academies' arrangements to have any particular distinguishing characteristics compared with those of other schools.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister may be underplaying the extent to which an academy may have benefits,

especially in terms of its reputation or the excitement or press coverage in a locality that might attend its establishment. An academy may have a disproportionate effect on the patterns of applications in the overall admissions structure in an area.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He does not appear to have dealt with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that a specialism and a requirement to admit the local community at the same time are two conflicting admission requirements. One can envisage a situation in which an academy with a specialism in languages could be established in a small town in an LEA. There could be oversubscription to that academy in that town, while there is great demand from other towns, perhaps within travelling distance, from youngsters who want to take up that specialism.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. That is a phenomenon that could equally apply in an urban area, where one academy specialises in performing arts. It would not take a huge leap of the imagination to foresee intense competition among those who wish to develop that specialism and who would like access to a school with that specialism. That might push the aptitude qualification up to a level that would exclude all but a few pupils from the locality from applying under the specialism criteria.

Those are important questions that the Minister has not entirely addressed. However, he has helped to flag up the extent to which Ministers are proceeding with their eyes open. They clearly intend to develop the academies as schools that are permitted to specialise, perhaps in any subject or combination of subjects. The academies will also be permitted to select a proportion of their pupils for those specialisms, whether they be technical, vocational or academic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 409, in page 42, line 23, at end insert:

'(c) is likely, in the opinion of the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated and in the opinion of any other local education authority in whose area a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident, to make a significant contribution to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in that or those areas.'

I will not detain the Committee for too long, in the hope that we may rush through clause 62 by lunchtime, even if we do not get to many of the other clauses.

The amendment is designed to be helpful and to probe the Government's policies on city and other academies. Will the Minister tell us what research his Department has undertaken on the value of academies and the quantifiable benefit for those who attend them and for pupils of other schools in the same LEA? Will he confirm that no city or other academies have yet been established? How many does he believe will be established in the coming year? Does he expect that only 20 academies will be established by 2005, and what proportion of the relevant pupil population will they cover? Is he concerned that we seem to be spending a great deal of time on a sector that

represents a small proportion of the total school population? Is he minded to put in place for all schools a more sensible overall structure that will deliver the benefits that he seeks to deliver through specific initiatives such as academies?

The Minister's comments this morning about the advantages that academies will offer contrast with his comments last week about earned autonomy. He said that the criteria will be such that only one in 10 schools qualify for earned autonomy. Many hon. Members—not only members of the Committee—will be concerned that the Government are giving much attention to particular initiatives and wheezes that will break open new education possibilities but that will leave many schools without the intended benefits.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me first deal with the hon. Gentleman's more general points, rather than those tied specifically to the amendment. The Bill is about raising standards throughout the system but particularly in secondary schools. We are determined to establish a modern and effective system that will command the confidence of every community, and that means raising standards in a large number of schools. He is aware that we set targets for every school: by 2004, at least 20 per cent. of pupils should be getting five or more good GCSEs, and the proportion rises to 25 per cent. by 2006. We want to encourage a new wave of innovation that will benefit every school.

The hon. Gentleman asked about research. We have learned lessons from experience. I expect the first two or three academies to open in September this year. I confirm that we envisage 20 academies by 2005, as was mentioned in the White Paper. It is true that that is a relatively small proportion of the total number of secondary schools, but I expect that the academies will have greater significance because of their role as innovators. New patterns and ideas that emerge from their experience will be applied widely. I said earlier that academies will have a full role in the local family of schools. Like other specialist schools, they will work with schools in the area so that the benefits of their high standards will extend to children in other institutions.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Would the Minister say a word about academies vis-à-vis schools that have been given exemptions to innovate? Is the role of an academy in raising standards in a locality more effective than that of schools with the power to innovate, or will other schools pick up on the model of the academy and seek innovation in a particular direction as a result of seeing the success of the academy?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It is not a question of one being more effective than the other. I expect to see a diverse range of approaches and innovations. The Bill sets out greater freedom for academies than for maintained schools. I anticipate that many of the successful ideas developed in academies will be taken up by other schools, through using the power to innovate or changing the arrangements for earned autonomy.

We want new ideas to be developed so that we can raise standards throughout the entire secondary

system. The amendment relates to the role of LEAs in the academy decision-making process. We expect academies to be established in partnership with LEAs. We are delighted with the enthusiasm that LEAs are showing for the establishment of city academies. LEAs have been active partners in every city academy partnership announced so far, and we have received many expressions of interest from LEAs wanting to explore the opportunities that city academies offer.

However, an LEA or an adjacent LEA might not support the case for an academy. We have made it clear that the Secretary of State has to consult the LEA and any other LEA from which he or she thinks pupils might attend the academy. If the authorities do not support it, they will say so. The Secretary of State must consider those views alongside the case made for the academy by sponsors and others. The LEA's view might not be the right one. In an exceptional case, an LEA could set its face against an academy, despite the Secretary of State taking a view that an academy was exactly what the area needed. In such a case, we would want the Secretary of State to authorise the academy to go ahead. The amendment would prevent that, so I hope that the Committee agrees that it is not helpful.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I appreciate that my comments were quite wide. Having had that debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 415, in page 42, line 25, leave out ''consult'' and insert ''seek the consent of''.

The Minister addressed quite a lot of my points on the amendment in his previous response. Amendment No. 415 would require a need for the consent of LEAs in the establishment of academies. The Minister said that he was delighted that LEAs have shown great enthusiasm in establishing academies, and that they had been active partners in each initiative to set up an academy so far. Has any LEA shown signs that it is not happy to work to establish academies? Has there been any resistance to the introduction of academies? Given the Minister's earlier comments that academies would be important in areas of high deprivation or where there are failing schools, does he agree that LEAs should be actively involved and give consent? LEAs should be fundamental to the plans to establish academies in such areas.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of information, can the hon. Gentleman explain if the amendment would require consent from the neighbouring authority also?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

It would. In his plans to establish academies and direct additional finance to them, does the Minister envisage some flexibility, which may allow the local education authorities to use such moneys in a different way; rather than setting up academies themselves, the money would go to an academy project in that LEA area to achieve the same objectives but through a different structure.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The amendment is extraordinarily ambiguous. Its comprehension was not assisted by the hon. Gentleman's proposal; he maundered around

the word ''consent'' without explaining whether the amendment should be taken literally. The amendment says that the Secretary of State shall ''seek'' consent, not ''obtain'' it. I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. He may want to clarify whether he intends to allow local education authorities a veto on the establishment of city academies.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

We have confidence in LEAs because they are locally elected bodies—that is as good a reason to have confidence in them as it is in the Secretary of State—and it is our intention to allow them to decide how education and education policy should be organised in their areas.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In that case, the hon. Gentleman is extremely naïve. He may have confidence in his LEA, or in that of the adjoining LEA in Dorset, which is now run by the Conservatives, but he cannot possibly—

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

To clarify, I have confidence in local electors to take such decisions and to elect people who will put in place the policies that they favour.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In that case, the hon. Gentleman's party has never consulted the electorate in the London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey, Southwark, or Lambeth. Gloucestershire education authority, which is under Liberal Democrat leadership, is in danger of being recognised as a failing LEA. Some LEAs are not even as good as those run by his party—

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in many cases the issue is not the quality of the LEA but the tensions between adjoining LEAs on school admissions policies. In my constituency, the London borough of Sutton intervened with the schools adjudicator to overrule a decision taken in the borough of Epsom and Ewell for the benefit of that borough's pupils. It is not simply about ability, but about cross-border tensions.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is indeed. The hon. Member for Yeovil seems to be driving us towards a situation in which an LEA under the control of, for example, Surrey county council, could say, ''Yes, let us have a city academy close to the border with Sutton.'' However, Sutton, being an antediluvian Liberal Democrat-controlled local education authority, which is hostile to choice for parents and the improvement of standards by the adventurous means that the Government propose, will say, ''No, not on your nellie.'' In the words of the late Lord Hailsham, that is stark, staring bonkers.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Does it occur to my hon. Friend that when the hon. Member for Yeovil says that he has confidence in the local electorate to take decisions that are right for the area, he is providing for the local electorate in a neighbouring authority to take decisions for those for whom they have no responsibility and whom they do not represent?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend explains the position with greater clarity than I could have achieved. The hon. Member for Yeovil made it clear that he does not like innovation.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

No.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman denies it, but he believes—

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

If the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier comments—I am sure that he was—he would have heard me say, especially in relation to the previous clause, that my concern was that the Government were not creating an overall structure for schools that allowed enough innovation and local decision making. They were concentrating on wheezes to set up programmes that would affect a small number of schools throughout the country but would not put in place a coherent structure for the whole country.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is exactly the problem. The hon. Gentleman uses the derogatory term ''wheezes'', some of which are jolly good, but he does not appear to understand that we cannot impose a national programme of innovation. Even the Government understand that such a programme cannot be imposed equally throughout the whole country at once. One thing for which I in my small way applaud the Government is their understanding in introducing the Bill that out of little acorns, great oaks grow; the Liberal Democrats do not seem to understand that at all.

If it had not been for the small acorn of city technology colleges, we would not have specialist schools and technology schools. If it had not been for the small acorn of grant-maintained schools, we would not have many of the proposals to allow earned innovation and the development of grant-maintained status by another means. If it were not for proposals that we introduced in a small way in our time in government—I fully accept that they did not percolate through to every child; would that they could have in the time available—those innovations could not have benefited children throughout the country.

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the local education authority, however incompetent, stupid, failing or barmy, should have a veto. I hope that I need only utter the name ''Hackney'' for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to understand the sort of LEA to which I am referring. That is a wholly ridiculous position.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil accused me of responding to amendment No. 415 when I was supposed to be thinking of amendment No. 409. I shall defend myself against that charge, because amendment No. 409 also refers to the LEA's role in the decision process and appears to imply that an academy should not go ahead if the LEA in whose area the school is to be situated, or any other LEA in whose area a significant proportion of the pupils at the school are likely to be resident, did not think that it should. That is why I responded to that point when dealing with the hon. Gentleman's previous amendment. He is right that this amendment covers rather similar terrain.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether an LEA has ever not wished to proceed with an academy. In

reality, nine times out of 10, it is the LEA that approaches the Department with a project. The LEA may or may not have a sponsor in mind at that stage, but it will usually have a school or possibly more than one in mind when it makes the approach. We take the matter forward on that basis. Many LEAs may have had discussions and decided that they do not want to proceed with an academy arrangement, but we deal all the time with approaches from LEAs that want to take the process forward and see it as a great opportunity for them as I described.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I envisaged the funding under discussion being provided to LEAs for them to use for completely different purposes. I am aware that he has not been present for all our debates, but we have already discussed earned autonomy and the power to innovate. In addition, there is funding for schools that face challenging circumstances. There is the excellence in cities programme and excellence clusters for schools in disadvantaged and rural areas. All those initiatives give schools and LEAs additional resources to raise standards in their area. I do not see how anyone could envisage the funding under discussion being used for those purposes, because an ambitious and full array of initiatives is already in place so that we can raise standards throughout the secondary system and in particular give extra help in areas where the challenges are greatest. The academy programme is part of that and, for the reasons I have outlined, the amendment would not help.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I detect a certain lack of support for the amendment. I may not, therefore, press it to a vote. After my earlier promises, I am not sure that I should be drawn into a long debate. I simply note, with some concern, the lack of confidence that some Conservative and Labour Members show for elected local government and the competence of local electors to choose their representatives. On behalf of my party, I wish to express concern that the initiatives that the Government are introducing with every good intention are targeted towards a small proportion of schools and do not give those powers and delegated authorities to enough schools.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to put in an occasional appearance in Committee and then accuse the other two parties of showing no interest in local education authorities. The point that hon. Members on both sides have been making is that the issue is about the right of veto. Does he recognise that one can be supportive of local education authorities without suggesting that they should always, in all circumstances, have a power of veto over this matter?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I shall not prolong the debate. I am glad to have stirred things up on these Benches and on the Isle of Wight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

We now come to amendment No. 466. I should point out that there is a misprint. It should read:

''after 'at' insert 'unless this is contrary to an order under section 2(1) (a)' ''.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 466, in page 42, line 36, after 'at' insert

'unless this is contrary to an order under section 2 (1) (a)'.

I am grateful to you Mr. Griffiths, as I am largely dependent on the amendment paper this morning. In dealing with the last amendment both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell were a little hard on the hon. Member for Yeovil who has clearly been the victim of a hit and run attack. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) drafted the amendments and left him to carry the can. The Committee has treated him a little severely. I would seek to be more generous to him. He did a good job in difficult circumstances.

Having proposed amendments earlier that were intended to be entirely and hugely helpful to Ministers, I have a small confession to make. This amendment is not quite as helpful as my previous offerings. It is intended to draw attention to an inconsistency in the Government's approach. All hon. Members would agree that the academy is a slightly odd creature in so far as it is defined by legislation as an independent school and yet is intended to be dependent upon funding from the Department for Education and Skills, rather in the manner of a maintained school. I make no criticism of that. If I did, the Minister would immediately draw my attention to the origins of this approach and this structure in earlier legislation.

Quite properly in the context of an independent school that will derive its income from the state, the legislation seeks to set out certain limitations and requirements that apply to those independent schools, which go far beyond the restrictions that apply to other independent schools that derive their funding through a different route. New section 482(4) specifies:

''An agreement under this section shall make any payments by the Secretary of State dependent on the fulfilment of—

(a) conditions and requirements imposed for the purpose of securing that no charge is made in respect of admission to (or attendance of) the school or, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement, in respect of education provided at the school;''

That is a clear statement on state funding for academies that are independent—I will not say independent state schools. The requirement is clear that no charge should be made for admissions or education.

There are interesting contrasts. Because of funding pressures in many parts of the country, schools are increasingly finding it necessary to seek financial contributions from parents. Under current legislation, parents may be invited to make a financial contribution to a school, but they may not be required to make such a contribution. Members of the Committee will be aware of the celebrated incident when the London Oratory school sought a voluntary contribution from parents of some £350 a year. The Prime Minister refused to reveal whether he had put his hand in his pocket along with other parents. That incident was a stark illustration of the extent of the practice of asking parents for voluntary contributions, and of the significant sums of money that can be involved.

I recently visited the Islamia primary school, which also seeks a voluntary contribution. The school serves a mixed community of often not wealthy parents, a large percentage of whom cannot meet that contribution, which is nevertheless requested. From memory, the sum is in excess of £400 for those who can make the annual contribution to the cost of educating their children.

The legislation appears to place a harsher requirement on an academy, which is an independent school, albeit one that is funded by the state. Does the Minister believe that the requirement goes beyond that which applies to maintained schools, which are constrained from making a compulsory levy on parents but not from seeking a voluntary levy on parents?

The amendment refers to another inconsistency. We encountered in debates on earlier clauses the dramatic scale of the powers, freedoms and flexibilities that Ministers seek to take under the legislative authority. We briefly discussed the potential implications of that wide discretion. Clause 2(1)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to confer on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. The Minister was good enough to confirm that that extended to the ability to give exemptions from those sections of the Education Act 1996 that constrain matters for which charges may be levied legitimately. The 1996 Act sets that out in considerable detail: for example, whether a school trip takes place in school hours, partly outside, wholly outside, whether it is relevant to the curriculum and so on. It is concerned with the relevance to the curriculum of a particular music lesson, for example.

The Minister said that he had no intention of giving maintained schools the power to innovate, or introduce charges. Many maintained schools are seeking to levy a voluntary charge from parents. Under the powers to innovate, they may seek to suspend the prohibition that prevents them from making those charges compulsory. Clause 2(1)(a) might allow a maintained school to introduce charging for places at the school. It is the starkest possible illustration of the wide scope that Ministers are taking.

A completely different approach is taken in clause 62. The Minister said that it was absurd to amend clause 2 to prevent charges from being introduced in maintained schools. He said that his Government would not do it, and he invited me to say that the Opposition have no intention of introducing charges in maintained schools, which I happily did. He thought it was absurd to incorporate a prohibition of charging for maintained schools, but the Bill does precisely that for independent schools funded by the state. No charge is to be made for admission to, or attendance at, the school. The prohibition, which apparently does not need to be applied to maintained schools, is clear.

I have tabled the amendment to challenge the Minister to revisit his earlier reluctance to include a

prohibition in clause 2. I have also tabled it to raise the question of voluntary and compulsory charges by maintained or independent state schools. I have previously tabled a written question seeking detail from Ministers about those schools that do want to levy a voluntary charge on parents, the sums of money that are sought and how much is raised by the schools. It is one of many important aspects of the daily experience of parents in the schooling of their children in maintained schools for which Ministers do not have an answer. They say that the information is not collected centrally, and the Government do not apparently even need to be aware of where levies are charged. It is something in which Ministers should take an interest, because it is of increasing concern for parents in many parts of the country.

When responding to amendment No. 466, I invite the Minister to address those concerns and explain the extent to which he expects new section 482(4)(a) to apply. He should flesh out the extent of exceptions that he has in mind, which might be specified in the agreement about education provided at the school. Does he expect that any exception should be in the relevant sections of the 1996 Act, which he is prepared to see potentially disapplied by clause 2? Is he merely acting in the short term and saying that this is how the exceptions will be defined, or does he have in mind a different definition of the exceptions to the charging regime? Is he considering a harsher regime than that implied by the clause—no charges under any circumstances—or an exception that would permit the levying of a voluntary or means-tested charge? Where does the Minister see this part of the Bill taking the academies, and why is there a contrast between their treatment and that of other maintained schools, particularly those with powers to innovate?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I shall endeavour to be brief. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He cited the example of the Oratory, and there is no doubt that many schools across the educational spectrum seek contributions from parents in different ways for different purposes, and that could cause legal problems given the clause's loose phrasing. The Minister should address that point.

There is another aspect to this discussion, to which my hon. Friend did not allude. Does the Minister think that, rather than making it possible, the clause risks excluding the involvement of private sector educators in the establishment of academies? I think back to what has been probably the greatest educational scandal in this country in my lifetime. Some of our greatest state schools, such as Manchester grammar school, were forced out of the state sector. People from all backgrounds in the Manchester area were deprived access to the quality education that Manchester grammar school offered. That situation was replicated throughout the country, with grammar schools being forced to become comprehensives or to move into the independent sector.

I regret the fact that so many former grammar schools are now in the independent sector, and we should encourage some of them to return to the state sector, at least in part. Otherwise, the children whose

families cannot pay will be deprived of the skills and expertise that those schools have built up over long histories. There may be an opportunity under the Bill for those who are already running successful independent schools to help to establish academies. They could offer their experience, knowledge and even resources to the establishment of an academy alongside existing schools. Perhaps there could be even closer ties. We discussed the right of individual schools in the state sector to form groups. Have the Government addressed the possibility that a group might include private and state schools? They would be provided with common resources under a single umbrella.

A range of innovative ideas could come forward as a result of the legislation, including possibilities that the Government have not envisaged. The Minister keeps telling us that the Bill offers opportunities for innovation, but the stipulation in the clause prevents that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend, who made an important point. It occurs to me that the Minister has considered some of those possibilities, and that that may underlie the wide powers that he seeks in clause 13, which will allow him to make payments to independent schools to educate any number of children. In effect, he has reintroduced the assisted places scheme, or even the direct grant scheme to which he referred. Is not it odd that in clause 13 he seeks wide powers but in clause 62 he seeks to constrain them?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The clause risks constraining potential. We have heard much from the Prime Minister and Government Members in recent weeks about their wish to strengthen ties between the public and private sectors and to increase the involvement of private sector management in the education system. We are suggesting not only that private sector companies should be invited to come into the education system, but that educators in the independent sector should be offered an opportunity to come into the state system under the umbrella of an academy. They could share their expertise, resources and the culture that they have built up in their schools to create academies that could offer children from all walks of life an opportunity to turn their education round.

The Government are offering an exciting opportunity. However, I caution the Minister that the clause will make achieving such initiatives more difficult and less likely. I hope that he will give us the benefit of his thoughts on the subject. Would he welcome an opportunity under the academy umbrella for schools such as Manchester grammar to become involved again in the state sector? Does he accept that the clause represents an impediment to such a development?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We are spending a long time on the issue. I shall respond briefly, because we have been round this course before. I regret that Opposition Members did not take up the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) to change the order in which the business

was taken. The knife will fall, but we could have spent more time on some of the clauses immediately following this one.

I am happy to assure the Committee again that we do not intend that academies should be able to levy charges other than in the narrow circumstances in which maintained schools can do so. For example, they can seek voluntary contributions or charge for some school trips. Academies will be treated in exactly the same way as maintained schools in that respect.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West suggested that there was a difference, but there is not. The funding agreement for academies mirrors exactly the charging provisions applied to maintained schools under sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996. We are determined that academies should help to raise standards, particularly in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. They must reach the pupils who need them most, and allowing them to charge would not support that aim: it would undermine it.

Earlier, I made the point that under no circumstances would the Government abandon their commitment to free education. I urge the Opposition to repeat their commitment on that front. On the basis of those assurances, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Again, we have had some very interesting exchanges. The Minister says that the funding regime for these schools will be precisely the same as that which applies to maintained schools, yet that is not the structure that the Bill provides. It sets out a completely different definition of the restrictions on charging that will apply to academies. If the regime were entirely comparable to that which applies to other maintained schools, this clause would not be necessary as it stands. It would surely be more appropriate explicitly to refer to the restrictions that apply elsewhere.

The Minister has also made it clear that the powers under clause 2 of the Bill will allow subsections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996 to be suspended, thereby opening the door to charging in principle. I am grateful to the Minister for quite properly reiterating the fact that at present the Government have no intention of introducing charges for maintained schools. He asked me to repeat a similar commitment, but I have already gone further than that. Earlier in our proceedings, I gave the Minister the opportunity to include that commitment in the Bill. I do not feel that I need to make any further commitments on that. We have already gone way beyond where the Government stands in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell challenged the Minister, and members of the Committee will note that he did not take up that challenge. Although he has been very courteous in seeking to cover the points that have been raised, he may have caused some raised eyebrows in the Committee, as some hon. Members may have wondered whether my hon. Friend had hit on something.

Given that the Minister was not prepared to rule out the use of some aspects of the Bill as a mechanism by which some of the former direct-grant grammar schools could be invited back into the maintained sector, we were left to conclude that that is the Government's intention. Opposition Members, and I hope many Labour Members, would welcome that.

At the start of our proceedings, I noted the biographical details of members of the Committee. I am delighted that our nation's grammar schools are well represented on the Government Benches. I would be even more delighted if schools that were forced into the fee-paying, independent sector could be brought back into the state sector, so that they are more widely available to people regardless of their means or ability to pay. The Opposition would welcome that. We certainly have no intention of pushing the Government or the legislation into charging for school places, but we want greater clarity in that regard.

The Minister said that the funding arrangements for academies replicated those from maintained schools, which allow them to seek voluntary contributions from parents of children who attend the school. That is entirely appropriate. It would be very odd if Ministers were seeking to use these powers to prohibit academies, which are more independent, from seeking voluntary contributions, given that they are prepared to permit that practice in the maintained sector. However, the assurance that the Minister happily and clearly gave is not in the Bill, and I do not see where it arises.

It is important to stress that the Minister once again tried to suggest that the Opposition have been unhelpful in the negotiations on the positioning of so-called knives. As I made clear at the beginning of our sitting this morning, the contrary is true.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

When these matters are referred to in Committee, I should like to have a chance to respond. I want to make the Government's position clear. We have consistently offered the Opposition more time. To date they have not asked us for a single minute of extra time.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

It is rather odd that the Government Whip is getting into a high state of excitement, apparently goaded by his hon. Friend the Minister. The Minister raised this point; I did not. I wanted to make it clear that the positioning of so-called knives has caused difficulties for the Opposition throughout our proceedings. It has prevented both Opposition parties from examining those parts of the Bill that we wish to scrutinise. It is absurd to suggest that extra time is available, but that it must be used on those parts of the Bill that the Opposition do not wish to discuss and scrutinise. It is important to put that on the record.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

May I come back on that?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. The Government's position is clear, as is that of the Opposition, although they do not coincide. That is not surprising.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. It should be placed on the record that we have offered to move knives as long as the Opposition are prepared to put in extra time. They want the knives to be moved without extra time.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

We want what we were offered at the outset—an opportunity to focus our attention on those aspects of the Bill that we feel warrant scrutiny. I have made my views known. The member of the silent service, as it used to be known, has made his position clear. Your position, Mr. Griffiths, is also clear. We are grateful to you for it.

The Minister has not given us adequate reassurance on amendment No. 466. He has not dealt with the contradictions between the treatment of academies and the treatment of maintained schools. His only direct allusion to that point was to confirm that the same rules will apply to academies as apply to maintained schools. He gets himself into an even more difficult position in that by implication he confirms that the powers under clause 2 to allow exceptions relating to innovation will also apply to academies. He again makes the point that subsection (4)(a) provides that no charging should be allowed, and yet he confirms that, as with maintained schools, other powers in the Bill will enable that provision to be suspended in relation to academies.

The Minister is getting himself into an absurd contradictory position. In some regards, he says that it is necessary to put something in the Bill even though precisely the same rules will apply as apply to other schools. In other regards, however, he says that it is simply not necessary to put a provision in the Bill, because it is absurd and not the Government's intention. Now the circle is being completed, because even where it is necessary to put a provision in the Bill, it is also possible to remove it by ministerial order and not by a decision of the Committee or the House.

That absurd position shows that the Government are either confused or are seeking disingenuously to move the debate and the legislative framework forward. Committee members are left to draw the obvious conclusion that Ministers may intend the Bill to have certain consequences and outcomes. It enables them to do whatever they please by order once it has received Royal Assent, yet they are not prepared to go into any detail or to specify how they intend to use those powers.

We have been clear about our strong support for what Ministers say they intend to do if that can have a real impact and make a real contribution to raising standards. However, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and people outside have a right to expect more specificity, clarity and openness about where Ministers want to take our schools in the longer term. The provisions for academies are wide, and they purport to limit their ability to charge, yet at the same time the Minister confirms that he expects to have the powers to remove those limitations. He has not dealt adequately with our concerns, but I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment. We sought to elicit from the Minister his true intentions. He has not been particularly helpful in that regard, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 416, in page 42, line 38 after 'school' insert—

'( ) compliance with the duties imposed on the governing bodies of maintained schools'.

This is a short probing amendment. I thought that I was joking earlier when I said that we would manage only to finish dealing with clause 62. The amendment is designed to probe the Government's intentions for the duties that will be imposed on leadership groups in academies and how they will compare with governing bodies of maintained schools. In particular, does the Minister envisage that academies will have to comply with the local admissions code of practice? Will that simply be a matter between the academy and the Secretary of State?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The arrangement will be through a funding agreement between the academy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is a more appropriate arrangement than the ones that exist for maintained schools with LEAs, because the academy has a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. I can give the hon. Gentleman the particular assurance that he seeks. Academies—unlike city technology colleges, by the way—will comply in full with the requirements on special educational needs and admissions and exclusions legislation as it applies to maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned about the admissions point, and I can well understand why. It is an important issue. The commitment will be delivered through the funding agreement between each academy and the Secretary of State.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am interested in the amendment because it again shows the failure of the hon. Member for Yeovil to appreciate the distinction between—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not had much experience on the Committee. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I hope that he accepts that that was meant in friendship. I was talking about the hon. Gentleman's failure to appreciate the distinction between independent schools that are funded by the Secretary of State and state schools. He seems to be proposing that academies should comply with all the duties. Presumably he would expect that to be the case for city colleges as well. Does he understand the limits that that might place on the Secretary of State's ability to find sponsors for academies? One distinction that is evident between the private sector and the—

It being One o'clock, The chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [11, 13, 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002], 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.

Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I need to move that clause 64 should not stand part of the Bill, and that Government new clause 5 should be agreed.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

In that case, because of the timetable motion and the way in which we conduct business, the Government will have to vote against clause 64 now, and we shall deal with new clause 5 when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.

Clause 64 disagreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Academies: supplementary

Clause 67 - Duty of leas to secure proposals

Standing Committee G

Clause 72 - Interpretation of Part 6

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 470, in page 48, line 42, at end insert:

''''is religious education'', in relation to maintained nursery schools or the provision of funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school, means—

(a) (in maintained nursery schools) such elements of the local agreed syllabus as are appropriate to its pupils' age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) (in relation to funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school) such education about the religion prevalent among the pupils' receiving funded nursery education as the provider considers appropriate to those pupils' religious heritage (or, where there is no majority, the Christian religion), and to their age, ability and aptitude.''

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 471, in clause 93, page 61, line 11, at end insert:

''''religious education'', in relation to maintained nursery schools or the provision of funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school, means—

(c) (in maintained nursery schools) such elements of the local agreed syllabus as are appropriate to its pupils age, ability and aptitude, and

(d) (in relation to funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school) such education about the religion prevalent among the pupils' receiving funded nursery education as the provider considers appropriate to those pupils' religious heritage (or, where there is no majority, the Christian religion), and to their age, ability and aptitude.''

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I offer a warm welcome to you, Mr. Pike. The amendments probe the Government's intentions with regard to religious education in nursery schools and in nursery settings in Wales. There appears to be no obligation for nursery education to be provided in nursery schools or nursery settings, but there is an obligation for religious education to be provided in nursery classes in primary schools. The approach is inconsistent, and the amendment would remove the inconsistency in clause 72 with regard to England and in clause 93 with regard to Wales by dealing separately with maintained nursery schools and other nursery settings. I note that the word ''is'' appears on the top line of amendment No. 470 on the amendment paper. That should not be there. The insertion should be identical to that of amendment No. 471.

I propose that we insert two separate definitions of religious education that apply to maintained nursery schools and to nursery provision. The first definition,

which relates to maintained nursery schools, applies the local agreed syllabus as it would broadly be taught in nursery classes in primary schools according to the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils. That is uncontroversial. The second definition would make suggestions about nursery settings, which are cumbersomely called

''funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school''.

The nursery settings are not involved in the creation of the agreed syllabus. However, in some cases they are provided by religious organisations and in other cases by secular organisations. They provide for a wide range of pupils, who would be drawn in some areas from a large number of communities and in others from quite a homogeneous community. There are many settings associated with Catholic primary schools in my constituency, as there are few nursery schools but many pre-school playgroups, as they used to be called, that are associated with primary schools. One can imagine that the pupils in such a setting will be mainly Roman Catholic. It would therefore be appropriate that the religious education that is delivered in that setting should be consistent with the Roman Catholic faith. Similarly, it might be appropriate for the education provided in a setting associated with a mosque to be consistent with the Muslim faith.

In areas where the pupils are drawn from mixed communities where there is no prevalent religion or religious tradition, it would be appropriate for the Christian religion to be taught in a way that the provider believes is consistent with pupils' religious heritage and their age, ability and aptitude. The amendment is designed to discover the Government's intentions for religious education in nursery schools and nursery settings and to set out proposals appropriate for pupils of this age. I have not sought to apply the whole agreed syllabus in nursery settings because some faith groups expect their faith to be promoted and I do not want to compete with or contradict their wishes in that respect.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I apologise for arriving slightly late to this afternoon's sitting.

I vigorously oppose both amendments and I hope that the Minister will oppose them as strongly as I do. If we start bringing religious education into early years settings, where are we going to end up? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) argued that faiths should be promoted in such settings, but I can think of nothing worse than a state-funded system that allows children in the Welsh valleys, for example, to be indoctrinated in a particular denomination at so young an age. I hope that the Minister will vigorously oppose that.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for tabling the amendment because it will show where the Government stand on early years religious education. As I understand it, all early years settings—whether in Wales under the aegis of the Welsh Assembly or in England under the aegis of the

Secretary of State—receive funding for three and four-year-olds without the proviso of having to deliver any specific curriculum.

In the previous Parliament, the Secretary of State was forward-thinking in listening to the views of early years partnerships from the maintained nursery sector through to the Pre-school Learning Alliance and other voluntary groups and reaching a compromise on early learning goals, which were centred on play and socialisation rather than delivering a curriculum. I hope that the present Government will not stray into prescribing a curriculum for early years education. I trust that the Minister will not only oppose the amendments but state clearly that the Government will not support state-funded religious indoctrination in nursery schools.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I rise in response to the substance and the principle of the amendment. I am unsympathetic to the amendment, but not on grounds of the principle outlined by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), whose concerns about religious education in schools I find disturbing. I ask him whether it is inappropriate for teachers in a nursery school celebrating Christmas to read pupils the Christmas story? Is any element of religious explanation inappropriate when Christmas or any other religious festival is being celebrated in a pre-school environment?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I did not say that. He should spend some time in early years settings [Interruption.] I apologise, I meant in order to gain a grasp of what goes on in those settings. Of course it is right and proper for a nursery school in Leicester, for example, to make Diwali celebrations part and parcel of what it provides, irrespective of whether a pupil is from a Christian family, of no faith or whatever. The notion of an early years school in the Rhondda valley celebrating Christmas is a wholly different issue from the state providing an RE syllabus to prescribe what should be taught. There is a difference between celebrating faith and the aim of the amendment, which is about promoting faith in early years settings.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but I find his comments rather patronising. I have visited many early years settings in recent weeks and taken a close interest in the problems that they face as a result of an overbearing curriculum being imposed by the Government.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It would be even more overbearing under the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is why my hon. Friend is criticising it.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

However well intentioned, the amendment is inappropriate because I am concerned about the way in which central Government continue to impose rules, regulations and curriculum guidelines on early years settings. I hope that we will have a

further opportunity to debate the provisions that set out curriculum requirements for early years education, which should be opposed to the hilt. In this particular case, an addition to the curriculum—already unwanted—would be undesirable. I have no problem with guidance suggesting that early years organisations should feel free to deal with religious issues, celebrate religious festivals and make young children aware of their religious context.

Will the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough assure me that his party is not seeking to remove religion from our schooling? Several of his comments gave me the greatest possible doubt about his party's level of support for religious education.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman takes such a close interest in Liberal Democrat policy. He raises a fair point, so let me assure him that that is not my party's intention. He was not a member of the Conservative Government when they introduced post-1988 the idea of clarifying religious education. They wanted to achieve consensus about how religious education should be taught in schools and the religious syllabus. That was all positive. The dividing line comes with indoctrination. That is where we cross from educating young people about religion in its broader sense—that must be a multi-faith approach, because we live in a multi-faith society—and using the state system to indoctrinate people in a particular faith.

Those two viewpoints are fundamentally different. As a practising Christian, I do not want religious education removed from schools, but my party and I are determined to ensure that other faiths are equally celebrated, and that young people have an understanding of faiths throughout the world, and the benefits and virtues that those faiths—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Interventions should be brief.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I appreciate that it is a fine dividing line, but children should be aware of the spiritual dimension in their education. The absence of that is regrettable in too many places in our society. I support the aspiration behind the amendment, but it is unnecessary to impose additional curriculum requirements in this case. To prove the diversity of opinion in my party, I beg to differ from my hon. Friend.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike.

I understand the point of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I note that he said that the amendments were probing. My job is to assuage both his fears and those of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which is the judgment of Solomon after what they have said.

Early years providers need some flexibility so that they can deliver their own curriculum in response to the needs of children, families and their communities. In that way, they will create an effective early learning

environment and plan an appropriate curriculum. The curriculum guidance for foundation stage, which was published in May 2000, helps practitioners to provide such a curriculum, including support for education about religion, cultural beliefs and ceremonies. The early learning goals in England and the desirable outcomes in Wales set out those elements. The Bill will require all funded early years providers to support children to achieve early learning goals or desirable outcomes. That is central to our proposals for the foundation stage. I hope that that assuages the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

However, an essential part of our approach to the foundation stage is that it includes a strong element of flexibility. It is right that all early years settings should have the flexibility to respond to the needs of the different children in their care. To accept the amendments would put that flexibility at risk, by explicitly requiring local providers to use the locally agreed RE syllabus for schools.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the Minister agree that the Bill does not require them to use the locally agreed syllabus in settings? It does in schools, but it allows settings to provide such education as the provider considers appropriate.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if we were to agree to the amendments, several providers would use the local RE syllabus as a basis on which they could deliver what the amendments require.

It is right that all early years settings should have flexibility to respond to the needs of the children. My position makes further prescription unnecessary, and is supported by the Liberal Democrats and some official Opposition Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will feel sufficiently content to withdraw the amendments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I congratulate the Minister on his bravery in trying to bridge the gap between myself and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I would like to take a few points further.

Clause 75 makes it clear that the Secretary of State must secure that certain functions of the national curriculum, including religious education and worship, are provided in nursery classes. With the exception of nursery schools and funded nursery education, it makes it clear that those requirements apply to nursery classes in primary schools. If the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough felt so strongly about religious indoctrination, as he put it, in early years education, I am surprised that he did not table an amendment to delete the requirement.

I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman described what I was saying as requiring the promotion of faith, because it does not. The promotion of faith may be one intention with which, for example, the Roman Catholic Church establishes a playgroup in association with a Roman Catholic primary school, but the point is about religious education. There is no gap between us on that. I do not see any danger of indoctrination in the valleys or other parts of the United Kingdom, but I worry that he does

not seem to appreciate that, although the early learning goals and desirable outcomes do not specify a curriculum in detail, they specify some points about what the Secretary of State is putting a considerable amount of money into and the reasons why she is doing that.

I noted carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am concerned that he is once again showing a certain hostility to religious education. The amendment would do no more than requiring all nursery schools and early years settings to do what the best do—that is not an unreasonable aspiration—and give a basic understanding of, for example, the Christmas story, if they are in association with a Christian school or if there is no prevalent faith in that setting, or other stories where the provision is by another faith group.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), I accept that there is a danger of over-regulation of the early years system. Indeed, I said as much in a debate in Westminster Hall. However, the spiritual development of youngsters is one of the most important functions with which we can assist, and I am concerned about the conflict between an all-embracing, a la carte view of religious education, which is far more than youngsters of that age are usually capable of accepting, and a clear understanding of the faith in which they have been brought up or, if they have not been brought up in any faith, the prevalent faith in this country. That said, the Minister has succeeded, at least, in bridging the gap between him and me, although the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is still perhaps a little way off. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I should simply like to ask the Minister one swift question. The clause is concerned with interpretation and definition, and I have noted that the word ''maturities'' is used repeatedly throughout part 6. For example, one of the definitions in clause 72 reads:

'''attainment targets', in relation to a key stage, means the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities are expected to have by the end of that stage''.

I am sure that that is meant to mean something specific. That is why it is described as such in the Bill. I hope that it is, because if not it should not be there. I also assume that ''maturities'', does not mean the same as ''ages''. If it did, even in the jargon-bound world of the Department for Education and Skills, surely it would say ''ages''.

The Under-Secretary scoffs, but the one thing on which we must agree is that the world and the DFES are full of jargon. We should not work in jargon but in phrases that people can understand. Those who have to interpret a Bill such as this, including those who teach or run education establishments, should be able to do so just by looking at it. I am willing to accept that the word ''ages'' would not necessarily fit into this

description in place of ''maturities''. I do not suggest that it should, because I certainly accept that one child aged two years, five months and three weeks will not necessarily be at the same stage of development as another child of exactly the same age. I assume that to be the reason for the word ''maturities''. It is used not only in line 25 but repeatedly throughout part 6. I cannot tell from the Bill what it means. If others can, I should like to know. We deserve an explanation from the Minister about its exact meaning and why it is being used.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

In a previous incarnation as a councillor in Gwent, I once saw a report that described a pelican crossing as a pedestrian-assisted access way. We need to be careful about jargon and the words that we use. I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. The word ''maturities'' can cover a range of things, including age, ability and behaviour. As a father of four, I know that my children matured at different rates. It is quite a broad term. It is clear that children mature, by whatever target we set, at different times and at different ages. We are seeking to take account of that.

We are all on a steep learning curve in relation to early years learning. We place great importance on it, which is why we have the foundation stage. I have twin granddaughters who are eight. They are like little sponges. They take on board the most extraordinary things. We all find that as parents and grandparents, and see it in children in our schools. That is the broadest explanation that I can give the hon. Lady.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I appreciate that the Minister has attempted to answer my question in a genuine way. I agree with everything he said. But how is that word, which is used again and again, to be interpreted? I did not table an amendment suggesting an alternative because I genuinely did not know what the Government meant by the term. Is the Bill to be read in conjunction with the Minister's words in Committee, or will the Government take steps to clarify to those who have to interpret the Bill what this word means?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's argument and by the Minister's answer. The word ''maturities'' in a physical context is relatively easy to understand, but in a developmental context, the word will be of great interest when we are considering the definition in clause 72 because we are looking at attainment targets. The definition as it applies in clause 72 suggests to me that different attainment targets will be set for pupils of different abilities and different developmental stages. Perhaps ''maturities'' means developmental stages in the psychological context?

I am very glad to see the word ''maturities'' if it means what my hon. Friend has suggested as it would give greater scope to the providers of education to take account of the different developmental ages of different pupils. Like my hon. Friend, however, I am still intrigued to hear further from the Minister.

Mr. Touhig: I do not know if I can shed much more light on this.

Those who have been involved in education—teachers and other practitioners—will have different levels of measurement for maturity. As I have said, it could be subjective in the case of social skills or behavioural skills, but those who will be teaching our young people will understand what is meant by it. In fact, these words were used in the Education Act 1996, which was passed by the previous Government.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

It is still jargon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - meaning of ''nursery education'' and related expressions

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

When I saw that this part of the Bill was about interpretation, I was disappointed that, although clause 73 is entitled

''meaning of 'nursery education' and related expressions''

it does not, in fact, explain the meaning of nursery education.

I was hoping that by reading this clause I would find a true definition of nursery education. The clause says that ''nursery education'' means:

''full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age''

The debate, however, has raged for many years about the difference between child care and education. Where does education overlap with child care? When does child care also become education? Although these are matters of interest for the theorists involved, my point is that they are matters of practicality when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. I have not sought to amend this clause because I am looking for a further explanation from the Minister on the Government's thinking and intentions in this area. For example, the Government have pledged to provide places in early years education for all three-year-olds whose parents want them. But, what does that mean? Does it mean in a pre-school, in a playgroup, in a day nursery, at a holiday club, or with a childminder? The words in the Bill, which is being passed by a democratic process, should be clear and open to no misunderstanding. I appreciate, however, that it is not always possible to draw a line between what is child care and what is nursery education.

In every statistic that issuess forth from the Government we have confusion upon confusion. With each answer that my hon. Friends and I receive to questions such as, ''How many places are there for children aged three, four or five?'' the position becomes less clear. For example, in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell on Tuesday 18 December 2001 to a question he asked on

Monday 10 December, we were told that the number of playgroups and pre-schools has reduced over the last three years, but that the number of day nurseries has increased. Are the Government saying that that is in equal measure? They appear to saying that, although the number of playgroups and pre-schools has reduced, the increase in the number of day nurseries means that the situation is better than it was.

Two months ago, when I questioned the responsible Minister about this during Education questions, I felt that we were given three different answers in the space of two minutes. The answer is not clear at all. I had hoped that, as this clause is entitled,

''Meaning of 'nursery education' and related expressions''

it would actually tell us what the Government mean by nursery education and pre-school education and the entitlement of each child. If a parent reads in the newspapers that the Government have pledged a place for each child aged three or four, they may well think that their little boy or girl can go to a certain nursery school or day centre; but it is not clear. If it appears in the Bill, it should be clear. I have a very simple question: what do the Government mean by nursery education? Can we please have a proper definition that can be relied upon?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I am delighted, Mr. Pike, that the respective position of our football teams in division one remains the same as when we last met.

I have a serious response to the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. The clause responds directly to the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed. It does so in several ways. It defines the meaning of nursery education very clearly as

''full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age''.

It then goes on to recognise, for the first time in legislation, that there are a number of organisations in the private, voluntary and state sectors providing that sort of education. That is clarification from a historical perspective. Making the foundation stage part of the national curriculum requirement further clarifies the responsibilities of those who are providing a nursery education in any of those settings. Legislation has been vague and ambiguous in the past, and clause 73 is designed to tackle that ambiguity.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would put in the Bill pledges linked to child care and nursery provision. She knows full well that our record on those issues is second to none. Our commitment to future provision is unprecedented in view of this country's historic lack of investment in early years, whether in child care or nursery provision.

Nothing is more important in the development of our future citizens than getting the level of investment and commitment right in the early years. The Bill assists us in that, as well as enshrining the foundation stage in legislation for the first time. On the whole, that is popular with all providers, whether in the state, voluntary, or private sectors. What we mean by nursery education has never been clearer than in the

Bill. If the hon. Lady reflects on the situation, I am sure that she will accept that her reasonable concern is addressed directly in the Bill.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I appreciate that the Minister is genuinely trying to answer my question, but he has not done so. What is the difference between a day nursery and a playgroup or a pre-school and a holiday club? Do the Government intend that all those should be lumped together under the definition:

''education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age''?

What does ''suitable'' mean? Who decides what is suitable? In one part of the country the Government's pledge for a place for a three-year-old might be interpreted as two hours a week in a playgroup, supervised by an unqualified assistant. In another part of the country the education authority might decide that a three-year-old requires five mornings a week in a pre-school, supervised or taught by a qualified teacher.

Will this be left as a loose definition so that those who provide funding in different parts of the country can come to their own conclusion about what they consider is necessary or suitable? Who is to decide on suitability? The Minister has missed one of my main points. How will parents know that there is a pledge for their children to have a certain type of education at a certain age when it is not clearly defined what that should be? We all know what children are entitled to between the ages of five and 16. If the Government have made a pledge, that pledge ought to be clear. The Minister's answer has not made it any clearer.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of definition is that in many areas, the provision is determined by the early years and child care development partnerships, which are largely partnerships of providers, rather than customers? Consequently the provision tends to be tailored to what is already being provided, rather than what is desired by the consumer.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept that. Furthermore, parents generally know that at the age of five it is best for most children is to be in a mainstream school learning the basic curriculum. That is straightforward, but parents do not necessarily know what is best for a child at three or four. As the Minister said, that area is developing. The importance of education from a very early age has only just been recognised, and I recognise that, too.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I will certainly give way to the chairman of the all-party group on child care, of which I am vice-chairman.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am afraid that my point is a partisan one. Many Labour authorities have been providing early-years and nursery education for many years, despite not being funded to provide that service. Now we have a Government who are willing to spread the funding across every community that

wants it and to communities, such as mine in Doncaster, that are able to offer added value for services on what they were trying to provide under Conservative Administrations.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept that point, but I would take it further. Many Conservative-controlled authorities have been providing far more than other such authorities. With respect to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I must say that I expect that many authorities controlled by the Liberal Democrats have been doing the same. That reinforces my point that we do not have equality of provision throughout the country. It has been left to different education authorities to decide what is suitable. If the Government intend to leave the matter to every education authority or provider, let them say so, but if they are making a positive and definite pledge to all the children in the country, let that be made definite.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Lady confuses me a little. I am trying to understand the point that she is making, but I think that most of us are struggling to get to grips with it. Surely she is not saying that we want all early-years education, wherever it is delivered in the country, to be the same, because that is what we mean by equality of provision. Surely the Government are providing funding and will then audit the funded provision by means of the curriculum and Ofsted inspections to ensure that the money is being used appropriately. Does that not give the hon. Lady enough safeguards to accept that there is equality of access to provision, although the provision may be different?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No, it does not, although I appreciate the point. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused about what I am asking; I am asking questions because my hon. Friends and I are confused about what the Government mean. I am pursuing the point, as I am beginning to suspect that the Government want to leave the matter in some confusion because for various reasons they do not want to provide a definition. If they do not want to provide one, let them say so, but if they truly want to give a definition, let the Minister give it now.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we do not want provision to be exactly the same throughout the country, but the Government have made a huge fuss in spinning about the promises that they have made about places for three and four-year-olds and so on. If they are making a pledge, it should be clear, so that people will know whether it has been adhered to. The clause is not clear, which is why I am asking further questions.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I will be content for the people of this country to consider whether the Government are spinning on child care and early-years education or whether we have delivered significantly and will deliver even more in future. I will certainly be happy for people to contrast this Government's record of investment in child care and early-years education

with what went on for the 20 years when there was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility in that policy area. That is what the debate is really about, although I am sorry to have to be partisan in this Committee. The hon. Lady is casting aspersions on the Government's commitment in this policy area. I am tempted to suggest that she should combine my original answer with that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to get what she really needs. However, if she wants me to go one stage further, I will clarify what is already in the public domain about our commitment for three-year-olds. This is not a revelation to the Committee; the pledge on three-years-olds is clear. It relates to providers in receipt of nursery education grant, whether they are in the maintained or non-maintained sector. They must follow a curriculum that is consistent with the foundation stage to be provided with two and a half hours of funded early education a day. That is the unequivocal pledge, which is clear and often repeated by Ministers.

It is offensive for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to suggest that early-years partnerships are not consumer focused and do not consult parents or take account of users' needs, but are purely a vehicle for providers to maintain the status quo on the existing configuration of provision. There is no evidence to support that attack on their performance and responsibilities. They have been generally successful, innovative and responsive to community needs. They are representative in terms of voluntary and private sector involvement and, in my experience, go to extraordinary lengths to consult parents and their local communities before they decide on appropriate early-years and nursery education provision.

The hon. Lady is sincere in her commitment to the issues and has a strong belief in what we are trying to do with early-years and nursery education. However, I do not accept her concerns about a lack of clarity, either with the legislation or the Government's pledge, and do not believe that her aspersions are fair or reasonable. I ask the hon. Lady to accept my response.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - General requirements in relation to curriculum

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 480, in page 49, line 29, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 479, in page 49, line 37, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.

No. 482, in clause 95, page 61, line 43, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.

No. 481, in page 62, line 8, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.

Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Pike, and I add my welcome to you this afternoon.

The amendments should not detain the Committee for long, not least because, as those hon. Members who have examined them will have noticed, they would all replace one word with another. They remove an expectation that educational provision should prepare a child for adult life and replace it with a more sensible and appropriate requirement to prepare a child for later life. We have just discussed early-years education, and there is a long time between that and arrival at adult life. It would be more appropriate for early-years education to have a role in preparing the individual not for adult life, but for the challenges of later life in the more formal school environment.

Moving through a child's school career, a child in an infant school needs to be prepared, as a pressing matter, not for adult life but for the developmental challenges and other needs that must be addressed as he or she moves on to primary school. Through early years, infant and primary education, the crucial challenge is to prepare the child for secondary education, when a whole new set of challenges will arise—all of this long before adulthood. It is common sense that the requirement placed on the earlier stages of education should relate not only to a point after the end of formal schooling but to all the stages in the intervening years. I hope that the Minister will accept that our sensible amendment would improve the Bill.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

In a spirit of consensus and good will and, consistent with new Labour's desire to heal wounds and bring people together, the Government have significant sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment and wish to introduce an amendment on Report that reflects its sentiment and objective. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

A breakthrough.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a breakthrough. It is the first time in our proceedings that the Government have given any commitment to revisit any aspect of the Bill, notwithstanding that they have found it necessary to bring numerous amendments. However, it would be churlish to dwell on that when the Minister has responded with good grace. We are delighted to receive his assurance and look forward to seeing the Government's amendment. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Basic curriculum for every maintained school in England

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I beg to move Government amendment No. 412, in page 51, line 3, leave out

''342(6) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56)''

and insert

''71(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)''.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 413.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

These minor technical amendments are designed to rectify a clear oversight. The regulation of religious education in special schools in England and Wales comes under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and not the Education Act 1996, as is presently stated. The amendment corrects an error that has, unfortunately, been on the statute book since 1998. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Basic curriculum for every maintained school in Wales

Clause 85 - Implementation in respect of nursery schools etc.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: clause 106 stand part and new clause 3—Pre-school nurseries, etc.—

'''Pre-school nurseries and other groups shall be free to modify any curriculum provision in the foundation stage unless subject to special measures.'''

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

New clause 3 is designed to address a problem that has been put to me by several providers of pre-school nurseries and playgroups. I have spent some time talking to the proprietors, teachers and child carers in those groups over the past few weeks and have come away with the inescapable conclusion that the Government, for all the right reasons but in

many cases with the wrong consequences, are putting too onerous a curriculum on children and their carers. The children are very young and in many cases the carers are developed amateurs. Mothers, part-timers and even the proprietors of the groups often do the job in between looking after their own children.

As a result of the restrictions that we are placing on those carers, they are spending long hours managing curriculums, writing detailed lesson plans and dealing with thick curriculum manuals. They are finding it very difficult to do the job. We must remember that we are talking about playgroups in church halls.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if other child care settings—pre-school playgroups or whatever—decide that they want to provide an additional early education service, for which they will be paid, they must ensure that the service can be audited against education services provided by other settings? That deals with the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest raised about clarifying the type of nursery education to parents, and how it is provided in different settings.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments: she makes an important point. Government should not be expected to contribute large amounts of money to the early years sector without a say in how it is spent in the management of pre-schools. That would be an absurd extreme. I am concerned that the Government have moved to the other extreme: placing curriculum and regulatory requirements that are too onerous on those groups. We are considering an environment such as a church hall where groups of kids play with plasticine or train sets, and do painting. I have seen manuals that suggest that if children go outside and play in the leaves it will give them a sense of momentum and direction. Those thick manuals that contain detailed analysis of individual child behaviour put into fine detail what belongs to common sense.

It is impossible for staff to devote time in their paid working hours to absorbing and managing information. I have seen detailed curriculum plans and day-by-day lesson plans for individual pupils, which push voluntary organisations in informal environments too far towards formality. The proprietors of the groups tell me that that is making it more difficult to attract staff, and more difficult to do the job, which is ultimately putting their groups in jeopardy. That will not be universally true, but we cannot afford to lose pre-school groups. We are making their lives too difficult.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment and the Education Sub-Committee during the last session. The Committee produced an early years report. Among a host of issues, with which I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will be familiar, was the question of

whether those responsible for supervising and managing such groups should be qualified. Could someone unqualified be trusted?

Difficulties have arisen in my constituency because a number of gifted amateurs are part of the provision. Although I recognise that qualifications may be desirable, the demands of the timetable—the ability and the inclination to carry it out—are such that one playschool has closed in my constituency, and two others are under threat. It is an increasing concern, and that is why I support my hon. Friend's new clause.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. The framework and inspection should establish whether the children are well looked after and happy. Small children are spending time away from their parents in a strange environment. Are they happy in that environment? Are they receiving guidance, and a range of activities that help them to develop their skills? Those are the questions that I would want an Ofsted inspector examining a pre-school group to ask. Ofsted inspectors should not have to go through detailed study plans for three-year-olds line by line.

The new clause would not remove the Government's right to inspect, or its right to say how things should be done, whether a particular playgroup is functioning appropriately and whether the children are getting the attention they need, deserve and must have. In keeping with the principles that the Minister has set out for other parts of our education system, particularly for secondary schools and the opt-out rights that the Bill provides for them, if Ofsted is satisfied that a pre-school group is performing effectively we should be providing guidelines, not imposing requirements.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

That is different to what is being proposed in the new clause. There is an argument about what Ofsted inspection criteria should apply. I have some sympathy with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the buildings in which different groups operate. We have made Ofsted inspections of primary and secondary schools more light touch, although that is more of an issue for Ofsted inspections of early-years education and the criteria used. That is better than having a clause in the Bill that allows an opt-out.

Although I have some sympathy with the main point about what inspection regime should apply to nursery education, I do not think we should have a clause in the Bill whereby we could end up with a fairly erratic procedure that does not deal with the main issue.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The reason for highlighting Ofsted is that it is the tool that the Government use to monitor whether a nursery is performing well and whether its standards are acceptable. They are inextricably linked, although I would want to have the same debate about the exact nature of the inspections that are provided.

If it is accepted by the relevant authorities—which in this case would be Ofsted because that is who would carry out inspections on the ground—that a pre-school group or nursery is well run, and that the children are being looked after and developed effectively, it should

be able to say, ''We don't need to adapt what we are doing or to spend huge amounts of time going through detailed lesson plans, because the inspectors have come in and seen what we are doing, and have said that the school is great and is working well.''

That is what I am seeking to achieve through the new clause. I believe that the Government are imposing unnecessary paperwork even when a pre-school group is well run. This is a classic case of lesson plans being drawn up for inspection even though the inspector may never look at them, except to have a quick glance through them. They are often an unnecessary additional work load for people who are already hard pressed. That is particularly so in areas where it is not easy to find staff, and where groups often depend on mothers helping out as volunteers. It is simply not necessary to regulate those groups unless there is evidence that they are under-performing.

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to allowing less constraints as opposed to the rigidity of the foundation stage curriculum. Manuals several inches thick are required even if Ofsted says that a pre-school group is doing fine, and is looking after and developing its children well. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has just used the key phrase ''the rigidity of the pre-school age curriculum''. That is the point that we are all concerned about. It is because of the increasing rigidity of that curriculum that new clause 3 is necessary.

I have become increasingly concerned that the dividing line between compulsory and non-compulsory schooling is becoming very unclear. It used to be clear that schooling began at five, and we quite rightly talked about rising fives, but now we are entrenching in the Bill the need for pre-school education. In the remarks I made and the questions I asked about 10 minutes ago I was trying to pin the Minister down on this point, which for clarity I shall repeat. I am certainly in favour of including pre-school measures in the Bill, and am pleased at the Government's commitment to pre-school provision, which the Minister reiterated a few moments ago. However, the problem is that if we are too rigid, we will end up with a system that tries to fit the child—even a very small child—into the system, rather than the system fitting around the child.

I have been looking into this matter, and one of the groups from which I have taken advice is the Pre-school Learning Alliance. It says that:

''Moves such as extending the National Curriculum to include the foundation stage taught to children aged between 2 years and 5 years could undermine further the already growing perception that compulsory schooling begins before 5.''

That may be a reasonable thing to do, but the alliance goes on to explain the difficulties. I am sure that the Minister will understand my worry, and why I support my hon. Friend's new clause, which would bring more flexibility into the system. The Pre-school Learning Alliance said:

''Currently, the foundation stage is defined as starting at 3 and finishing at the end of the reception year. The Bill proposes defining the start and end of the foundation year entirely by reference to the school year rather than the age of the child. For some children, the start of the foundation stage will be when they are 2. Many parents will view this with concern.''

I echo that feeling. Many parents would view with concern the idea that the foundation stage could start when their child was two years old. For children born in August and entering reception classes when they are just four years old, the foundation stage will end the following July when they are not yet five. We should admit that that is a problem. Children are born at different times of the year. There are 365 days in a year, but only three or four days when a child can start a term. That has always been a problem. We are setting down rules for very small children. I welcome a semi-compulsory education provision for pre-school children. However, if we make the system too rigid, it will not benefit the children who should be taking advantage of it. That is why my hon. Friend's new clause is necessary.

If pre-school nurseries and other groups have the freedom to modify curriculum provisions, the problem will be solved. The provider will be able to ascertain that a certain group of children who officially fall into such-and-such a category are, for example, three or four months younger. To use the phrase that we used earlier, their maturities would not fit with what is laid down in part of the curriculum. Therefore, we need to have the freedom to modify the curriculum for them.

I hope that the Minister recognises that I am trying to be helpful. I support the new clause, because it would introduce flexibility and enable providers, most of whom are responsible and know what they are doing, to modify the provision to suit the children in their care.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

We are committed to early-years education, but not to any old early-years education. It has to be of the highest quality. We do not want to invest in our children's earliest years only to find that that significant extra investment and commitment were not achieving the objective of allowing children, of whatever age and at whatever stage, to achieve their potential. That is what all forms of education should be about.

It would be wrong to say to some providers that they will have access to the same resources and be subject to the same inspection regime but, because they are a small voluntary organisation or a small private-sector provider, they are not required to fulfil the same foundation stage curriculum requirements.

That is insulting to the voluntary sector. I worked in the voluntary sector throughout my working life—when I had a proper job, as some might say. As a result, I understand the voluntary sector reasonably well and believe passionately in its unique contribution to public life. I sometimes get fed up when ''voluntary'' is equated with ''amateur.''

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I hope that the Minister will forgive me: I am not sure whether the word ''codswallop'' is parliamentary language. We are not discriminating between voluntary, non-voluntary and state

provision, but are saying that a school that is doing well according to Ofsted will not be subject to the same curriculum requirements as a school that is not doing well. I should be grateful if the Minister would address our comments.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

That is not what the new clause says. In his contribution, the hon. Gentleman referred to burdens on the voluntary sector. I agree that there must be an appropriate balance between demanding a quality framework and certain standards, and not over-regulating and over-burdening a public service. I am sure that there is consensus in the Committee about that, and an acceptance that Governments, of whatever persuasion, do not always get the balance right at the first shot.

However, the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to community-based groups, grass roots organisations and voluntary organisations that will have access to the same levels of resource. It is right that such groups are funded, because they provide an innovative, responsive service to their clients. It is right that certain input and output standards should be achieved in return for state funding, which, historically, was not available to many groups. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for the Government to put parameters around a significant expansion of support and resources.

We are making extra investment not simply to expand volume but to increase massively the quality of early-years education provision. Even under the Conservative Government there was limited provision. It was not always of the highest quality—possibly because of the very limited state support—but the people who provided that early-years education did their best, often in very difficult circumstances, with limited access to resources. Some were entirely dependent on voluntary contributions.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Once again, I do not disagree with the principle. The Minister is absolutely right, but he seems to have misunderstood the intention of new clause 3. It is not that there should not be guidelines, which must be drawn up if we are spending taxpayers' money, or a curriculum, but that there should be flexibility so that small children, who are not all the same, can be treated as individual people and not just as statistics according to when in the year or half year they were born. If the Minister accepts that each individual child should be treated as such, he must accept that new clause 3 is necessary to provide a degree of flexibility.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I thank the hon. Lady for making me aware of that. I am not confused, but was just coming to that point. We need to distinguish between over-regulation, by which we place excessive burdens on public services, including education, and demanding and expecting certain standards in return for state support and, in effect, state accreditation. By regulating, we are telling parents that they can have confidence in the provider, from whom their child will have a high quality experience.

Mr. Turner: I am sorry that the Minister introduced that point, as that confuses the issue substantially. Registration is entirely different from regulation and accreditation. Accreditation relates to inspection, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred, and is what guarantees quality. The regulation merely guarantees that the schools can tick certain boxes, but does not guarantee quality.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

In most circumstances in which well-motivated and professional teachers and leaders provide those services, the fact that they have access to guidance helps them to deliver a quality service. Therefore, the foundation stage in the curriculum is another part of the commitment to parents that in most cases there will be access to provision that is of a higher quality than when there was no foundation stage in the national curriculum and there were not the resources that are now being invested in early-years education. Inspection will identify where that higher quality provision is missing.

The guidance on delivery of the foundation stage allows teachers and leaders of the providers more flexibility than in any other part of the national curriculum. Most providers welcome that, and that is what new clause 3 seeks to achieve. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell says that he wants a more flexible approach to the capacity to deliver the foundation stage, but he is not advocating the removal of the requirement of that stage.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

However, the guidance gives leaders of those groups a significant amount of discretion and flexibility to achieve the objectives and outcomes.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to two-year-olds. Clause 72(2) makes it clear that the foundation stage could not begin before the child's third birthday. The hon. Lady quoted from a letter about compulsory schooling, its definition and when it begins. The Government's pledge on three and four-year-olds relates to parents who want their children to benefit from early-years education. I do not think that there is any parent in this country who believes that they have to, by law, send their child into an educational situation at the age of two, three or four. It is a slightly unfair accusation to say that by putting the foundation stage into the curriculum as part of this legislation that we have somehow blurred the edges in terms of parents' perception of when compulsory schooling begins.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

A moment ago I was intervening merely to say that it is a welcome difference from our normal proceedings for the Minister to give me a straight answer to the question. Although he has moved on to a second question, I thank him for his straight answer to my first question. In going on to the second point, I would like to clarify and point out the concerns of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which stated:

''the intention to extend the definition of primary education downwards to include the foundation stage and children as young as two undermines the distinction between pre and post compulsory education and may further diminish the status of parents as their children's first educators.''

I see the Minister nodding in disagreement. That is precisely what I want him to do. I am raising this point because I want to have the Minister's assurance properly minuted as part of our deliberations in this Committee. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government have a clear intention as to when schooling is compulsory and when schooling is not compulsory, because parents ought to know this. What is actually happening in practice is that parents are being forced to send their children to primary school reception classes much earlier than they want to, so that they can secure a place in a primary school of their choice. Therefore, that distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory education is being blurred. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government know what they are doing there.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I am not sure that nodding in disagreement is something that one can do. I can make it absolutely clear to be minuted, to be put on the record, and to be reported in any publication, that new Labour has no intention of introducing compulsory education for two-year-olds.

We have covered this in the contributions made by the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Epping Forest, who made a reasonable overall point about the balance between regulation and the requirement to deliver a standard. It is a reasonable point to make, but new clause 3 is not justified by the current situation. There is more flexibility than at any other stage in the national curriculum in terms of the foundation stage. It is not justified at all in terms of what is happening, nor is it desirable in terms of the kind of quality early-years education that the Government seek to deliver. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell to consider withdrawing new clause 3.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. New clause 3 has not been moved, it cannot be moved yet. The only proposal before us at the moment is that clause 85 stand part of the Bill. The other items are grouped for discussion, but have not yet been moved.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

In that case I shall not attempt to move new clause 3, but I shall seek from the Minister the reassurance for which I was going to ask him in return for withdrawing new clause 3. He rightly made the point that all this discussion is about the balance between over and under-regulation of an important part of our education system. I seek his assurance that over the next few weeks and months he will take the time in his busy schedule to sit down with some providers of those services and listen to the concerns that they have about over-regulation in the curriculum, and that he will act upon those concerns.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is part of my job as a constituency Member and as a Minister. Baroness Ashton has responsibility for this

policy area and deals with these matters in the other place. I shall certainly relay those comments to her for when the Bill is considered there.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 289, in page 53, leave out line 10 and insert—

''(a) design and technology,

(b) information and communication technology,''.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this we may take Government amendment No. 290.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I hope that hon. Members will welcome a small but helpful clarification that is the purpose of amendments Nos. 289 and 290. Clauses 80 and 81 refer to the single subject of ''technology'', which has not existed within the national curriculum in England for approximately six years. Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 simply replace those references with the two subjects that do exist within the curriculum—''design and technology'' and ''information and communication technology''. The legislation works in its present form, but sustaining the notion that there is a national curriculum subject called ''technology'' is seen by many to be unhelpful—hence the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - Curriculum requirements for fourth key stage

Clause 82 - Power to alter or remove requirements for the fourth key stage

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Clause 82 restates section 368 of the 1996 Act, so it is not new. What has changed is the fact that part I and clauses dealing with earned autonomy allow groups of schools to disapply or change the national curriculum, which can also occur through innovation.

The clause implies that only the Secretary of State may order or amend. If, under earned autonomy, a school wants to change key stage 4 and opt for the intermediate international baccalaureate—or, in Wales, the Welsh baccalaureate—would permission of the Secretary of State be required, or can schools act individually through earned autonomy to apply the clause to their circumstances? It should be clarified whether the 10 per cent. of schools that gain earned autonomy—it relates only to pay and conditions and the national curriculum—are most likely to exercise it in respect of key stage 4, for which changes in the curriculum are expected.

When the Minister—I am delighted that it will be the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills—responds, he will be unable to disclose the contents of the Green Paper on the 14-19 curriculum, which I understand is being published next week. The Bill must meet the requirements of the 14-19 curriculum—flexible provision to allow schools and colleges to offer a plethora of different types of post-14 curriculums. Under the 1996 Act, schools were not intended to have the level of autonomy that the Secretary of State wants to give them. Nor did today's plethora of different school organisations then exist. Grant-maintained schools were the only exception to the main rule: everyone else fitted into the traditional patterns.

We are now going to have city technology colleges, academies, perhaps city academies, a plethora of different faith schools and all sorts of different organisations. We hope that we are also going to see 14-19 organisations reflecting, as in Exeter, a dynamic view of a new education system with a different vision. I am not trying to be difficult, but trying to clarify that this part of the Bill—my amendment to clause 82 is only one example—will not thwart the opportunities coming down the road.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We need to separate the power to innovate from what may become universally the norm—key stage 4, for example. If a school wanted to innovate by changing its delivery of the curriculum or becoming exempt from current curriculum requirements, other things being equal, would the Secretary of State look favourably on such an application? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if an individual school applied to the Secretary of State and met all the relevant criteria—and a significant part of the application related to the organisation of key stage 4—it would indeed be acceptable for the Secretary of State to consider it. There would be no difficulty in respect of other changes that Parliament may choose to make for key stage 4 in all schools. The particular power to innovate that we would like for a school relates to key stage 4.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister will recognise that, if the Secretary of State grants a school those powers to innovate under part 1 and it gets on with it, an order must be made if the school wants to change the

requirement for a national curriculum under clause 82. That would mean that each school that wanted to innovate in respect of its curriculum, whether or not it had earned autonomy, would have to have an order passed through the House. That seems incredibly cumbersome. However, it may not be what the Government intend and I may be misinterpreting such matters because I am not as informed as the Minister.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I cannot accept that last comment. There is no contradiction between the new power to innovate and clause 82. I shall clarify the power to innovate. If an individual school's definition in its application to the Secretary of State of how it would like to innovate is related to key stage 4 curriculum changes, and the application meets all the relevant criteria and qualifies for the right to have access to the power to innovate, there would be no legislative barrier under the Bill that would prevent a school from putting such an application before the Secretary of State. As for that individual school's request, there would be no requirement for an order to go through the House. We shall enable that process to take place under the power to innovate. There would be no such requirement for each school.

Perhaps I can outline the whole picture for the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and refer to the wider changes that will follow the publication of the document in respect of the 14-19 framework and a full and open consultation process. As the hon. Gentleman said, while people have not yet read the detail of the publication, there is a significant consensus about its principles and objectives. Both sides of the House and the world of education have been waiting for a long time for a distinct 14-19 phase of education and the opportunity that that will provide.

The curriculum for key stage 4 could be changed universally for all schools only under an affirmative resolution, whereby a debate would have to take place in both Houses. As for the power to innovate, the Bill will give an individual school the right to apply to the Secretary of State and that application will be focused specifically on key stage 4. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Is the distinction that clause 82 deals with the universal changes to the national curriculum? Will it cover schools that wish to stop GCSE examinations at 16 because they have adopted a new curriculum framework?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether, under clause 82, schools could prevent themselves from holding examinations in respect of the 14-19 framework.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Under the 14-19 framework, I hope that the Minister will agree that the GCSE will be irrelevant for many schools. I am sure that he has heard my previous comments on such matters. Will clause 82 and this part of the Bill allow those schools that have the power to innovate and the power of earned

autonomy to say that they would not undertake GCSE examinations because they wanted to vary the national curriculum?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

So far as I know, the answer is no. Clause 82 is not relevant to examinations. There is a distinction between examinations and curriculums. It is difficult to respond to a specific question about proposals that have not yet been published. When they are published and there has been a consultation process from which conclusions have been reached, the Government will place before the House the specific changes that are required from a legislative perspective to deliver on the consensus that will hopefully have been achieved at the end of the 14-19 consultation exercise. If that included a requirement to change legislation on examinations and that were consistent with Government rather than Liberal Democrat policy, it would be part of the resolution that would be placed before the House.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is important to get this clear. Clause 81 makes clear the requirement to specify attainment targets, and the Government consider attainment targets at key stage 4 through GCSE, because key stage 4 does not involve key stage SATs. It is therefore not fair of the Minister to say that the two things are not inextricably linked—they are. He said that schools will not be able to opt out of GCSE, and therefore the attainment targets at key stage 4, irrespective of whether they have earned autonomy. That will disappoint many schools.

We are all considering different ways of engaging young people from the age of 14 to 19, and the Minister may not share Liberal Democrats' thoughts, but I think that he would agree that ruling something in or out at this stage is probably not right. We should all be floating and debating ideas. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said and ensure that we do not say to schools that genuinely want to fly different kites and use different systems, ''Well, you can do that, but you must still stick to the framework that we have put in place.'' That would be sad, but I have exhausted the subject unless the Minister wants to reply.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I just want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we seek to be radical, imaginative and innovative on future 14-19 provision, although we might define innovation differently. I cannot reveal the document's content in detail, but a significant part will talk about the importance of 14-19 provision being introduced over a period. However, there will be significant early opportunities for piloting, which is important. We all know that there is already good practice on 14-19 provision. In many parts of the country, we can find quite imaginative approaches.

There is a specific link point. The hon. Gentleman said that some 14-19 changes may require structural change. If we are to have a distinct phase of education and learning for 14 to 19-year-olds, organisations that are set up to consider 16-19 provision will need to be reconsidered. There is no point in advocating a completely new phase and approach if we leave in place all the same levers, financial arrangements and

performance measures. It would not be logical to do so. There is a need to consider 14-19 provision in a totally integrated way.

Let me give one final response that should help the hon. Gentleman. There is no legislative requirement to take the GCSE and therefore no need for a change in that respect.

Mr. Brady rose—

Mr. Willis rose—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am sorry if I am raising the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough wanted to make, but he made a particularly important and valid point—that under clause 81, where there is a requirement for attainment targets and measurement of attainment to take place, the only available mechanism appears to be GCSE. Is that an implied legislative requirement for GCSE to be taken?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It is not necessarily the case that pupils or institutions are required to do so. The levers and pressures in the system lead schools and individual pupils to GCSE, which is why the points made about 14-19 education are valid. If we are considering a distinct 14-19 phase of learning, it is appropriate to examine the factors that influence that.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have announced that they would scrap GCSEs. What the Minister has said suggests that the Government are moving in the same direction. Will he clarify that they will not?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Yes, the hon. Gentleman can have total clarification: the Government do not support the Liberal Democrat position that the logical conclusion of having a 14-19 phase would be the scrapping of GCSEs. When we produce the document, it will clarify why that is not the Government's position and how we would deliver a radical, innovative approach to 14-19 education.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

If I give way, the hon. Gentleman will go off track again.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman said that he had exhausted the subject.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I have been named in despatches, which was unfair of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and the Minister. The Minister read my speech to the north of England conference word by word: it is emblazoned on his heart. That was not the point that was made. There was no attempt to suggest the universal scrapping of GCSE. I would scrap the idea, reaffirmed by clauses 81and 82, that the only way that one can assess attainment at the end of key stage 4 is GCSE. We should challenge that: for some schools it will mean scrapping GCSE. In others, young people will do GCSEs at different stages, or a combination of GCSEs and other types of qualification. I would hope

that the Government would say that the mantra of GCSE is up for grabs, rather that permitting innovation as long as the GCSE is kept. That is madness.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I respect the hon. Gentleman's view. There is no consensus on the future of GCSEs. We will have an exciting debate about 14-19 education when the details are published. The principles are clear, and it is only fair for hon. Members to consider the detail and respond accordingly inside and outside the House. We are strongly committed to an extensive consultation process throughout the country. The details will have a significant impact on education in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 and 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Establishment of the national curriculum for england by order

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I seek clarification from the Minister because subsection 12 provides that science shall not include the subject of

''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus''.

Groups, and colleagues who are members of the all-party AIDS and HIV group, have raised questions about that element. I understand the issues around sex education and health, and am mindful of having to find a balance between, on the one hand, parents' rights under the legislation to withdraw their children from sex education and, on the other, health issues and what fits in with the Bill and may be taught within the ambit of a science lesson.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

My hon. Friend raises a valid point, which has been raised by other hon. Members. At this stage, the Government are not proposing to change the status quo, but I am willing to give a commitment to discuss it further with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to see whether there is a satisfactory way forward. The Government feel that it is appropriate to maintain the status quo on such a sensitive issue, but are open-minded, and willing to consider any representation.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Is it the case that science teachers may not refer to AIDS or HIV in a science lesson or give any indication about their nature? If that is true, it is nonsense, and I would echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is the case, because of legislation introduced by a Conservative Government. There are grounds for re-examining the issue and considering representations. There will be strong views on both sides of the argument as it is an emotive issue, and it is important in those circumstances to strike the right balance. I am willing to consider the matter further, although the Bill at this stage will maintain the status quo.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister clarified that in an unexpected way. I am sure that he is right, but a lay reading of subsection (12) does not imply what he has said. All that the Secretary of State may do is ensure that the science attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements laid down in the national curriculum do not include those elements. As far as I can work out, there is no prohibition on a teacher answering a question on those subjects. Will the Minister consider that and perhaps correct the impression that he gave to the Committee?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertion. A teacher may answer a question, but the legitimate debate is also about the national curriculum requirement. It was decided some years ago that it would be appropriate to prohibit the issues that are specifically mentioned. Whether that is still appropriate is a matter for a reasonable discussion and debate, in which we are willing to engage.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

When the Minister says prohibit, he means prohibit from inclusion in the national curriculum, not prohibit from being taught.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It cannot be part of programmes of study.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It cannot be part of programmes of study laid down under the national curriculum; it can be part of a programme of study developed by a school, teacher or governing body. We are in the same territory as when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was accused of banning the teaching of recent history. All that was prohibited was the inclusion of recent history in the national curriculum.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the debate is legitimate, notwithstanding his point about whether it should be in the national curriculum.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister was trying to be reasonable in his answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley. It is clearly nonsense that a teacher can teach about HIV/AIDS, except in a science lesson as part of the national curriculum. No rational being could support that, other than fundamentalists who believe that that sort of thing should not be taught anywhere, in which case we are back to the section 28 debate. Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight goes into apoplexy, let me say that the Minister worried me when he said that he understood that that was a genuine issue for debate, but that there would be no change during the Bill's consideration. That is sad, as

it invites us on Report and in another place to table amendments that challenge the Government's thinking. I suspect that the House would greatly support such a challenge.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I have clarified my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. Ministers are willing to consider the issue before the Bill is passed, although our position is outlined in the clause. My hon. Friend raised a legitimate issue, and Opposition Members tabled several legitimate amendments. The Government are willing to reflect on whether we should maintain the status quo, or whether the status quo is illegitimate and unacceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84, 104 and 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - development work and experiments

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 263, in page 56, line 30, at end insert:

''(1A) For the purpose of enabling development work to be carried out, a school outside the maintained sector may be fully admitted to the maintained sector during which the National Curriculum shall not apply. If the experiment was considered successful, the school would continue as part of the maintained sector.''

This afternoon's sitting started well. The Minister accepted good, common-sense amendments and offered to bring them back in the form that he preferred later in the proceedings. I hope that we may continue in a similar vein, and that Ministers will accept that amendment No. 263 does not seek to undermine the Government's intentions, but pushes in the same direction as ministerial rhetoric and the overall thrust of the Bill. Clause 86 sets out certain special cases in which the curriculum may be suspended to enable

''development work and experiments to be carried out''.

The clause appears to limit those circumstances. The disapplication can take place only in a maintained school or maintained nursery school, and only for a specified period that is set out in guidance. Through the inclusion of new subsection (1A), amendment No. 263 would widen the circumstances in which it was possible for Ministers to disapply the curriculum in order to encourage experiments and development work. The amendment would extend beyond existing maintained or nursery schools to allow

''a school outside the maintained sector''

to be

''fully admitted to the maintained sector''

for the purpose of development work. For an experimental period, the national curriculum would not apply. The amendment states:

''If the experiment was considered successful, the school would continue as part of the maintained sector.''

If Ministers are genuine in their desire to promote development and experiment, and if they really welcome the innovation that might occur through

disapplying the curriculum for a time and in particular respects, they should be open to the possibility that the maintained sector will improve if we accept various types of schools. The Steiner-Waldorf schools are an example, although many alternative approaches to education are, or may in the future, be practised in this country.

If Ministers were to accept the amendment, they would leave the door open for the maintained sector to accept schools with teaching methods or curriculums that prohibited them from entering that sector, although the amendment is permissive and does not oblige schools to do so. In order to facilitate that, such schools will be allowed the same disapplication of curriculum requirements as that which the Bill will allow maintained schools. That is a simple point, against which it is difficult to argue.

I hope that Ministers will consider the amendment as an opportunity to underline their commitment to innovation and exciting experiment. I am hopeful that they will give it a fair wind.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

In one of our earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) raised a question with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about faith schools such as fundamentalist Muslim schools. The latter said that as a key element such a school would be required to conform to the national curriculum. That seems in exact contradiction to the amendment. Are we saying that all schools in the independent sector should have the proposed powers? Would they cover existing public schools such as Eton or Winchester, if they wished to apply but did not follow the national curriculum? The hon. Gentleman is trying to run two horses in opposite directions at the same time.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The difficulty with the amendment is that it makes no reference to school organisation committees, or to the need to comply with the school organisation committee requirements, criteria or application process. Clearly, if a new school wants to come into the maintained sector, it would be required to go through those processes. It also makes no reference to a requirement to apply to the Secretary of State for any disapplication or variance of the national curriculum. That is its weakness.

If hon. Members can envisage a hypothetical set of circumstances, it would be possible for a school that is outside the maintained sector to come into it. However, that would have to be done through the usual agreed processes, and it would have to receive the approval of the school organisation committee. Having gone through that process, the school would have the opportunity to request disapplication, as would any maintained school.

However, on what basis would a school outside the maintained sector come into it? Such a school would have to meet a certain set of requirements through the school organisation committee before being accepted as a maintained school. Having been accepted as a new maintained school, it would have the opportunity, like any other new maintained school, either through the

power to innovate or other mechanisms that are available, to apply to the Secretary of State, as the amendment suggests, for a disapplication of the curriculum. As part of its application, it would have to demonstrate its reasons for doing so. Having been an independent school, it would have to demonstrate that it was not simply because it did not want to put into practice the national curriculum. It would have to give much better reasons than that to obtain the Secretary of State's approval.

The existing framework allows a school to come from the non-maintained sector into the maintained sector through the school organisation committee. Having become a school in the maintained sector, it would have the right, like any other school in that sector, to use the available legislative mechanisms to request that part or all of the curriculum should be suspended. In considering any such application, the Secretary of State would look at whether there was a clear attempt to abuse or exploit the system—whether the school had simply used a backdoor route to enter the state system and obtain state funding, and, then, not to apply the national curriculum. Its request would be judged on the same basis, in that context, as other maintained schools.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The key point that emerges from the Minister's comments is that there is a sequence—first, apply to the maintained sector, and, then, apply for disapplication. I am sure that he will understand that the problem is that some schools would be able to serve pupils in the area better were they in the maintained sector, but do not wish to join the maintained sector if it means that they cannot keep their existing organisation and curriculum.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I shall demonstrate that I am talking about neither Eton and Winchester nor other and better reputed public schools. Rudolph Steiner schools, for example, do not believe that they deliver education best by using technology at an early age. They also believe that the outcomes from their schools are considerably better than those from other maintained schools that deliver the national curriculum. I am sure that many of their proprietors would like the benefits of Rudolph Steiner education to be more widely enjoyed, but they do not wish to place one of their schools into the maintained sector in the sequential way that the Minister described. Even if the amendment were not accepted, it would be useful for the Minister to consider admitting a school to the maintained sector on the basis that derogation from the national curriculum would follow.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to a specific category of school: the Steiner schools. The Government support a pilot initiative for three Steiner schools to show that we are willing to consider and examine such an arrangement in certain circumstances. We will examine how the scheme works

within constraints that have been laid out and an agreement between the Steiner schools and the Government.

The Government would be reluctant to open the floodgates in the manner suggested by the amendment without the operation of the usual channels. The key to the school organisation committee is the support of the local community. There must be a demonstrable groundswell of support among parents, the family of schools and the community to show that admitting a new school into the maintained sector would be positive, would add value to the school, would give options to parents, and would make the school an asset and a legitimate part of the family of schools.

Our main worry about the amendment is that it does not put such a safeguard in place. It would apply a blanket view of the matter to all schools that are outside the maintained sector. The Government have been willing to enter discussions with Steiner schools. Most members of the Committee would agree that Steiner schools have something to offer and that many parents choose the Steiner model. We have been willing to support the scheme on a limited, pilot, three-school basis. The schools will come into the maintained sector in the manner suggested by the amendment. However, the Government could not support a situation that allowed that basis to be applied as the norm. There is a long way to go before we would be comfortable or happy to accept that.

We have had an interesting and useful debate but, on the basis that I outlined, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The debate has been useful and interesting. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough accused me of running two horses in opposite directions. It may be in order for me to apologise for trespassing on his turf, if that is what I have been doing. In fact, there are real distinctions between this debate and our debate on faith schools. The hon. Gentleman is slightly mischievous because this debate is worth while.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Yes, it is.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

The Minister's principal objection to the amendment appeared to be procedural and that the amendment contained no reference to the school organisation committee—the usual channels, as he termed it—or a requirement for the Secretary of State to approve admission into the maintained sector. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, impediments lie in the usual channels that may restrict the sensible development of experimentation on this matter. The Minister may wish to consider that, although I do not press him to take a particular procedural approach to this issue.

The Minister must accept that schools that cannot follow the national curriculum face a prima facie difficulty in applying for admission to the maintained sector, as ordinarily it might be expected that they would apply the national curriculum as one of the

requirements of acceptance. He was concerned that this might become a back door route to state funding, as he put it. I am keen to signpost the way to the front door. There could be an entirely open and clear procedure that showed schools in that position how to proceed. I am grateful that the Minister was more positive in dealing with the substance of the argument, rather than with the procedural aspects of the amendments.

I have no desire to press the matter to a Division. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether there may be a way of improving the route for schools that do not follow the national curriculum that may make it easier for them to apply and to gain admission to the maintained sector, very much in the spirit of what clause 86 already seeks to do for schools within the maintained sector. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) referred earlier to the intention to continue our discussions into the evening. May I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there is a letter on the Table for each hon. Member containing information that they may find helpful in preparing for our resumed sitting later on.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That was not really a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that hon. Members have taken note of what the Minister said.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. As I understand it, the knife falls at seven o'clock this evening.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The knife falls at seven o'clock, and at that stage certain business has to be disposed of. Morning sittings finish at exactly one o'clock once the business is disposed of. By order of the House, afternoon sittings can continue as long as the Committee is of that opinion. The Whip must move the motion to adjourn the Committee. As I understand it, we will break for dinner after we have disposed of the business at seven o'clock.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In the Order of the Committee of 11 December, it says that we will finish at seven o'clock tonight.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

All that we must finish at seven o'clock is the business to be disposed of up to that stage. We can go beyond that, and that is what will happen. The business that I will take at seven o'clock will be that up to where the knife falls. The Committee can continue beyond that after seven o'clock.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. It would be a matter of considerable concern if we proceeded to aspects of the Bill on which hon. Members have had no opportunity to table amendments. We expected that certain aspects of the

Bill would be dealt with on Thursday, and that amendments would have to be tabled by close of play tonight.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.