Education and Inspections Bill

Public Bill Committee, 2 May 2006.

Standing Committee E

Clause36

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 441, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at beginninginsert

‘Until the school yearstarting on or after 1st August2010,'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing: Amendment No. 209, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at endinsert ‘or anacademy'.

Amendment No.230, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at endinsert

‘, academy, city technologycollege or city college for the technology of thearts.'.

AmendmentNo. 210, in clause 36, page 26, line 8, leave out from ‘ability'to end of line 11 and insert

‘oraptitude unless selection is for the purpose of section 101 (permittedselection: pupil banding) of SSFA1998.'.

AmendmentNo. 367, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at endinsert

‘,or

(c) the school is acomprehensive with a grammarstream.'.

AmendmentNo. 442, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at endinsert—

‘(1A) The admissionauthority for each secondary school, in exercising their functions,shall—

(a) have regardto the general principle that secondary education is to be provided incomprehensive schools, and

(b)determine that arrangements for the admission of pupils for compulsoryeducation is not based on any test of ability oraptitude,

except where theadmission arrangements have been determined under section 101 of SSFA(pupil banding) or regulations made under section [Retention ofselection by ability or aptitude after parentballot].'.

AmendmentNo. 368, in clause 36, page 26, line 13, leave out ‘orany'.

Amendment No. 45,in clause 36, page 26, line 28, at endinsert

‘and

(c)in subsection (4), after paragraph (b)insert—

“(c) anyselection of 10 per cent of pupils by aptitude in a subject that is acompulsory target-setting subject for the purposes of the specialistschoolsprogramme.”.'.

Clausestand part.

New clause 8—Freedom ofselection—

‘(1) Amaintained school shall have complete freedom to select pupils byacademic or other ability at its absolutediscretion.

(2) Sections 99 to103 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

New clause51—Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parentballot—

‘(1) TheSecretary of State must, after consultation, by regulations,make—

(a) suchsupplementary, incidental or consequential provision,or

(b) such transitional,transitory or savingprovision,

as he considersnecessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or forgiving full effect to subsection(2).

(2) Regulations undersubsection (1) must, in particular, make provisionto—

(a) amend or repealPart 3, Chapter 2 (selection of pupils) of SSFA 1998 to provide for thelegislation to be consistent with the general principle that there mustbe a ballot of parents of pupils attending local primary schools if anysecondary school is to continue to select pupils by ability or aptitudeafter the school year starting on or after 1st August 2011,and

(b) amend or revoke anysubordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act1978) made before the passing of this Act necessary to achieve theprinciple set out above.

(3)Nothing in this Act is to be regarded as limiting the generality ofsubsection (1).'.

Amendment No. 443, in clause158, page 108, line 12, at endinsert—

‘(aa) regulationsunder section [Retention of selection by ability or aptitude afterparentballot],'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Good morning, Mr. Chope. Welcome back to theCommittee after the bank holiday weekend.

Before speaking to theamendments, I wish to say a few words about the context of our debatesso far and our forthcoming debate on this part of the Bill, which dealswith school admissions. I hope that that will be helpful to theofficial Opposition, who on more than one occasion have questioned myviews on certainmatters.

It seems to methat the way in which the official Opposition have approached the Bill,especially questions relating to admissions and the relationship withthe local authority, is not the most useful framework for increasingour understanding of how to build an education system that helps tofulfil the potential of all children. Their view is that there is adichotomy of those who believe that all our schools should be withinthe local education authority and those who believe that they shouldall be free-standing, independent schools with minimal connection withthe LEA. Furthermore, there are those who believe that there should beno LEAs at all. It is not helpful to consider the Bill in such terms.The issue is far more complex than that.

Similarly, traditionally theofficial Opposition have regarded the debate on admissions as a debatebetween those who believe in selection and those who are opposed to it.They have simplified that into debate on grammar schools andcomprehensive schools, or grammar school systems. It is interesting howselective systems are always described as grammar school systems, not secondarymodern school systems, but we will leave that to one side for themoment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That isa caricature of the mission of the official Opposition. We voted forthe Bill in the full understanding that it retains a role for LEAs: agood example of such a function that I value greatly is statementingspecial needs children. We would have voted against the Bill had weheld the opinion that the hon. Gentleman ascribes tous.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s comment,although he is, of course, in the vanguard of thinking in his party onsuch matters and I suspect that his views are not shared by the generalmass of hiscolleagues.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Could the reasonwe refer to selective systems as grammar school systems, not secondarymodern school systems, be that we still have grammar schools, but nolonger have secondary modern schools? Speaking as a secondarymodern-educated person, I do not believe that anyone in the room wouldadvocate a return to the secondary modernsystem.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

No it could not, because we still have secondarymodern schools. If the hon. Lady checks the list of categories ofschool held by the Department for Education and Skills, she will seethat it contains several secondary modern schools. Although not allnon-selective schools in wholly selective areas are defined officiallyas secondary modern schools, they have, in effect, the same status asthose schools that used to be defined assuch.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Is it not a failure of the Government that afteralmost 10 years in power, secondary modern schools are still inexistence? Are they not operating a comprehensivesystem?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

The hon. Lady makes an important point. If shecan be patient, I shall comment further on the grammar-comprehensivedivision in the hope of clarifying the point. The way in which theDepartment classifies our schools probably bears little relationship toreality. Some schools that are classified as secondary modernschools—perhaps in Kent, Slough or Buckinghamshire—have afar more comprehensive intake than some of the schools that areofficially classified as comprehensive schools. I am glad that shepicked up on my remarks on the important question of how schools areclassified. My preference would be simply to call them“schools”, but perhaps that is an idea whose time has notyet come.

It isimportant to raise the issue now, because for50 years oureducation debate has been too much hung up on the names that we giveschools. I do not believe that the concept of a grammar school is aprecise or accurate one, because some grammar schools are whollyselective state schools, some are non-selective state schools, and someare private schools that select to a greater or lesser degree byability and by the size of the parents’ chequebook. The term “grammar school”is not helpful, nor is the term “comprehensive school”,which embraces an enormous range of schools with an enormous diversityof intake. We need to get away from the traditional framework ofdivisions between selection and non-selection, and between the controland running of schools by LEAs and a system of free-standingindependentschools.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is notwhat we need to get away from the ideological obsession with intake andthe assumption that the intake of a school determines its quality? Thereason for the degree of passion about school intakesis thatthere are too few good schools in thiscountry, with 23 percent. officially regarded as underperforming. Should not the priorityof all Members of Parliament be to create more good schools so thatthere is not such a clamour by parents to get their children into thefew good schools that exist? That, not admissions, should be ourobsession.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I agree completely that our objective should beto create more good schools; paradoxically, that would make our currentobsession with choice became less relevant. If more good schools wereavailable, individual parents would be less anxious about their choiceof school, because the choice that they made would be less significantto and have less of an impact on their children’s education.However, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s view that therehas been an ideological obsession with intake; nor do I accept thatintake is irrelevant to the objective of building a system in which allschools are good schools.

To continue my generalremarks—I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chope: I shall move on to thespecifics of the amendments shortly—the real issue seems to meto be not a battle between independent schools and LEA-controlledschools but the correct balance of decision making between theGovernment in Westminster, the local authority, school governors and parents. It is interesting that so much of the debate in Committee sofar has focused on the level at which decisions should be taken. Somehave said that certain matters should be determined by parents; othershave said that certain matters are for the governing body to determine.The Opposition have criticised the Government for being too centralist.The Government have argued that they want to increase parentpower.

The argumenthas moved back and forth between the Government and the Opposition, andthe central theme of the Bill seems to be securing the rightdecision-making structure, getting the right decisions taken at theright level and ensuring a balance between the legitimate rights ofparents and school governing bodies and the democratic responsibilitiesof local authorities and central Government. We must therefore focusfirst on what decision-making structure would be best, and then on whatrelationship between local authorities and the schools in their areawould be best.

Thehon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), with whom I have some thingsin common and many differences, has said that he deeply regrets thefactthat the Conservative Government who passed the Education Reform Act 1988 did not go the whole way and allow all schoolsto opt out. He and other members of the Committee may be interested toknow that, within weeks of the Act receiving Royal Assent, I madeprecisely that argument—albeit for different reasons from thehon. Gentleman’s—to my colleagues on the educationcommittee on which I was serving at the time. I argued that the onlyway in which we could conceivably maintain a coherent and equitablesystem following the passing of the Act, which I did not support, wasfor all schools to retain the same status: either all should stay in,or all should opt out.

There was an element ofmischievousness in that argument: it would have been impossible for allschools to opt out, because the Government of the day were not preparedto allocate the funding necessary for all of them to becomegrant-maintained. Some of us thought that the way to defeat thelegislation was to highlight that anomaly as forcefully as possible,but that was not the majority view of my party or my colleagues. We allknow the history of the past 18 years: the opting-out process has ledto more inequality in the system and a greater hierarchy of schools, aswell as greater differences in funding, both capital and revenue,particularly in secondaryschools.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is strange, is itnot, that the two outriders on the Committee agree on the fundamentalpoint that all schools should be treated the same, regardless offunding? The Minister may wish to note that. We do not benefit thesystem by creating types of schools that opt of the system, such ascityacademies.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

That is an interesting point; I shall take it one step further. I am not convinced that the key issue is whether all schools are inside or outside the LEA framework or we move to the hybrid system set out in the Bill. I believe that the relationships between an LEA and a school and between schools are more important. It is crucial that we get those relationships right and that LEAs are given the right responsibilities. I think that the Government have got the balance pretty well right in the Bill as drafted.

I do not think that the debate on selection is the old debate between grammar and comprehensive schools. Those terms are meaningless, because we have moved on in the past 40 years. No one is arguing that there will be no selection in the education system. The question is what is the appropriate age at which the selection process should take place. Nobody is arguing that universities should not select their students.

Having said that, perhaps we should move away from the concept of selection and talk instead of allocation. That would bring in far more strongly the matter of choice. In matching students to courses or institutions, their choice—or their parents’ choice in the case of younger students—must be crucial. Such decisions should be taken not on the back of an arbitrary test taken on a wet Wednesday morning in December, but on the basis of informed choice and advice about a student’s true ability and potential. We should move away from the old debate about selection versus non-selection and instead discuss the age at which selection and allocation to courses and institutions takes place, the means by which that happens—not a single arbitrary test but a process of assessment and informed advice—and the purpose of selection and allocation. That purpose must be to develop the potential of all our pupils, not to institute and entrench social segregation.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s preliminary comments on the issue. What are his views on a test to divide children into ability bands, from band 1 to band 4, which is widely used by my local education authority in Hackney? Does he have any comments to make on that method of one-off testing on a wet Wednesday?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall come to later. There is a clause on banding systems; I shall have some amendments on that, too, so I shall talk a little more about banding then.

There are important distinctions to make. We need to consider the purpose of allocating children to schools. The purpose of banding is to create more balanced intakes and to increase fairness, parity of esteem between schools and the chance that every child’s potential can be enhanced. There is a difficulty with banding if it means that children have to sit an extra test around the time of their 10th birthday, but there are other ways to band children without imposing that on them.

Parity of esteem between schools, in contrast to the creation of a hierarchy of schools, is crucial. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, it would mean that the question of choice would become less significant. The agonising that so many parents go through, particularly around the time of the transfer to secondary education, would be greatly diminished. That way, we would develop far more good schools and good school places.

Equitable finance is one of the keys to bringing about that parity of esteem. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Gainsborough stressed the importance of equitable distribution of finance. I suppose that his Lincolnshire constituency has things in common with my constituency, as some of the shire counties have had cause to complain about lower levels of funding over the years, as has my metropolitan district council. However, there are good reasons for that and we must live within the budgets allocated. The management and leadership of schools are also important: putting the strongest emphasis on increasing the recruitment of highly skilled managers is crucial. The chance of a school succeeding, developing its own character and fulfilling the potential of all its children depends on the quality of its management and leadership, combined with an appropriate curriculum.

A school’s success depends also on its pupil intake. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that we have had an ideological obsession with intake, but if so, I do not share that obsession. I take a fairly pragmatic approach. I put this simple question to the Committee: if schools such as Eton were stuffed full of the sons and daughters of “the underclass”, would they retain their high reputations? To me, it is manifestly self-evident that there is a relationship between the nature of the intake and the possibility of a school becoming a good school.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. He assumes that people from certain social classes are less able than others, and I simply do not accept that. What matters is whether, within a school, classes are setted or streamed by ability. If that is done, the intake becomes irrelevant. The bright children, whatever their backgrounds, need to be stretched to their full potential, and the less able must be given time and space to learn, to ensure that they understand what is being taught and can learn at their own pace. If that were done in our comprehensive schools, intake would be completely irrelevant.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s later comment, but I would be the last person to say that there is a relationship between a child’s background and his or her potential. In fact, I believe precisely the opposite.

I have advanced my argument about the importance of intake not because of any ideological obsession, but because it is what the body of expert opinion in Britain appears to have concluded. Hon. Members should read the work of the National Foundation for Educational Research and that of Professor Jesson, who is one of the Government’s key advisors, particularly on specialist schools. They should consider also the work of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development’s and the programme for international student assessment—not just the United Kingdom’s performance in PISA, but the conclusions of the PISA study, which surveyed the secondary education systems of all 37 countries in the OECD. The study concluded that the countries in which there was greater equity between schools and a more balanced distribution of pupils within schools were the most able to fulfil the development of all their children and were less likely to have the long tails of under-achievement that have plagued the British system.

The hon. Gentleman may have talked to head teachers—I do not know whether he went to the National Association of Head Teachers conference this weekend. However, I thought that every head teacher from their own experience would say that schools do not need a mathematically and scientifically precise balanced intake, but a critical mass of able and motivated students. Conversely, as far as possible we need to avoid large concentrations of students with behavioural or severe learning difficulties and distribute those pupils more equally between schools.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

How then does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that there are comprehensive schools in leafy suburbs where 37 or 38 per cent. of children achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C and other schools, such as the Wellington school in Telford, which creams of 40 per cent. of its children to grammar schools, where 73 per cent. of children achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C? Is that not a result of what happens in the school? Wellington school employs strict setting and streaming, whereas in other schools in those leafy suburbs children are taught in mixed-ability classes?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I do not think so. I think that differences in the performance of schools with similar intakes are due almost entirely to the quality of management and teaching and the flexibility in the curriculum. It is clear that schools with similar intakes perform differently. There is no dispute about that—it is not the point at issue, and I do not see the purpose of focusing the argument on that. As I recall, Wellington school is in Trafford not Telford. The hon. Gentleman has referred to it before and I think that it is located in Trafford, but I might be wrong.

The group of amendments is underpinned by the importance of balanced school intakes. The amendments are particularly important because of the historic change in Conservative party policy on education just a few weeks ago, which means that in one respect there is now an all-party consensus on school admissions: all three parties have pledged that there will be no return to the 11-plus examination. I was delighted to see the shadow Secretary of State himself appear on Teachers’ TV—I am looking for the reference but I cannot lay my hands on it—some weeks ago. He spoke forcefully about the brutality of the 11-plus and implied that that examination—the single test on the wet Wednesday in December—is not a rational, intelligent or useful means by which to allocate children to secondary schools if we want to develop the potential of all our children.

Amendments Nos. 441 to 443 and new clause 51 would change the Bill so that clause 36(1) would apply only until school year 2010. After that, local authorities and schools admission authorities would be obliged to adopt a sort of comprehensive system of intake. Selection by ability, and later selection by aptitude, would no longer be permitted. Given that we now have an all-party consensus that there will be no return to selection by ability, there is value in setting a date for the ending of such selection.

Now that that consensus has been established—presumably the Conservatives have good reasons for having come to share our view about the inadequacies of the old 11-plus testing system—it is even more illogical that selection by ability should be acceptable in some parts of the country but not in others. I fail to understand how all three parties can say that a non-selective system should operate in Sussex or Hampshire, whereas in Kent selection by ability can remain. In Bury, which has one of the most coherent systems of secondary education in the country—good 11-to-16 schools feed into two colleges—we all agree that a non-selective system is needed, and that is widely supported by parents, but in Trafford, the converse applies. Nobody, certainly not the Conservative party in Bury, argues that we should revert to a system of 11-plus testing.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is not that what local democracy is all about?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

To some extent, it is. I have argued in relation to other parts of the Bill that we should allow local authorities the right to take decisions at certain levels. However, I made the point in my opening remarks today that a key thing for the Bill to establish is the right decision-making structure. We have to agree which decisions should be taken by parents, governors, local authorities and central Government. Given that the Government have taken to themselves the power to decide virtually every aspect of admissions policy, it seems increasingly anomalous that in one respect—the small amount of 11-plus testing that still exists—they should abdicate responsibility to the twisted democracy of the grammar school ballot system. I shall say more on that later.

Now that we have consensus in favour of no return to 11-plus testing, I want to argue the merits of setting a date for phasing it out, as the Government have done in Northern Ireland. That process is not uncontroversial, but I recollect that in debates in the House about the proposed changes to the system of secondary admissions in Northern Ireland, people were not defending the 11-plus test—in fact, I vividly remember sitting in the Chamber and listening to Democratic Unionist party and Ulster Unionist party Members saying that they accepted that 11-plus testing was a crude, arbitrary and brutal way of allocating children to schools. Instead, they were saying that they like grammar schools. That is at the heart of the dilemma. Nobody has argued, even in Northern Ireland, for the restoration of the tests.

Northern Ireland has a 2008 deadline for the phasing out of the tests and a process for deciding what will follow them. The effect of the amendments would be to achieve the same thing here. They are based on the argument that there should be time for parents, governors and local authorities to work out with Ministers what should replace the tests. There are many options, and it is important that we spend time exploring them. One option would be, as I said when we discussed school expansion, for existing selective schools, many of which are small and will face falling rolls over the next 10 years, to expand on the basis of a balanced intake. That is a fairly painless way of changing the character of certain schools. It is what Margaret Thatcher did between 1970 and 1974, when she abolished more 11-plus testing than any Secretary of State for Education before or since, and it is a legitimate matter for local discussion.

Another would be something else for which the noble Baroness argued strongly 30 or more years ago: that the existing wholly selective schools should remain wholly selective, not from the age of 11 but from the age of 16. The transformation of the wholly selective schools into what we now know as sixth-form colleges is another option that should be a legitimate subject for discussion at local level.

There is even an argument, which I would not necessarily advance at this stage, but which might appeal to a new-born Conservative party that is desperate to reinvent itself, and particularly to those on its progressive and libertarian wings. Given the important changes to our curriculum in key stage 4 following the Tomlinson report, some of which will be discussed later in the Bill, the key point of choice over curriculum is no longer at 11, but at 14. Therefore another option to consider what might follow the ending of selection by 11-plus testing is to argue that we should create a series of 14-to-19 schools. The current wholly selective schools could thereby transform themselves, while retaining their character and strengths, but opening up their facilities to even more children.

I do not want to act as an unpaid consultant to the Conservative party in how it might improve its education policy. I am merely saying that here is an opportunity for the more progressive and libertarian members of the Opposition to take up an idea and run with it. By doing so they could well gain greater credibility with some people working in education.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 209 and 230, which simply bring into the provisions of the clause the academy schools, the city technology colleges and the very small number—I think there may be only one—of city colleges for technology of the arts. The arguments for bringing academies into the system that applies to community, foundation and voluntary schools have been well made earlier in the debate. I do not think that it is necessary to repeat them now, other than to say that there is one key issue about academies that needs stressing and which perhaps has not been stressed to date.

Because the academies’ admissions policies are required to follow the national code of practice, yet are entrenched within their funding agreements, academies that are already established and have their funding agreement agreed will be acting in line with the current code of practice on school admissions. When the new code of practice comes into force at some point in 2007—presumably for the school year starting in September 2007—will the existing academies also be required to act in accordance with it or will their funding agreement still protect them, so that they merely have to have regard to the old code? That is an interesting point. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. It supports the argument that academies and the small number of related schools should be fully involved in the system that applies to all other schools.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good to be back after our brief sojourn to consider these important matters, given heat, if not light, by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) in speaking to his amendments.

“Children from poorer families have far less chance of improving their lives in Britain than they do in many other wealthy countries.”

So said a report from the London School of Economics, published in June 2005, with which you will be familiar, Mr. Chope, as will other hon. Members. That report showed furthermore that the decline of grammar schools had helped deepen class divisions, effectively kicking the ladder away from bright children. The study of eight countries carried out by the LSE said that social mobility in Britain was lower than anywhere else except for the United States.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman says that the decline of grammar schools has kicked the ladder away from bright children, but what happens to those who would not have passed the 11-plus? Surely their chances have improved.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall deal with that matter in some detail during my peroration because the hon. Lady has a fair point. The arguments usually made against grammar schools, are not that they do not provide opportunities for working-class children, who would otherwise not have had such opportunities, but that they do not provide benefit to those children not selected at age 11.

What I hope to show today is that typically the aggregate results in areas that have selection are better; that the standards in primary schools are higher; and that many of the schools in selective areas which are themselves not selective do exceptionally well. So that the hon. Lady can research the matter while I am on my feet, she might care to look at the Gleed girls’ technology college in Spalding, an excellent secondary school. It achieves better results than many comprehensive schools, despite the fact that it is the neighbour of the Spalding high school, a selective girls’ school, which itself, is exceptional. I will deal with the point in more detail as we continue.

The LSE report states:

“In Britain, 38 per cent. of sons born in 1970 to the poorest quarter of families were themselves in the bottom quarter of earners at the age of 30. Only 11 per cent. had reached the richest quarter. By contrast, 42 per cent. of those born to the wealthiest quarter remained amongst the top earners at 30 and 16 per cent. were in the bottom quarter. There was greater movement among those born in 1958”—

the year of my birth.

My story, a story of a working-class boy who, by achieving a grammar school education and subsequently a university education, was able to achieve a lifetime ambition of becoming a Member of Parliament—not that one must have a grammar school or a university education to be an MP—is a useful example of what happened to many of my generation, who otherwise might not have achieved their ambitions. Indeed, they might have achieved far less than the generation that was born later.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is it not also the case that many working-class children who failed the 11-plus went on to make up for that failure and developed in later life, went on to university but had to work twice as hard to get there? Is that not unfair?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, of course, many people develop talents and are well educated and successful, notwithstanding what happens to them at age 11, but many are not. Social mobility, by any measure, has declined in this country. One of the factors in that decline, though not the only one, of course, has been the dogmatic adherence, which we heard again this morning, to a faded and thwarted comprehensive ideal.

I am glad that that dogma is not shared by the Prime Minister. It is certainly not shared by his education adviser, who made precisely the same point in his book entitled “A Class Act: The Myth of Britain’s Classless Society”, which I refer to again. Lord Adonis said that grammar schools were important in delivering social mobility to a generation that would not have had opportunities before that.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

If that is the case, why are the hon. Gentleman and his party not arguing for the reintroduction of grammar schools into every town in Britain?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We argue, in amendment No. 45, that there should be the opportunity for schools to select. We are not opposed to selection. We argue vociferously for banding and streaming in schools. We argue that what I described as a faded dream, or perhaps a nightmare that the hon. Gentleman has endured for so long, has not delivered for children in this country and that we need to think again. But it is important that we focus on the large number of schools that are not grammar schools. Our debate has been focused on the many children who do not live in an area with selection. It is important that we raise standards for all of our children, not just the most gifted, and it is vital that we understand that there are many factors in a good outcome in education: teaching and learning, curricular issues, home-school issues—the hon. Gentleman knows them all.

The Conservative party is not preoccupied with grammar schools, and we do not focus only on the children who attend them, but in light of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments it is important to focus on them now, as the Committee considers this part of the Bill. That is why the Conservative party has said what it has—we want opportunity for all children and we want more good schools of all types.

It is undeniably the case that one of the effects of the comprehensive idea, an effect that I am glad to say is now being broken up, was to undermine the opportunities of very large numbers of working-class children. The LSE study to which I referred found that

“an increasing link between family wealth and educational achievement was partly responsible for the marked decline in social mobility in Britain.”

As I said, in 1970, poorer children had much less opportunity to improve their socio-economic status as adults than those who were born when I was. The LSE report felt that

“The abolition of grammar schools...reduced opportunity in a country where parental wealth and a good education are strongly linked. Uniquely among the countries studied, the life chances of poorer children in Britain had become worse over time.”

The report showed that the decline of grammar schools has helped deepen class division, kicking away the ladder from brighter, working-class children.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Myhon. Friend makes a powerful case on why comprehensivisation, as implemented in some places, has led to a reinforcement of class divisions. Is he aware of the position on admissions to leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, which we know is a matter of great interest in some quarters? Is it not the case that the proportion of children from state schools at those universities has decreased, in line with the sort of comprehensivisation, dictated by social engineering, that we have seen?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is precisely the case that Lord Adonis makes in his book, and he goes on to say that the trend that I have described—the blighted chances of working-class children—has resulted not only in the school system becoming a matter of selection by house price and wealth, but has caused similar effects in universities. At the very least, there is a case for retaining existing grammar schools in the interests of social mobility and for considering selection, as the amendment does, in academies, as the Government have, and trust schools that empower local communities and parents. All of them, like it or not, break down the idea that all children, regardless of aptitude or ability, and of where they come from, should end up being educated in large, bog-standard comprehensives. The hon. Member for Bury, North and other people want to impose the straitjacket of the comprehensive—“straitjacket” is not my expression; it is the Prime Minister’s.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting speech, but given that class divisions have considerably changed, partly because of the decline of manufacturing and the rise of service industries, how does he define social mobility?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I began to define it in what I said about the LSE report, and I should be happy to let the hon. Lady have a copy of the report. The LSE defines it by the way people move from one social class to another in terms of wealth distribution—the way people move between, or across, the spectrum of wealth. I do not for one moment claim that wealth should be the only arbiter of human happiness, nor is it necessarily a perfect proxy for class, but it is of profound concern.

The LSE report found it “deeply shocking” that its evidence suggested that fewer people move from one position in respect of wealth to another during the course of their lifetime. The definition of social mobility is not perfect, but it is good enough for the LSE and for several other studies, which almost comprehensively suggest that social mobility has declined.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I do not dispute that this is an issue. The question is how the hon. Gentleman defines it, because it changes the parameters of the debate. Given that we accept that social mobility is declining and it is important that it should be greater in all groups, why is the hon. Gentleman so focused on the academic? Surely, all children should have the ability to move between different bands of income as they get older.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is because there is a proven relationship between educational attainment and family income. If people cannot easily obtain an education that is best suited to their needs they are unlikely to progress educationally and there is likely to be a direct correlation, although not a perfect correlation, between that fact and their chances of obtaining a different place in society.

I do not necessarily equate wealth and happiness, but if we measure social mobility in those terms, we see that there has been a decline and it is almost undeniable that it is linked to educational opportunity. I think the Committee would agree on that.

At a risk of doing the point to death, if the LSE study and similar studies are right to say that social mobility has declined and that educational opportunity and achievement are linked to that decline, we must ask why. It is pretty clear that what has happened in my lifetime, since 1958 and since the decline of grammar schools in the 1960s and 1970s, is that most people who obtain the best education for their children do so on the basis of where they live, which is often a product of how wealthy they are.

We have moved from selection on the basis of ability to selection on the basis of wealth. Of course, that is not exclusively true; many children achieve against the odds, many good schools are situated in difficult areas and many head teachers, governors and teachers are doing a superb job in very challenging circumstances. But it is undeniable that wealth has become the arbiter of opportunity in that respect and we need to break that down. I guess that that is why the Government adopted their policies. That is what the academies programme and the extension of specialist schools, with all their strengths, are about, and it is what the Bill is about. It is a recognition that the comprehensive system as designed in the 1950s and still supported by the hon. Member for Bury, North and others has failed generations of children.

I am making the assumption—perhaps an a priori assumption—that grammar schools do a good job. We should look at the evidence for that; it has become clear since we have been able to measure value added, because we can now see the difference between key stages 2 and 4 in respect of a child’s progress. The analysis of value added shows very clearly that grammar schools do exceptionally well. We should bear it in mind that a grammar school’s intake is already disproportionately able. The sort of children measured at key stage 2 who go to grammar school would already have achieved a great deal, and a great deal will be required to take them on still further, but that is precisely what grammar schools do.

Last year in my own county of Lincolnshire, where the value-added system has been in place for some years, the 15 best schools in terms of value added were all grammar schools. Spalding girls high school, which I have mentioned already and shall mention again, achieved the goal of being the best value-added school among those grammar schools last year.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time in giving way. Is it not true that two of the most important factors in value-added measures are the quality of teaching and learning in a school and parents’ support for their children? Is it not important to support initiatives, such as extended schools and Sure Start, to ensure that parents are supporting their children, which is a key factor in improving performance in schools?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Lady always speaks with great insight in this Committee. Both things are true. The quality of teaching and learning and the progress of the children is undeniably critical in the success of a school, as is the home-school relationship, which I mentioned earlier in my contribution.

It may be true to say that if parents have taken the trouble to get involved in their child’s education and back the school strongly, and if the children attend a school that is able to attract good teachers and good leadership, the children will do well almost regardless. That is the implication of the hon. Lady’s comment. My ambition, like the Minister’s, is to ensure that leadership, quality of teaching and learning and home-school support is available for as many children as possible, by learning some of the lessons that we should have learned over the past 30 years about what works and what does not. I doubt—I put it no stronger than that—that everyone has yet learned those lessons and that there is not still considerable ingrained prejudice, born of the dogma of a previous age, about what makes schools effective. However, judging from her last contribution, that is not a prejudice that the hon. Lady has.

Grammar schools make a big difference to the children who attend them and achieve exceptional results measured by value added. But what about the children who do not attend them? The hon. Lady makes a point about children who are not selected to go to grammar school. I refer her to the work ofDr. John Marks, which she will know, I have no doubt. Dr. Marks has been studying educational standards for a long time. I have the figures from his analysis of the five A to C grade GCSE standard across types of school. His study, published in 2002, suggests that the percentage of pupils in comprehensive schools achieving five A to C grades was about 40 per cent. in that year. I acknowledge that it has increased a little bit since then, because the Minister will no doubt correct me if I do not. In the same year, the figure was 63.5 per cent. in grammar schools and 34.1 per cent. in secondary moderns. In other words, in a selective system as a whole, the figure was 43.9 per cent. and in all comprehensives it was 39 per cent.

Of course, in taking the average one is not necessarily suggesting that all secondary modern schools do as well as comprehensives, but it is true that secondary moderns do remarkably well for their children, given that many of the brightest children have already been selected to go to grammar schools. The effect of selection in an area is not the sorry story that people would have us believe. Many secondary modern schools are strong and do exceptionally well. My judgment about the post-Butler system is not that it was structurally faulty, but that we did not invest enough in resources or expectations in secondary modern schools. We did not understand that without a disproportionate investment, children who do not have the implicit advantages suggested by the hon. Lady will not fare as well. We need to back all our children regardless of ability and all schools regardless of type.

I point to the popularity of grammar schools. Much is said about the possibility that people who do not go to grammar schools and parents whose children do not get in are unhappy with selection by or within schools. Perhaps they are even unhappy with 10 per cent. selection, but the poll figures suggest otherwise. An ICM Research poll on the question of abolishing the remaining 164 state grammar schools, albeit one conducted for the National Grammar Schools Association, found that 27 per cent. of people supported abolition and 61 per cent. opposed it. Those are remarkable figures, given that many areas of the country have not had grammar schools for a long time and that many of the children of those interviewed would therefore have no opportunity to go to one.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s paean of praise for grammar schools. Surely the logic of it is that we should allow grammar schools to be resurrected wherever people want them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As I said in my hon. Friend’s absence during our last meeting, he is an outrider, but I am firmly rooted in the cavalcade—the limousine—that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) are flanking. I understand that our party, our shadow Secretary of State and our leader want to focus on the schools that most people go to.

My hon. Friend might be right, but the problem with his position is that for too long, Conservatives have been caricatured as interested only in the most able children—the children most likely to go to grammar schools. I am interested in all this country’s children. This debate is our first opportunity during the progress of the Bill to speak about selection in such terms. It is certainly the first time that we have talked about grammar schools. We have spoken about every imaginable subject affecting children’s progress, and in doing so have shown our determination that all children should get the very best education. For the vast bulk of children, that will not mean going to a grammar school.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. That is why we do not want to get stuck on the term “grammar school”. The next Conservative Government want all schools to be in charge of their admissions procedures so that if they want to move gradually toward a selective system they can do so, as can schools in the independent sector.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The purpose of the Bill—indeed, the purpose of much of the cross-party consensus that has emerged on education—is to do precisely what my hon. Friend wants to do. It is trying to provide for children of all kinds and with all types of ability the sorts of opportunity that were once available only to a minority of children. That is what I want to do, and that is the position that the Government, falteringly and grudgingly, have come to. The Opposition have moved away from the faded dream of the hon. Member for Bury, North. Perhaps he will tell us something about his nightmare now.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said about extending opportunities to all children, why is he so opposed to my suggestion that the most effective way to do that is to transform the existing wholly selective schools into sixth-form colleges?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman published an alternative White Paper, did he not? It is fair to say that he has a long track record of opposition to selection. He has doubts even about partial selection in schools, as he made clear in an earlier sitting. As the provisions that we are now considering, and the amendments that he and other hon. Members have tabled, are on precisely that subject, he would hardly expect me enthusiastically to endorse them or to agree with what he said.

The best way to achieve opportunity for most children in this country is to travel in a different direction to that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We are aiming at the same end, but going there by different means. The mode of travel that I have adopted is not terribly unlike that of the Government.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

In judging the amendments of the hon. Member for Bury, North, and without going back to a previous debate, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it was that hon. Gentleman who, in a previous debate, was quite happy that up to 35 per cent. of children should be condemned to remain in a failing school? Surely we should focus on a structure, whatever it might be, that would lift children out of such schools, rather than concentrating on social engineering to the exclusion of standards and being happy when standards are low but the needs of social engineering are met.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend’s point is not dissimilar to the one made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), that we should focus not on structure but quality. The Bill obliges us to focus on structure because it is largely about structure. I understand the reason for that, but it would be wrong for the whole debate to be skewed away from the proper consideration of standards and quality that my hon. Friend highlighted by the fact that we are, of necessity, largely considering structural matters.

I think that the Ministers would agree that it is vital to debate all the factors that affect quality. We have started to talk about them and I shall not repeat them, but they are by no means all questions of structure. It is arguably the preoccupation with structure that has meant that successive Governments have failed to deal with some of the issues highlighted by my hon. Friend. He, on the other hand, is a great champion of education and of opportunity for all.

I mentioned Lord Adonis and shall return to that subject, but first it is worth saying something about the system in Northern Ireland, to provide an illustration of the effect of selection. Northern Ireland, as you know, Mr. Chope, retains a selective system, with 11-plus exams still determining the school of its children. Intriguingly, overall achievement in Northern Ireland schools is substantially better than in England and Wales. At GCSE level 52 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland schools obtain five or more passes and the same pattern is replicated at A-level. The number of pupils achieving two or more grade A passes is 12 percentage points above that for England.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

What proportion of children leave school in Northern Ireland without a single qualification to their name? Would it be 25 per cent?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not have the figure, but I shall happily come back to the hon. Gentleman with it.

The fact is that the selective system delivers better results in Northern Ireland than the non-selective system does here. When the matter of abolishing selection in Northern Ireland comes before the House, we shall oppose the Government, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear. We shall do so because what matters is what works, and the system there works. To alter it would be more of the dogma from which I hope we have moved away, and which is retained only in a small and dwindling section of the Labour party.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

We are in danger of going down the route of discussing Northern Ireland in a Bill that does not cover Northern Ireland, but some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments cannot go unanswered. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made the point about the number of children who leave schools in Northern Ireland without qualifications. There is also a consensus that the 11-plus must go, but that there will be some sort of pupil profile to help children, parents and teachers select the right school. Northern Ireland has a different type of selection, and I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which do not seem to chime with the opinions of his party’s Northern Ireland Front-Bench team.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As the hon. Lady says, it would be wrong for me to be seduced into a long and intricate debate about Northern Ireland, which I was using merely as an illustrative example of how a selective system compares with that prevailing in the rest of the UK.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Not if it is about Northern Ireland.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North are not in the spirit of the Bill. By contrast, our amendment No. 45 would open up to more pupils the process of selection by aptitude. It is curious that schools can select by aptitude children who show strength in languages, but not those who show strength in mathematics. They can select those with musical ability, but not those who are strong in English. We seem to be dancing on the head of a pin by limiting schools’ capacity to select to those areas that the Government have designated; for what reason, I can only guess.

Will the Minister say why the subjects on the basis of which schools cannot select are set in stone? Why are languages treated differently to mathematics? Why will she not accept our amendment, which would allow schools to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of strength and aptitude in any subject? We know that some children show potential in one area and others in a different area. It is quite wrong to slant the system against some of those aptitudes on the basis of which schools are not permitted to select.

I return to Lord Adonis. His sagacious ideas have been at the heart of the Committee’s considerations and of the Prime Minister’s thinking. In his study, he drew attention to the effect of the abolition of grammar schools, stating:

“In the late 1960s the state grammar schools and quasi-state direct-grant schools were intact, and together easily outclassed the independent sector in terms of academic output.”

I say to the outriders of the Committee—they seem to have become advocates of private education on one or two occasions, although I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—that many of our state grammar schools routinely outperform some independent schools.

I have nothing against private education, although I did not have one, unlike the Secretary of State. I hope that my children will go to the local state schools. Grammar schools and other strong, high-performing state schools do an exceptional job, and while we should celebrate the good work of the independent sector, we should not suggest that it cannot be matched and beaten by the best of the state sector.

Lord Adonis goes on to talk about the decline of grammar schools and says that, over a decade,

“this meritocratic pillar of the state school system collapsed, due to the attack by the political class upon it.”

He goes on to say that

“the comprehensive revolution tragically destroyed much of excellence without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability, by selection, by class and by house price. Middle-class children now go to middle-class comprehensives in catchment areas that comprise middle-class neighbourhoods, while working-class children are mostly left to fester in the inner-city comprehensives their parents can’t afford to move away from.”

That sentiment seems comprehensively to make the case for a system that breaks the stranglehold of comprehensive education. I want to see a flowering of diversity, and all kinds of schools doing their best on the basis of high-quality teaching and learning. Education has the capacity to elevate and inspire, and to change lives. We must replace the hypocrisy and faded, faulted idealism of the past with a better vision for our children’s future. When the actors in the tragicomic drama of this Committee melt into the air, the brief candles of our passions, our humour and, on occasions, our disdain, will flicker and die. All that will be left is what the Bill does—the difference that it makes. Our amendments and the Bill will be judged by the differences that we make to schools and children’s chances. I want to be judged as someone who tried to do his best to make a positive difference. I reject the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, and strongly endorse our amendments because I resist and, indeed, resent the continuing attack on selection, which has done so much damage in the past, continues to do so, and may do so again in future.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Part of the difficulty in discussing grammar schools in a Committee such as this one is the disproportionate number of people who probably went to grammar schools. People tend to bring their own prejudices—either positive or negative—to the debate. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made an interesting speech. I suspect that there is a game of long-word bingo going on on the Conservative Benches. I have no idea what the word sagacious means, but perhaps he will enlighten us later.

However, I am bemused about what the Conservatives’ policy is on selection and grammar schools. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough rightly pointed out, the logical extension of the argument made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is to extend grammar schools. It is not clear to me where exactly they fit. Perhaps the point is that the Conservatives have an instinctive love of grammar schools, and they must have been disappointed that Baroness Thatcher did so much to remove grammar schools and put in place the comprehensive system. That inconsistency has played throughout the party.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady with some clarification of our policy, which is clear. We do not want to do anything that damages good schools, and 168 grammar schools in this country are good schools. When we have a system in which 23 per cent. of secondary schools are under-performing, and probably a similar proportion of schools are coasting, it is in nobody’s interest to damage 168 very good schools.

We are clear that we are not proposing, when we return to office, to bring back the 11-plus or to extend selection in areas that do not already have grammar schools. We are clear that that is our policy, and we want to focus on the 4,000 comprehensive schools and the 24,000 schools as a whole, and to make them good schools. That would be our focus, not getting bogged down in the distraction about admissions, which is what this debate, and the debate that we shall have on the next clause, is all about. The clauses have nothing to do with raising standards in schools.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman said that he is against extending selection, but that is exactly what one of the amendments tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings would do. I am not clear what the difference is between selection on ability and selection on aptitude, as stated by the hon. Member for Bury, North and, indeed, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. The policy seems to be entirely inconsistent.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made some good points about social mobility. In fact, those are the points that I would have thought would have united the Committee, regardless of which party we are in. However, there is a serious problem that the most important predictor of a person’s future attainment would remain his or her parents’ ability. That is an unacceptable situation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton questioned some of the issues to do with intake, but his hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings seemed, on the contrary, to support the position taken by other members of the Committee that this is an important factor in a school’s attainment. Surely the question is what do we doabout it.

Although a return to selection, or an extension of selection, may help social mobility for the few— perhaps the most academically gifted—it would fail those who are less academically gifted, or less academically able at the time of the selection test. Of course, that is the point. Many young people develop at different speeds in different subjects, and further selection would leave behind those failed by the current system. Other hon. Members pointed out the number of young people in Northern Ireland who leave school with no qualifications, which is surely unacceptable. Focusing entirely on the social mobility of the brightest will not solve the problem. The answer lies in early years education and the extra help that we need to give to those who are either disadvantaged through income or underachieving. That is why we have argued for more targeted funding, aimed specifically at individual pupils. However, that is not relevant to this debate, and I shall not prolong it further.

As we have seen, what we do with grammar schools is controversial, although I thought that it had ceased to be controversial, given that all parties had agreed that they did not want a return to the 11-plus. The question is what we do about that. I am entirely in agreement with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bury, North about the impact of grammar schools and the fact that it is unhelpful and unacceptable to extend the system. However, we need to take people with us, and for that reason, new clause 51 is extremely helpful.

However, I would not support amendment No. 441. The critical issue is the ballot. At the moment, it takes a relatively large number of parents to trigger a ballot, and the ballot takes place with feeder schools only. If we had a different kind of ballot, which included all the schools in a borough, not just the feeder schools that have an incentive to send pupils to the particular grammar school, we would have a different effect. Taking people with us is important. We are an instinctively localist party, and on this subject, we would not wish to be dogmatic and to impose that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the hon. Lady consider two points? The first was made by one of my hon. Friends. Why would we want to go down the road of ballots of this kind? These are a small number of schools, for the most part doing excellent work. Would it not be a distraction from the principal job, which she rightly describes as improving standards in all schools? Secondly, is it not true that most grammar schools draw in a large number of feeder schools—it is certainly true in rural areas—meaning that the ballot would not be quite as narrow as she suggests?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that they are a small number of schools, they are concentrated in particular areas. In some areas, parents have little choice in what kind of school system their children go through. In areas such as Kent, where there are so many grammar schools, an awful lot of children are affected by the 11-plus, and that is why we need a ballot system and to encourage all schools in those areas to take part.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to engage parents in a full debate on schools? That is what is lacking. I live in a grammar school area, with a successful comprehensive school a quarter of a mile away, but we have never had a full and open debate. That has been lacking. I would not impose a system on any parents, but the debate is critical.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We support the idea of a ballot, but wish to see its remit extended.

Amendments Nos. 209 and 230 are also helpful. The hon. Member for Bury, North made a good point that has been raised with me previously. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about the extent to which the funding agreement entrenches the existing relationship between academies and the old code of practice. The amendments provide an obvious way to tackle the problem.

The Conservatives appear to argue against selection, but are tabling amendments that would increase it. It is not clear in which direction they are moving. We Liberal Democrats will oppose their amendment to increase selection further.

Mr. Hayesrose—

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I am going to finish now. I am trying to keep my contributions brief.

We will oppose the Conservative amendment on selection, because we do not see any difference between selection by ability or aptitude.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I tabled four amendments in the group. I shall start by dealing with clause stand part and new clause 8. Basically, the new clause would remove clause 36, which is logically in line with what I am trying to achieve in setting schools free. The famous election manifesto that swept the Conservatives to power in 1951 was entitled “Setting the people free”. I want to set the schools free, and that is what my amendments would do. They also give me an opportunity to make some general comments of a clause stand part nature, which I hope might be useful.

I know that Committee members are interested in my views and are waiting with breathless anticipation for the publication of my pamphlet on this subject next week.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Will you be autographing it?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It will be a virtual pamphlet. We are very modern; it will be published on the internet by the Cornerstone Group, of which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings is a member. The Cornerstone manifesto is based on the saying, “The stone that was rejected became the cornerstone”. I often feel, in this Committee, likethe stone that was rejected. However, we live in hope. As my hon. Friend said, it is ideas that matter. When our brief life in this Committee flickers out like an extinct candle, I hope that our ideas, and those of the hon. Member for Bury, North, will go on flickering in some shape or form.

Why do I want to get rid of clause 36? Let us consider what it does. Elsewhere in the Bill, and in previous legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, assessment of ability in music, dance or sport is allowed in schools that specialise in such skills. The prevention of assessment in clause 36 covers intellectual ability in English, maths, languages, science and so on. My hon. Friend made a good point. It would be useful if the Minister told the Committee why she feels that there is such a distinction between dance, music and sport, and English, maths, languages and science.

There is not as strict a divide between the subjects as might be supposed, which is also interesting. Recently, comprehensive schools have been encouraged to specialise in certain subjects—for example, technology, science or languages. We should like the Minister to say whether the clause forbids assessment in those subjects, even for admission to such schools specialising in languages, science or technology. I suspect that that is not so. I am sure that the Minister will say that schools will be allowed to select a certain number of pupils who are particularly proficient in languages, science or whatever.

We are confusing the issue in many ways. The public are also rather confused about what is going on. We no longer have pure comprehensives or grammar schools, apart from 165 of the latter, and yet increasingly schools are being encouraged to specialise in music, dance and sport. Those schools can be selective. Schools are being encouraged also to specialise in languages or technology, and presumably to a certain extent they will be selective as well. What is going on?

Apparently, everybody in the Committee except for myself is convinced that there should be no selection at all in traditionally academic subjects such as English or maths. Why is that? Is there something special about English or maths, or is that a political issue? Going back to Lord Adonis, is it the case that the Government recognise the sense of selecting some, or indeed all, pupils in certain subjects, but that they do not have the political courage to go that final step and say that if it is all right to select some, or all, pupils because they are particularly good at music, sport, technology or languages, it would be possible also to select pupils proficient in, for instance, maths? It is well known that maths is a skill that is often innate. True, a pupil might have a brilliant or bad maths teacher, but it is often an innate skill so why can we not select for those with such a skill?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I notice that, like a celebrity on a chat show, my hon. Friend plugged his Cornerstone paper. He is mistaken: our amendment would allow selection, up to 10 per cent., on the basis of academic ability in mathematics or one of the other subjects that he described. So we are not quite as he painted us.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I was addressing my comments to the Minister. I recognise that the view of my hon. Friend is that selection should be allowed to a certain extent. However, if my hon. Friend thinks that we should allow 10 per cent. to be selected, why not go the further mile and say that schools should be allowed to select who they want? I accept that he takes a perfectly moderate and sensible line, but I do not understand why the Minister feels that it is not possible to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment. Presumably, we will find out in a moment.

It makes sense to suit children to the type of education offered and to select on ability and aptitude for those with a propensity for academic subjects—leading on eventually to A-levels and university. The clause accepts the good sense of admission by ability to the existing designated grammar schools and that those 165 schools will be allowed to continue to select on merit.

Actually, the hon. Member for Bury, North made a perfectly reasonable point. Perhaps I should not have mentioned him because I might not be summarising his case fairly, but why is there an exception for existing grammar schools? Is there a logical intellectual reason that existing grammar schools should be allowed to survive, especially considering the way in they schools have been abolished in the past, because they have been in odd areas and it was not logical to keep them? Why should some people be subjected to, or enjoy, grammar school education in certain parts of the country, but not in others? Surely there is no real case in logic for retaining just 165 schools—pure grammar schools, selecting on ability—in certain areas because of geographical and historical accidents, but not allowing them to exist in other areas. Is not the real reason that it is not worth the candle—it is politically too much of a hassle to abolish the remaining 165? If there are 3,500 secondary schools, why go to all the effort of having massive local campaigns just to get rid of the last 165 grammar schools? That is a fair point, but that is politics and does not relate to education, logic or forethought.

It would be useful if the Minister explained why she wants to leave those 165 grammar schools in place. There is a perfectly fair case to be made for having separate schools to cater for separate abilities and aptitudes with each school creating a climate, ethos and specialism in certain subjects. That would be a good system. Hence the grammar school, the music school, the sports school, the dance school, the languages school, the maths school, the classics school—any school that one can name. Most schools will not want to specialise.

I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that I fully accept that in recent years the Conservative party has, in a way, got stuck in a rut over grammar schools. I did not agree with the policy of setting up a grammar school in every town, or of putting that to people in the manifesto. We were stuck in a rut because many of us went to grammar schools—I did not do so myself—and were of the view that they were the way forward.

When so few people go to grammar schools it is difficult to make them politically popular. However, the fact that we do not want to call schools “grammar schools” should not prevent us from adopting what would be the popular policy of allowing them to be in charge of their own admissions procedures. I have made the point before, so I do not need to labour it, that there would not be a revolution. Most schools would evolve gradually; there would not suddenly be lots of new-style grammar schools popping up all over the country. Most schools, allowed to do what they wanted to do, would remain broadly comprehensive.

That leads me directly to my next point. The alternative to specialised schools for grammar, music, dance, sports, maths or classics, and the approach that the Government seem to prefer, is for children of all abilities and aptitudes to be put together in one school, the comprehensive, which then attempts to cater for all possible abilities and aptitudes. We now know that the pure comprehensive model simply does not work. If comprehensive schools try to run with mixed ability teaching—that is, all abilities in one class—they will fail; and that is what they are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has made that point many times, and he is absolutely right. The usual situation is that the teacher aims the degree of difficulty of the lesson at the middle band—neither the very bright nor the very dull—with the consequence that the very bright underachieve because it is far too easy for them, so they are not stretched and they soon get bored, and the least able are also neglected because they cannot cope, are similarly ignored and also get bored.

Most people in this room would now agree that the model of the pure comprehensive has failed; it is not a good model. We have to consider how to deal with that, and the answer is streaming. One way is to stream the children once they are at the school, probably in an A stream, a B stream and a C stream. Given the usual general mix of abilities in a comprehensive, there will probably be four streams—one A, two Bs and one C—because the majority of pupils will be in the B stream. The trouble with that is that it sounds sensible but it assumes a big school.

The more sophisticated the streaming, the bigger the school has to be because, for economic and educational reasons, each class has to be of a sufficient size—say 30 pupils. The so-called A stream in such a school, comprising the able children who would not go to a grammar school, merely means that a grammar stream exists inside a comprehensive school—so we have a system of hidden grammar schools in many comprehensive schools. The Government claim that they are committed to the comprehensive system, but there is a grammar stream in many comprehensive schools.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that pupils in many comprehensive schools are streamed according to ability and achievement in particular subjects? They are not singularly labelled as being in the A stream.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am coming to that point. That is what is called setting. Setting means doing the same thing—separating groups of children according to ability and aptitude—but doing so subject by subject. Thus, in theory, a child might be in A set for English but C set for maths. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is committed to setting. However, with limited numbers of staff, it makes timetabling very complicated. It also, again, assumes large schools, and in practice most able pupils in the grammar stream will be in the A set for almost all, if not all, subjects. What is called “setting” because it is more politically acceptable often means much the same as streaming, and it necessitates large schools. To make streaming work it is necessary to have a four-form entry. If there are 30 in a class, that means 120 pupils in a year, so we are talking about a school of about 800 pupils. That would work for a comprehensive school of 800 pupils, but would it work for a comprehensive school of 600 pupils?

The Committee will see the point that I am trying to make. Because we do not have the political courage to set up separate schools for people who are academically gifted, and because we have to cater for them within the comprehensive system, we often create a very complicated timetable and structure. We have to have big schools because, to make setting and streaming work within the economic constraints and the constraints of timetabling, a large number of pupils is needed. Yet many studies show that many pupils are happier in smaller schools. My personal experience is that children are happy in a school as small as 600 pupils or even smaller. Why should we create a system that needs a minimum of 800 pupils in order to work? Because we do not have the political courage to say that we are prepared to let schools do what they want, with some schools becoming grammar schools, we are set in this bind. My new clause 8 addresses that problem.

Amendment No. 367 would simply insert a new paragraph (c) in the list of exceptions:

“the school is comprehensive with a grammar stream.”

I am talking about what happens in many schools now. As some comprehensive schools attempt to cater for the most academically able child by streaming, having the pupils of high academic ability in one stream, the less able in another stream and the less able still in the third stream, the top stream is often called the grammar stream. But if that stream is to be educationally and financially viable, enough children of high academic ability have to be admitted to the school. Such a school would therefore wish to assess the academic ability of applicants in order to produce a viable grammar stream.

Although I would prefer the clause to be dropped completely, if we are to have it, which clearly we will, and if we are to exempt grammar schools from the prohibition on admission by ability, it makes sense also to exempt those comprehensive schools that have a grammar stream. Why, if are we exempting grammar schools, are we not exempting comprehensive schools with a grammar stream? I think that I know the answer: it is do with politics, but I am not sure that there is a logical reason for it. Why should we prevent the many schools that have a grammar stream from operating effectively? The amendment would allow those comprehensives that stream according to ability to assess ability as part of their admissions procedure.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is giving a comprehensive analysis of the value and importance of streaming and setting. He will know that in-school selection of that kind is dear to the heart of myhon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Is not the problem that effectively we have selection by postcode and by wealth? We have to focus on what we do for those children who are not at the best schools, streamed, set or otherwise. How will we improve their chances using my hon. Friend’s techniques?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister and Labour Members have to answer this point. No doubt for very good reasons—I would say ideological reasons and they would say for reasons of common sense—they have created the comprehensive system. In so doing they have thrown away the ladder that allowed many people to escape from inner-city ghettos: inner-city grammar schools no longer exist. That is entirely reprehensible. We now have comprehensives, which used to base admission purely on a catchment area, but now tend to be much more open. As my hon. Friend has said and as others have said repeatedly, we now have selection by postcode. I fully accept that.

I fully accept what my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, are trying to achieve. My hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the existing education establishment, especially in the many schools that have set their hearts against streaming and setting. He believes that many children are stuck in a system, in bog-standard comprehensives—to quote a phrase—and they cannot escape. He believes that the way to get round that is to insist that all schools stream or set, or have a combination of the two, so that they get rid of mixed ability teaching.

I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. The only problem with it is that historically Conservative Governments have found it virtually impossible to impose their will from the centre, however well meaning their efforts. There are a limited number of Ministers, dealing with 20,000 schools and up against a very truculent education establishment, not least the teachers’ unions. When we tried to impose our will through central direction we were frustrated.

I fully accept where my hon. Friend is, and where he is trying to get to, but a future Conservative Government would find it difficult to achieve their aims in the way he suggests, so I have an alternative approach: to allow schools to get on with it. My hon. Friend will immediately say, “What will then happen to the bad schools? Surely they will just carry on.” That is true in life. I would say that parents would leave those schools if they had consumer choice. My hon. Friend will argue that in many areas it is simply not possible to leave a school, which shows that there are infinite grey areas in all these arguments. No one has the correct solution but we must feel our way at least towards approaching these problems logically and not just on the basis of what is politically feasible.

What I like about Lord Adonis and what he has written is that he has accepted the logic of many of the arguments. However, I feel sorry for him because he is caught in a political system in which he simply cannot deliver on the logic of those arguments, nor can the Prime Minister. Therefore, they have ended up with a Bill which, although it was portrayed as being tremendously important and making a dramatic change to education, will make very little difference in many areas.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes an important point as 60 per cent. of lessons in comprehensive schools still take place in mixed ability classes, despite a clear pledge in Labour’s 1997 manifesto that it would increase the proportion of setting. No one underestimates the difficulty of doing so, but it can be done. People said the same thing when I first raised the issue of synthetic phonics four years ago, but now the Government are going to change the law, and by September 2006 synthetic phonics will be taught in all primary schools. That shows that with determination, good research and the dissemination of that research, the battle can be won. We must engage in it if we are to raise standards in our schools.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a very good point, fairly put. I accept it completely and wish my hon. Friend well when he becomes an Education Minister. If he can impose his will, that will be tremendous. However, he might find, as did as our noble Friend Lord Patten, that the education establishment he is dealing with is very unresponsive to that sort of change.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hope that my hon. Friend will exclude teachers from that because they have been victims of the kind of dogma that he highlights. Most teachers know what works best and they are desperate to try to put it in place. They resist these things just as much as my hon. Friend. Teachers are good people, trying to do their best, and they deserve our support.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That must be right and we all have to say it, although, sadly, there are many teachers who do not agree with me or my hon. Friends on the issue. We must accept that many teachers do not believe in the kind of rigid setting and streaming that my hon. Friend is talking about. It is idle to suppose that all teachers are on our side and that there is a vicious education establishment—a crust on the top—which is working against them, supported by Labour Ministers. I am afraid that many teachers are fully wedded to the comprehensive ideal. Good on them. Why should they not be? It is a perfectly logical system. I suspect that many teachers are much more in line with the hon. Member for Bury, North than with the Minister. The hon. Gentleman fulfils an important role in this Committee, because he is speaking up for many hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the education establishment.

Mr. Chaytorrose—

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am sorry. I took the hon. Gentleman’s name in vain. I was trying to be nice.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I do like it when the hon. Gentleman says that. Does he accept that what he said is not just the view of teachers, but the view of many thousands of school governors and parents? What most parents want is a good school as near to their home as possible.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Yes, people often say that about schools and hospitals. They do want a good school down the road, but I get no sense that, when they look into the matter more deeply and talk things through, parents or prospective parents have any great opposition to the concept of setting and streaming. I may be wrong, and of course there will be some who oppose it. It all goes to show that we live in a very complex democracy with a huge variety of views, for which we must cater in every way we can. It is very difficult for any political party to impose a certain set of views on the nation as a whole, when we are an increasingly diverse society.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend is making some pertinent and important points. My understanding of public and parental opinion is that people do want rigorous setting in comprehensive schools. What the Conservative party and I want is for the issues, instead of being debated behind closed doors by educationists, to be debated in the open. Ultimately the public will be able to decide what kind of education system they want. I hope that come the next general election it will be a key factor in determining the result.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a fair point. It is good that we should have that public debate. But what has dominated the papers for a whole week? Has there been a sensible discussion in the tabloid or broadsheet papers about the debates in this Committee? Sadly, the papers have been dominated by other subjects, which I shall not delve into. That is the world that we live in, and there is not much that we can do about it.

I am interested in the subject because my son is going to a comprehensive school in September. He has been admitted to the school but went to take a test on Saturday. Admissions are not based on ability but everyone who is admitted is then rigorously tested. Another comprehensive school that I know about, to which my son might have gone, operates a different system. Before applicants are admitted—before they send out the letter saying that someone can go to the school—they are tested. The school claims that that allows it to get pupils with a broad range of abilities, so that a third will be very able, a third middle stream and a third the least able. I have some suspicions about that—I suspect that it is doing a bit of cherry-picking—although I shall not name names and identify the school.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I am not going to ask the hon. Gentleman to name names; however, the school that I visited most recently, the Petchey city academy in Hackney, which will not open until September, operates that very form of banding, which all new schools are taking up in Hackney. They have a very comprehensive intake. They take children in equal distribution across the four ability bands. The head teacher praised that, and is not the only head teacher in Hackney to have done so. The hon. Gentleman is making dangerous comments if he is suggesting that the approach is used to cherry-pick pupils, when it is actually a method for creating the most comprehensive balance possible in our complex education system.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am sure that some head teachers who are fully committed to the comprehensive system use that system of tests before admission to create precisely such a pure comprehensive school. That is undoubtedly right. There are head teachers who are fully committed to the comprehensive principle, but there are others, and there is a suspicion that they may use the approach I outlined. Some comprehensive schools seem to manage to achieve a very high-ability intake, and to do very well in the league tables.

Without naming names, I simply make the point that it is difficult to impose by central diktat what will happen to schools. Certain schools will be committed to a certain form and others will be committed to another way of proceeding. However many controls are established, and however many clauses like clause 36 are passed, many schools will circumvent them. We all know that quite a lot of fiddling with the league tables goes on in one way or another—children suddenly not appearing in tests and all the rest of it. There is no point in denying it; it happens. That is why it is idle to suppose that we in this room can create an education system entirely according to our own lights. We are dealing with such a complex situation that, ultimately, many schools will go their own way.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to substantiate his accusation that our schools are fiddling the league tables.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am not going to substantiate it, because I would have to name names.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I would happily give the hon. Lady cases that I am aware of—cases of schools that do not allow children with special needs to sit certain exams or SATs because that would drop them down the league tables. I would be happy to give her the evidence.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am happy to name a school that does the opposite, because it is one that my own children went to. Our Lady of Victory is a primary school that had a 100 per cent. record. It no longer has that record because it now teaches special needs children. The school believed that it was its duty to admit special needs children, and it immediately dropped down the league tables. Therefore, it is not listed in any of the national newspapers, although it is a wonderful school where 100 per cent. of the children achieve superb results.

We all know that such things go on in life. It is not a criminal offence; it is not even necessarily wrong. Schools are just trying to get the best reputation that they can, and we know that that is inevitable.

I turn to amendment No. 368, which would leave out the words “or any” in subsection (2). Clause 36 will ban admission criteria based on ability

“for all or any of the pupils who are to be admitted”.

If we want academic standards to be achieved in our schools, clause 36 is wrong. But if we are to have clause 36—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings—we should permit schools to assess at least some applicants for ability according to their judgment whether that is necessary. Leaving out the words “or any” would permit that. Clause 36 will not add to education improvement in this country. Without it, the system would be much freer, and would achieve better academic results.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course, even without clause 36, the provisions in it would still be law. The clause adds nothing to the Bill; it just repeats provisions from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Consequent legislation would have to be made, but my hon. Friend understands the point that I am trying to make. I have tabled the amendments to stimulate a debate on the need for clause 36, and I commend them to the Committee.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 36, which is important to the Bill, reaffirms the Government’s long-standing and strong commitment to preventing the introduction of any new selection by ability at maintained schools. The debate has been interesting, with challenges from various sides. However, I intend to consider some of the amendments in detail as well as to respond to some of the broader arguments.

I start with amendment No. 45, tabled by Conservative Members, which would allow any school to select up to 10 per cent. of its pupils in any target-setting subject for the specialist schools programme. That would include mathematics, science, history and English. Currently, only a small number of schools select up to 10 per cent. by aptitude.

To correct the hon. Member for Gainsborough, it is not the case that a specialist school can select in any subject in which it chooses to specialise. We restrict in regulations the subjects in which selection by aptitude is possible. Only in approved subjects can that happen.

Because the amendment would apply to all schools, it would be likely to lead to an extension of selection, especially in subjects that are proxies for academic selection. We do not depend only on our interpretation of the amendment to be clear about that. The debate has been revealing, particularly the speech of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. There may be some contrast between his approach and that of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We have learnt today that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is a member of the Cornerstone group.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am the chairman, actually.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman says that he is the chairman. I am not sure that he is completely happy with the stated policy of the Conservative party. He certainly implied that he wants a return to a process of selection by ability that goes further even than is suggested in the amendments. The fact that he spent most of his speech arguing the success of grammar schools was confusing for members of the committee. I estimate that, in a speech of about 36 or 37 minutes, he spent about six minutes on the amendments. The rest was a paean of praise for grammar schools.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has moved away from the policy of having a grammar school in every town. He even suggested at some points that part of the problem with that policy was that it was not very popular, that it was caricatured and that the Conservatives had therefore had to take a different approach to achieve the same objective.

We have repeatedly said that we do not want to increase selection by ability. The amendment could do just that, and it would lead to a blurring of the distinction between selection based on aptitude and that based on ability. Hon. Members have asked me to outline that distinction, which is reasonably clear. Ability is generally described as an all-embracing factor that suggests whether a candidate will be able successfully to undertake a course of study, and it could be considered a predictor of overall scholastic attainment. Aptitude selection, which is allowed in a small number of prescribed cases, is much narrower. The school admission code says that

“a pupil with aptitude is one identified as able to benefit from teaching in a specific subject, or who demonstrates a particular capacity to succeed in that subject.”

It measures potential, not prior, achievement or knowledge. There is no need for prior teaching in a subject for someone to show aptitude.

That distinction applies to the testing that will enable schools to identify aptitude, as opposed to ability. Unlike a test of ability, which we all know is more likely to be passed by those who have been coached in a particular area, we are careful that testing for aptitude measures a child’s propensity to succeed rather than their ability. For example, there are a number of effective measures of aptitude in prescribed subjects, such as tests for aptitude in music that measure children’s propensity to recognise pitch, rhythm, harmony and texture; those for aptitude in physical education based on the fundamental motor skills test devised by the Department of Education and Training in Victoria, Australia; and those for aptitude in languages that measure the propensity of children to recognise the meaning of non-familiar languages. In subjects such as science and history, it is much less clear that a distinction between aptitude and ability can be made.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Many music teachers may well dispute the argument that one cannot be taught how to hear pitch, or that that ability will not improve with teaching. I certainly do.

Does the Minister not recognise that in 2003, the chief schools adjudicator, Philip Hunter, said about specialist schools that finding a difference between the meaning of ability and aptitude was

“the sort of exercise lexicographers get up to when they haven’t enough to do”?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that I have just explained that there is a difference between ability and aptitude. Adjudicators have found it possible to rule which tests successfully test aptitude and which ability, so it is possible to make that distinction.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The right hon. Lady has identified the difference between testing for potential, as she put it, and testing someone on what they already know—something on which they could be coached. As she will know, propensity or potential can be tested for in the case of mathematics. There is a great deal of academic evidence to support that. So why not extend the arrangements to maths?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Because I have drawn on the evidence about the areas in which it appears to be possible to test for aptitude separately from ability. There is a strong suggestion that what is being tested for in the case of maths is ability and previous teaching. That brings us back to the crux of our disagreement. We do not believe that we should extend selection by ability. Conservative Members do. That is a fundamental difference between us and the reason for my opposition to amendment No. 45.

Amendment No. 45, and the hon. Gentleman’s speech, hid the objective of returning to selection by ability, although the hon. Member for Gainsborough is at least honest about wanting to go back, pretty much red in tooth and claw, to selection by ability—or perhaps that should be blue in tooth and claw. His new clause 8 would permit any maintained school to select part or all of its intake on the basis of aptitude or ability.

As I have made clear, we are developing an admissions system with the aim of establishing equity of access to schools. The hon. Member for Gainsborough made his view very clear: it is that not only should there be no limit to the basis on which schools select, but—this is clear from his amendments—there should not be any structural framework for admissions arrangements. Fundamentally, he thinks that we should return to a free-for-all with respect to admissions, with no limitation on the criteria that schools might use to choose pupils. That is the key point. He is arguing not for parents to have as wide as possible a choice of school for their child, but for schools to be able to choose the pupils that they admit. That is another fundamental difference between our approaches.

Amendments Nos. 367 and 368 would have much the same effect, by a slightly more back-door route. They would permit more schools to select part of their intake on the basis of ability by removing partial selection from the definition of schools with selective admissions arrangements. I got slightly lost as we went down various routes such as grammar streams and pursued other arguments.

To make things clear, the Government support setting. There is more setting in secondary schools now than there was in 1997. However, the hon. Gentleman took us back to a rigid set of arrangements, which even he suggested would be difficult to replicate in a range of schools. What is more, his amendments place no limit on the proportion of children who would be admitted to such schools on the basis of ability. The proportion could be anything from 1 to 99 per cent.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is proposing a back-door route for the creation of grammar schools. We want a clear framework in our admissions system, and a set of transparent and objective admissions arrangements about which parents can feel confident—not the free-for-all, or even the furtive return to selection by ability, that Opposition Members seem to be proposing.

I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about amendment No. 210 and his other amendments was pragmatic and thoughtful, although I did not agree with everything that he said. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seemed to have written off his comments before he had listened to what my hon. Friend had to say. He was not dogmatic; he was reasonably pragmatic in much of what he said.

Amendment No. 210 would have the opposite effect to those that we have considered so far. Its intention is to prevent the operation of any selective admission arrangement except as part of pupil banding. I have made it clear, as does the Bill, that we do not support selection by ability at age 11, and we do not wish to see it extended. There will be no new grammar schools. However, since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, we have had a consistent policy on the process for decision making in respect of the 164 schools that remain wholly selective. My hon. Friend suggested that that is an abdication of responsibility. I believe that it is being clear about where responsibility for decision making should rest—with the governing bodies of schools and local parents. It represents a consistent approach to devolving decision making to those who are most likely to be affected by the selection arrangements of particular schools. That is why we established the grammar school ballot system.

Taken together, new clause 51 and amendmentsNos. 441, 442 and 443 would continue the legislation that restricts selection by ability until the academic year 2010-11, after which amendment No. 441 would remove the current regime and new clause 51 and amendment No. 442 would mean that selection by ability or aptitude in secondary schools would be allowed only where a parental ballot of pupils in local primary schools had been held. Amendment No. 443 would then ensure that any regulation made under that provision would be subject to affirmative resolution.

I do not believe—largely for reasons that I have spelled out—that those are appropriate additions. There is already a system that allows parents to decide whether to remove selection from existing grammar schools: if 20 per cent. of local parents support it, a ballot is held. On the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East, the eligible parents from whom the20 per cent. come are those whose children are at primary schools that send pupils to the grammar school. That is a pretty broad range of parents, and she would make it even broader. They cover a wide range of primary schools in an area. If a simple majority is in favour of the removal of selection, it is removed. In addition, on partial ability, parents, schools, local authorities and, in future, admissions forums have a right to object to admission arrangements that allow schools to select part of their intake by ability.

Further—I do not think that this is the impact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North would want it to have—the new clause would require the revocation or amendment of any provision under chapter 2 or 3 of the 1998 Act. As a consequence, we would have to revoke or amend clause 43, which allows for new forms of pupil banding. As we will discuss when we come to that, there are strong arguments in favour of pupil banding—for example, it can help to ensure a broader range of ability in a school. I do not think that he would want that to be removed.

The amendments would also require the revocation or amendment of provisions that allow admissions authorities to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake by aptitude. I think that that is my hon. Friend’s intention. However, there are arguments for schools to be able to select 10 per cent. of their intake by aptitude in limited circumstances in respect of a limited range of subjects outlined in regulations. We would not want those provisions to be removed.

To sum up, my argument is that the provisions allow the removal of selection where there is a call for it. The amendments would have additional and unintended effects, which could adversely affect the implementation of the provisions in the Bill that are aimed at increasing opportunities for deprived children. If the amendments were agreed, it would require a further amendment or a repeal to facilitate pupil banding. We have in place suitable provisions to ensure that that decision making can occur. My hon. Friend referred to it in his contribution—the decisions are made, in these circumstances, at the appropriate level for those impacted on by the selective arrangements of the remaining grammar schools.

Amendment No. 209 aims to extend the prohibition on selection to academies. Although it has that intention, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that academies are already required by law to cater for children of all abilities. They have a clear legislative duty to provide education for local children of all abilities. Section 65 of the Education Act 2002, which amended earlier legislation to enable the establishment of academies, requires them to provide

“education for pupils of different abilities who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated.”

Furthermore, their funding agreements require them to comply with the schools admissions code and admissions legislation. Hon. Members referred to the new code. I can assure them that we will update annexes to existing academy funding agreements to reflect its provisions. Therefore, the impact will be that existing academies comply with the conditions of the new admissions code.

Academies are not permitted to conduct admission interviews with parents or pupils, or to introduce selection by ability. As with other specialist schools, they can introduce up to 10 per cent. of selection by aptitude for prescribed subjects. Also, they can introduce banding arrangements as a means to ensure that they have an intake that is representative of the range of abilities of all applicants, as, in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) described in relation to the Jack Petchey academy. However, none of the existing academies select by ability, and the Secretary of State would not approve a funding agreement for an academy if it proposed introducing such selection. Finally, amendment No. 230 would prevent city technology colleges from introducing selection by ability. However, CTCs do not select by ability. They operate pupil banding to ensure that their intake represents a broad range of abilities.

We have had a good opportunity to debate not only the amendments, but some of the broader issues to do with selection. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that we have in place what we believe are the right limitations on further selection by ability in our schools; an appropriate process through which, at the appropriate level, parents and governing bodies can express their views about selection where it remains in our grammar schools; and a suitable balance that ensures that admissions arrangements can recognise through, for example banding, the need sometimes to be able to make changes to ensure that pupils with a broad range of abilities are admitted to particular schools. On those bases, I hope that all hon. Members will feel able not to press their amendments to a Division.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate, and particularly to the amendments that I moved, so carefully. However, it seems that the arguments about selection and non-selection cannot be dismissed as easily as the Opposition would like them to be. I tried to explain that we should focus on admissions policies, not on the names of schools. However, Opposition Members insisted on focusing on the names of schools, and we were dragged inevitably into an argument about defending a certain category of existing schools. I am utterly relaxed about the names of schools because it seems completely irrelevant, but I am extremely concerned about having fair, open and transparent admissions policies. It is inconsistent for the Opposition to argue that schools’ intakes are irrelevant and that we should not be discussing them, but at the same time to spend virtually the whole of their contributions defending the importance of preserving grammar schools’ intakes. That is utterly beyond belief.

If their arguments about the superior performance of the existing 165 wholly selective schools, and presumably of the other 35 or so partially selective ones, are so solid and valid, the logic of their policies should be, as I said earlier, to reintroduce selection in the whole of the United Kingdom and go back to John Major’s old policy of having a grammar school in every town. That is not their policy, because deep down they know that selection does not work to the advantage of all children.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Nor is it the Government’spolicy.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

My amendments simply argue that we need to followthrough the logic of the all-party consensus that the old 11-plussystem—selection at 11 by an arbitrary test—does notdeliver the rise in standards that we want. I was grateful that thehon. Member for Gainsborough appreciated that there is no logic in thecurrent arrangements; they are arbitrary and arbitrary solutions do notnecessarily deliver the bestresults.

On intake, itis not a simple matter of abolishing certain kinds of schools. I do notknow of anybody who has argued for the abolition of any grammar schoolssince the days of Margaret Thatcher, who was the last Secretary ofState to suggest abolishing grammar schools and abolished a largenumber of them. We have got to get away from the idea of abolishing schools or not supporting good schools. Wherever there aregood schools, I want more children to be able to attend them. However,we cannot consider schools in isolation from the wider system in whichthey operate.

Themerit in my amendment is that the status quo would apply until 2010,after which there would be an end to selection throughout the country.However, selection would still be subject to the existing rules onparental ballots; in areas that are currently wholly or partlyselective, parents would still have the right to vote on whether to goahead with ending selection in 2010. That is entirely in line with our1997 manifesto policy that, ultimately, such matters should bedetermined by parents. All I am arguing for is that the Governmentshould change the default position and see through the logic of theirown position on selection—and the logic of the LiberalDemocrats’ position and the Conservatives’ officialposition.

I do not wantto digress for too long, because lunch time is approaching, but while Iam on this subject I shall say a little more. I have retrieved theshadow Secretary of State’s quote that I mentioned, and it isimportant that we get it on the record. Recently, on Teachers’TV, hesaid:

“Lookingback to my friends from primary school, the brutality of theeleven-plus and the ones who went to secondary moderns that is one ofthe problems with theeleven-plus.”

I have tosay that there was not much grammar in that sentence. Hecontinued:

“It'swhy David Cameron and I have said that we won't go back to theeleven-plus in parts of the country where it's disappeared, ’cosI think”—

heactually said, “’cos I think”; I would notnormally expect him to use that word, but perhaps one of his brains wasnot in gear at thatmoment—

“choosingat 11 whether someone can benefit from academic education ornot...there's too many kids who develop after 11 and are not inthe appropriateschool.”

So there we haveit: the words of the shadow Secretary of Statehimself.

A range ofoptions could be considered to replace the status quo. We need an open,transparent public debate, not framed simply by arguments about themerits of individual categories of school, but focusing on theimplications of particular admissionspolicies.

I have arguedthat 11 is far too early to select children on the grounds of academicability. Given that we now have a national curriculum, it is almostimpossible to see the logic of segregating children at 11. I understandthat, 30 or 40 years ago, long before the national curriculum, thosewho did not go to selective schools did not pursue externalexaminations and, as late as 1970, therefore 50 per cent. of them leftschool without a single qualification to their name. I can see that inthose days there was at least a logic in segregating children at theage of 11. Now that all children follow the national curriculum up tothe age of 16, however, it is increasingly hard to understand what thepurpose is. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, the realpurpose is social segregation, not the liberation of eachchild’s intellectual potential.

I have proposed severalalternatives. For example, in certain areas—I know some of themwell, although I do not wish to name them—the best solution,which would be to the advantage of all children, would be to change thecharacter of the existing wholly selective schools so that they becamesixth form colleges. Perhaps, in other areas, the option of a 14-to-19school may be pursued, which would be an easy way of enabling morepeople to gain access to the current wholly selective schools. It mayalso be that, in some areas, parents would see the advantages of simplyallowing the existing grammar schools to expand on the basis of amixed-ability intake, whereby all children who entered after 2010 wouldbe of mixed ability.

Myrecollection is that, early in the Government’s first term, Ipublished a Bill on the 10 per cent. issue. The proposals in my Billwere based on the argument that, having reached 10 per cent. byaptitude, the logical way of dealing with the remaining wholly orpartially selective schools would be to bring down the proportion ofchildren that they admitted from 100 per cent., to 90 per cent., then80 per cent., gradually in stages, until it also reached 10 per cent.All schools would then be able to select a maximum of 10 per cent.,either on grounds of ability or aptitude. There is an argument to bemade for universal entitlement to10 per cent. selection, sothat all schools would be able to select that proportion based onability or aptitude. I do not wish to pursue that argument, but it is apossibility.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

A fascinating possibility just occurred to me. Thehon. Gentleman has made the interesting point that there is logic inallowing all schools to select 10 per cent. by ability. I understandthat that would be the view of the official Opposition. I suspect that,even if my free-for-all solution, which is viewed as so radical, everhappened, most schools would probably move to that position. So it is areal possibility that, if the different models proposed by the hon.Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehamptonand myself all happened, we would all veer toward the samething—which I suppose is life, is itnot?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful for that intervention. The moresuch issues are discussed outside the traditional framework of blackand white or either/or solutions, the more we are likely to move towardsolutions based on sound educational reasons, rather than on historicalattempts to defend socialprivilege.

One of theConservative party’s difficulties, which has trapped it over theyears and led its more forward-thinking members to abandon the oldpolicy of wanting a grammar school in every town, is that its argumentsare increasingly outdated, inaccurate or irrelevant. Conservativesalways refer to social mobility. A number of recent academic studieshave identified a slow-down in social mobility in this country. Forinstance, the LSE study lists a number of factors that may havecontributed to that, one of which is the change in the nature of theadmissions policy for secondary schools. However, the study doesnot—as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepingswrongly asserted—conclude that social mobility has slowed downas a direct result of the change in the admissions policy for secondary schools. There is no assertion in thatstudy of any relationship between cause and effect. It would be helpfulif the hon. Gentleman spoke to its authors and asked them exactly whatthey think about thatrelationship.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With all his understanding and knowledge ofeducation, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there is nocause and effect between educational opportunity and attainment, andsocial mobility or that the abolition of grammar schools had no effectin that regard? If he is saying either of those things, he is steppingoutside the research data. He must knowthat.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that theorganisation of education can play an important role in the extensionof social mobility; it is not the only contributory factor. There arewider economic and social forces that are probably far more important.My key point, however, is that the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate aboutthe LSE report; it does not conclude that the slow-down in socialmobility is related to the changes in admission policies or thedeclining numbers of grammarschools.

The Oppositionwill also quote at length from the league tables, and they have manyopportunities to do so. I imagine that they have teams of researcherstrawling through them to examine the GCSE, A-level and value-addedscores in many of our selective schools. It does not come as a surpriseto me—I do not think that it will surprise many Committeemembers—that schools that admit children with the highest levelperformance at age 11 are likely to produce children with the highestlevel of performance at 16 or 18. Similarly, it is not a surprise thatthe value-added scores in some selective schools are particularly good.Clearly, if the intake is full of young people who have the greatconfidence boost from knowing that they successfully passed a test toget into their secondary school, that will obviously increase theirexisting high levels of motivation even further, making it easier toteach and stretch them. The league table results—even thevalue-added results of individual schools—are not directlyrelevant to the wider debate about the basic organising principles ofhow we allocate children to secondaryschool.

The otherclichÃ(c) to which the Tories always refer is the changing patternof entry to Oxford and Cambridge universities. Why we focus entirely onOxbridge is beyond me. The decline in the proportion of children fromstate schools over a generation was entirely the result of the direct-grant grammar schools opting out ofthe state system in the 1970s. It is utterly dishonest to draw anyother conclusion than that. They also refer to the work of Dr. JohnMarks, the leading intellectual advocate for their position. I shouldhave thought that John Marks is not entirely neutral in this debate,but I will return to other academic worklater.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Before the hon. Gentleman brushes over his lastremark about independent schools, the now independent grammar schoolsand social mobility, does he accept that the children who went to thosegrammar schools before the 1970s were chosen because of their ability,whereas, after the 1970s, children were chosen on the basis of theirparents’ ability to pay? That explains a lot about socialmobility, which the hon. Gentleman has damaged with hispolicies?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

It is true that the former direct-grant grammarschools—not all the former state grammar schools—thatopted out of the state system in the 1970s became fee-paying schools.It was actually Lady Thatcher’s policy that led them to moveout. However, we will not pursue that; it is a matter for anAdjournment debate on anotheroccasion.

Socialengineering is the other issue that is always mentioned. Whenever theConservative party wants to block any kind of social change,improvement or extension of opportunity, it is all about socialengineering. It is beyond me why 1,000 years of maintaining elitistforms of education to protect the social privileges of an elite is notsocial engineering, but extending educational opportunityis.

The hon. Member forBognor Regis and Littlehampton is a great advocate of streaming; hebelieves that schools should be forced to stream. It is difficult tograsp how that is compatible with his policy of devolving more power toindividual schools to decide themselves how they operate. It isimportant to say that, during the recent inquiry by the Education andSkills Committee into the White Paper, we considered the latestevidence on streaming from research by the Institute of Education andwe included a reference to it in thereport.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. Before I adjourn the Committee, I shouldsay that it is my intention to suspend this afternoon’s sittingbetween 7 and 8pm.

Standing Committee E

Clause 36

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: AmendmentNo. 209, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at end insert ‘or an academy'.

Amendment No. 230, in clause 36, page 26, line 7, at end insert

‘, academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts.'.

Amendment No. 210, in clause 36, page 26, line 8, leave out from ‘ability' to end of line 11 and insert

‘or aptitude unless selection is for the purpose of section 101 (permitted selection: pupil banding) of SSFA 1998.'.

Amendment No. 367, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at end insert

‘, or

(c) the school is a comprehensive with a grammar stream.'.

Amendment No. 442, in clause 36, page 26, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A) The admission authority for each secondary school, in exercising their functions, shall—

(a) have regard to the general principle that secondary education is to be provided in comprehensive schools, and

(b) determine that arrangements for the admission of pupils for compulsory education is not based on any test of ability or aptitude,

except where the admission arrangements have been determined under section 101 of SSFA (pupil banding) or regulations made under section [Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot].'.

Amendment No. 368, in clause 36, page 26, line 13, leave out ‘or any'.

Amendment No. 45, in clause 36, page 26, line 28, at end insert

‘and

(c) in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) any selection of 10 per cent of pupils by aptitude in a subject that is a compulsory target-setting subject for the purposes of the specialist schools programme.”.'.

Clause stand part.

New clause 8—Freedom of Selection—

‘(1) A maintained school shall have complete freedom to select pupils by academic or other ability at its absolute discretion.

(2) Sections 99 to 103 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

New clause 51—Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parental ballot—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, after consultation, by regulations, make—

(a) such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, or

(b) such transitional, transitory or saving provision,

as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to subsection (2).

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must, in particular, make provision to—

(a) amend or repeal Part 3, Chapter 2 (selection of pupils) of SSFA 1998 to provide for the legislation to be consistent with the general principle that there must be a ballot of parents of pupils attending local primary schools if any secondary school is to continue to select pupils by ability or aptitude after the school year starting on or after 1st August 2011, and

(b) amend or revoke any subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) made before the passing of this Act necessary to achieve the principle set out above.

(3) Nothing in this Act is to be regarded as limiting the generality of subsection (1).'.

Amendment No. 443, in clause 158, page 108,line 12, at end insert—

‘(aa) regulations under section [Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot],'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

To continue the point on streaming and setting that I was making before the lunch break, there is a contradiction between the Opposition’s policy of devolving as many powers as possible to individual schools and their plan simultaneously to centralise decisions on streaming and setting. I am sure that they appreciate that that is a contradiction, which must be worked out.

The evidence and advice of those working within the education service on streaming and setting is not quite as straightforward as the Opposition would like us to believe.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On the first point, responsibility must be shared. Some things are the responsibility of the day-to-day management of schools and some are the responsibility of central Government. Having said that, our policy is not to be prescriptive on setting and streaming; it is about having a view of what works, exhortation and disseminating best practice. It is about persuasion and not necessarily prescription.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

That is a helpful clarification, and it helps to support my next point. The review of the impact of setting—I shall leave streaming for the moment—was considered by the Education and Skills Committee in its report on the White Paper. Our information—the view of academics at the Institute of Education, university of London—was that the evidence on the impact of setting was mixed.

Schools set in certain subjects, and the subjects with the most incremental structure are those most likely to be taught in set groups, but even in such subjects, such as English and history, there is a powerful body of evidence to suggest that teaching in mixed-ability groups brings the best out of children in all ability bands. If the hon. Gentleman is backtracking from his previous adamant view that setting must be increased, that is helpful. I hope that he will look at the body of work done by the Institute of Education and tell us why the Conservative members of the Select Committee, in their minority report, deleted a section of the main report that referred to that evidence. That was an example of evidence-based policy making with a vengeance.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful with evidence-based policy making in the education sector. Much evidence-based policy is not scientifically based. We will table an amendment later in the Committee to insist that research paid for by the Department for Education and Skills is scientifically based, with a control group of randomly placed children. That cannot be done deliberately, but it can be done inadvertently, and we need to focus only on research of that kind. In America it is now the law that state-funded research must be scientifically based. We need to ensure that the evidence on which we base our policy is as rigorous in education as in medicine.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I agree, and that is something on which I am sure we can have cross-party consensus.

I wish to spell out the reality of educational achievement in Britain in the past 30 years. The Opposition have argued that we should retain the status quo based on their belief in a golden age of selective education, which occurred, I imagine, sometime in the 1950s, when old maids cycled to communion drinking their warm beer as they went along. That bears no relation to modern reality.

In 30 years, we have moved from a situation in which our secondary admissions system was wholly selective, and half of young people left school at 15 without a single qualification to their name, to one in whichthe majority of our schools operate non-selective admissions policies—although we all know the degree to which there is a covert selection system, and I welcome the fact that the Government are taking that seriously—and in which approximately 95 per cent. of children leave school with a qualification and 55 per cent. obtain five GCSEs at grades A to C. Those are results that could only have been dreamed of by their parents.

That enormous advance in our achievement, coupled with the year-on-year advance in A-level results, the year-on-year increase in participation in higher education and the steady improvement in our overall staying-on rate at the age of 16—although we still have a long way to go and we do not perform well compared with other OECD countries—has been brought about by the gradual introduction of non-selective admissions policies over the past 30 years. It has not been achieved by increases in the numbers of selective schools or of pupils who are selected.

That is recognised by most of the objective research on the subject. I mentioned the OECD programme for international student assessment survey that concluded that those countries with the greatest equity in their secondary school admissions policies succeed in producing the best results for their young people. I also quoted the research from the National Foundationfor Educational Research, which looked at the performance of the upper quartile of our young people in selective and non-selective schools and concluded that the upper quartile of the ability range in non-selective schools performed equally well, if not better, as their peer group in selective schools. The idea that selection is necessary to raise the achievement of the most able is not the case.

How are we to move forward? In amendments Nos. 441 to 443 and new clause 51 I propose what I consider a constructive way to deal with the remaining anomalies in the system and to ensure the logical development of the all-party consensus on selection that superficially appears to exist. It follows the precedent set in Northern Ireland where the Government took the decision to end formal academic testing in 2008. My amendment suggests it should be done in 2010 in England. My proposal allows a period of debate about the alternatives, it will enable parents to engage in that debate, and it will allow local authorities and individual schools to propose different ways in which their schools could be reorganised. That debate will have to take place in the years to 2010 anyway, because of the impact of falling rolls and the “building schools for the future” programme—the new capital investment that is coming into our schools will bring about some reorganisation.

Most importantly, my proposal also maintains the commitment in our 1997 election manifesto that parents would be able to vote on selection. It simply changes the issue on which they are voting—whether to get rid of it or to reintroduce it. My amendment gives them the power to reintroduce it if they so wish. I do that in the full knowledge that wherever selective admission systems have been abolished in Scotland, Wales or England, there has been not a single successful attempt by parents or local authorities to reintroduce it. I conclude from that that once selection is eliminated from the system, the overwhelming majority of parents and local politicians of every party have no desire to reintroduce it.

Finally I should like to make a few small points on aptitude and on banding. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that the amendments would not permit banding. I may have made a drafting error, but as I understand it, the purpose of amendment No. 210 is to end selection other than the form of selection that would apply in systems of banding. I think that I have taken care of that point, but I may be in error and I accept responsibility for that.

On selection by aptitude, the amendment includes both aptitude and ability. The only point that I would like to make is to repeat the memorable words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn andSt. Pancras (Frank Dobson) who asked whether Manchester United paid £3 million for Wayne Rooney merely because he had an aptitude for scoring goals. That highlights the continuing difficulty of separating the concepts of aptitude and ability, and I am not sure that we have resolved that problem. I am grateful for the Minister’s detailed response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause37

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 444, in clause 37,page 26, line 38, after ‘requirements,',insert

‘including the use ofoversubscription criteria set out in subsection(2A),'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenienttodiscuss the following: Amendment No. 435, in clause 37, page 26, line39, at end insert

‘includingpractices prohibited byregulation,'.

AmendmentNo. 445, in clause 37, page 26, line 39, at endinsert—

‘(3A) Aftersubsection (2)insert—

“(2A) Theoversubscription criteria referred to in subsection (2) are to beapplied in the followingorder—

(a) children witha statement of special educationalneeds;

(b) children in publiccare;

(c) children forwhom the school is most appropriate on medical or socialgrounds;

(d) childrenwhose sibling or siblings will be enrolled at the school on the firstday of term and who permanently reside within the area from which the school's intake is normallydrawn;

(e) children forwhom the school is the nearest appropriate school to theirhome;

(f) safe walking distancefrom the school;

(g) ease ofaccess to the school by publictransport;

(h) transfer from anamed feeder primaryschool.”.'.

AmendmentNo. 407, in clause 37, page 26, leave out line40.

Amendment No. 211,in clause 37, page 26, line 40, leave out ‘act in accordance'and insert ‘comply in allrespects'.

AmendmentNo. 231, in clause 37, page 26, line 40, at endinsert

‘; and after“code” insert “and in the case of a localeducation authority to establish and maintain a local admissions policyin compliance with thecode”.'.

Governmentamendment No.427

Amendment No. 232,in clause 38, page 27, line 17, leave out ‘, and' andinsert—

‘(ba) in the case ofan admission forum for the area of a local education authority inEngland, to advise the authority on the local admissions policyestablished and maintained by the authority under section 84(3),and'.

AmendmentNo. 233, in clause 38, page 27, line 18, leave out from ‘forum'to ‘exercising' in line 19 andinsert

‘such as is mentioned inparagraph(ba)'.

AmendmentNo. 234, in clause 38, page 28, line 11, at endinsert—

‘(5C) An admissionforum shall, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to anyadmissions policy of the local education authority responsible formaintaining schools in the area for which the forum isestablished.'

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 444, 445, 211,231, 232 and 234. I pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of Stateand her ministerial team in respect of the care and attention to detailthat they have given to the code of practice for admissions. Admissionswere raised during the initial discussions on the White Paper. It isimportant to remember that before the publication of the White Paper,few people in England, and certainly few Members of this House, knew ofthe existence of the code of practice for school admissions. Perhaps afew head teachers, governing bodies and parents in parts of the countrywhere competition for pupils is at its fiercest knew about it, but thecode of practice was not, it is fair to say, a high-profile document.It is extremely interesting to note how it has moved to the top of theagenda in the past six months. I pay tribute to the ministerial teamfor the seriousness with which they have taken some of the criticismsof the White Paper’s implications foradmissions.

I welcomethe publication of the skeletal code—the document that theMinister circulated at the end of last week. If it is to form the basisof the new code, it will be a great improvement on the previous code.The status of the code is crucial. As hon. Members will know, theprevious code only required admission authorities to have regard to itsprovisions, whereas the Secretary of State and her colleagues have been adamant that the new code will have binding force and admissionauthorities will be expected to act in accordance withit.

That is aparticularly important step forward, given the recent ICM Headspacesurvey of head teachers, which was published last week and showed thatabout a quarter of head teachers admitted that they did not follow theprovisions of the code in establishingtheir admissions policyor conducting admissions procedures. If a quarter of head teachersadmit to that in a survey, we can reasonably assume that other headteachers do not follow the code but were not prepared to admit to it.That is an indication of the scale of the problem, which becomes abigger problem in the case of schools that are their own admissionauthorities.

I wantto make a few comments on the new skeletal code before speaking to theamendments. It is helpful that the new code refers to randomallocation. I am not sure that that was in the previous code; itcertainly seems to have a higher profile now. Random allocation, whichis used in a number of countries and accepted as quite normal, deliversthe fairest and most objective results. It is a comparatively new ideain the United Kingdom, but its inclusion in the code is welcome. Weshould discuss that further, as we should the concept of anonymisedadmissions systems, in which the Liberal Democrats have taken aninterest.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of information, random allocation was inthe draft code that was published last year and withdrawn just beforeChristmas, in paragraph4.19.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful for that correction, but it doesnot in any way undermine my point that random allocation is an ideathat needs to be debated far more widely. The concept of anonymisedadmissions does not appear in the code, but is something that theGovernment should take more seriously than they have to date.

Some points in the draft codeneed further consideration. Sibling policy and the distinction betweensibling policy in schools that select by ability, whether wholly orpartly, compared with sibling policy in schools that select by aptitudeis riddled with anomalies. It is conceivable that a school thatselects10 per cent. of its pupils by ability in foreignlanguages could sit next door to a school that selects 10 per cent. byaptitude in foreign languages, yet the sibling link could not be usedas a criterion for admission to the school that selected by ability,but it could be used by the school that selects by aptitude. Ihighlight that point of detail to show the small anomaly in siblingpolicy.

The subjectof supplementary application forms is also worth highlighting. The useof supplementary application forms by certain schools to elicit moreinformation about the individual pupil, their family background, theirgeneral level of ability and the level of cultural capital in the homeis one of the most regrettable forms of covert selection that routinelytake places in some schools that are their own admission authorities.That needs to be eliminated. I can see no reason why supplementary application forms should be used, because thecode suggests that they should be used only where it is necessary toproduce a letter of verification of the pupil’s faith. Thatcould be done, of course, by attaching the letter to the initialadmissions application form.

I welcome the text in paragraph1.27 in respect of faith schools and the encouragement of diversity.Again, the Government have taken seriously the criticism of theadmissions policies of some faith schools that are reluctant to opentheir schools to children living in the immediate neighbourhood. We allaccept faith schools’ right to select children according tofaith, but that must be balanced against the need for them not to becompletely exclusive and to be more open to children and families ofother faiths.

Thefinal aspect of the new code to which I want to draw attention is thematter of first preference first and the recommendation that inselective areas parents who apply to selective schools for places fortheir children should be able to find out the result of the test forthe selective school before they submit an application to anon-selective school. Oddly, the section of the code about firstpreference first describes it as poor practice in selective areas butgood practice in non-selective areas. It is hard to see how a procedurecan be both good and poor practice. The real source of the problem isthe existence of selection. If there were no selection, firstpreference first would be good practiceeverywhere.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I amsure that the hon. Gentleman wants parents to have as much informationas possible before choosing a school for their child. Surely thatapproach would favour their having the information in advance in aselective area, where they might want to opt for the local grammarschool if their child had achieved the sort of results that would getthem there. That does not seeminequitable.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

The difficulty is that, although the generalprinciple of parents having as much information as possible isobviously right, there is an issue in whether the information availableto one group of parents can adversely affect another group ofparents’ chances of obtaining places for their children in theirpreferred school. Very often where first preference first is used,parents whose children are submitted for the 11-plus test but do notpass it get a second bite at the cherry by seeking a place for them ata non-selective school, at the expense of other children whose parentsdid not submit them for the test, either because of a principledobjection to testing or because they did not think that their child hada cat in hell’s chance of passing the test. It is a question offairness: parents whose children happen to be in the upper abilitybands get a greater chance of securing their first choice of schoolthan parents whose children happen to be in the lower ability bands.The parents of the academically brighter children get two bites at thecherry.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving waya second time, but surely I have misunderstood him. Surely he is notsaying that children should be disadvantaged because their parents put them in forthe 11-plus. In the scenario that he describes, the child who did notget through the 11-plus and whose parents did not opt for the schoolmight not get a place at a local secondary school, because theirparents put them in for the 11-plus. It would be monstrous to usechildren as pawns inthatway.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

No. I am saying that the same procedure shouldapply equally to all parents. That is precisely what the High Courtjudge said in the case of the adjudicator’s decision on Wirral.If my memory serves me correctly, the local authority was subject to anobjection from a group of the non-selective schools about the practice.The matter was referred to the adjudicator, who made a ruling in favourof the non-selective schools—against the use of first preferencefirst—and that ruling was endorsed by the High Court judgmentwhen the local authority took the matter tocourt.

That brings meto my final point on the specific issues relating to the code. Will theMinister tell us how the ruling in the Wirral case affects theprovisions in the code endorsing the use of first preference first inselective areas? As far as I can see the code seems to contradict theruling of the High Court judge, but I may have missedsomething.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The hon. Gentleman hasobviously looked into the matter in some detail. I am sure that what hesays about the judgment is right, but he will know that there are oftendifferent reasons for judgments. Will he assist the Committee bytelling us the name of the judgment in the case involvingWirral?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

As far as I am aware it is popularly known as theWirral judgment, just as the Greenwich judgment is popularly known asthe Greenwich judgment and the Rotherham judgment as the Rotherhamjudgment. If my memory serves me correctly, the case went to court in2000-01. However, the hon. Gentleman will find details of the originaladjudicator’s decision on the website of the schoolsadjudicator.

I turnnow to the amendments that stand in my name. Amendments Nos. 444 and445 simply reiterate the arguments in favour of spelling out acceptableadmissions criteria in the Bill. Amendment No. 445 suggests a set ofacceptable criteria and the order in which they should be applied, andthose criteria are based on the recommendations in the SelectCommittee’s 2005 report. The purpose is to open up the debateand invite the Minister to comment on the merits of building a list ofacceptable criteria intothe Bill.

Amendment No. 211 would deletethe words “act in accordance” and insert the words“comply in all respects” and is designed to probe thefull meaning of those terms. Previously, schools merely had to“have regard to” the code, and we now have a fullknowledge of the limitations of that phrase. Individual schools could legally ignore the code and argue before the adjudicator and thecourts that they had had regard to its provisions, but had chosen toignore them, and it was perfectly acceptable for them to do that. Itherefore welcome the fact that the Bill includes the phrase“act in accordance with”, but I am interested in teasingout why it does so when the new skeletal code uses the words“comply with”.

Amendments Nos. 231 to 234raise the possibility of individual local authorities establishingtheir own admissions policies and therefore building a local consensuson what constitutes good practice in the context of the national code.Again, that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of localauthorities’ new responsibilities in the Bill, whereby they willhave to play a greater strategic planning role and do far more to driveup standards in all their schools. They will also be involved inco-ordinating admissions procedures and in shaping the principlesunderlying admissions systems. The amendments would strengthen thatlocal authority role. They would also give a voice to the admissionsforum—the representative body of all schools in the localauthority area—so that it can express an opinion on theauthority’s admissions policy.

There is merit in theamendments because we must move away from the situation that prevailsin many, although not all, parts of the United Kingdom. In those areas,admissions policy is a nightmare for parents, head teachers, governingbodies and local authorities, which must administer the policy, becauseof the intense competition between schools for the most able and bestmotivated pupils. There is probably an emerging consensus in favour ofa change of direction, to which my amendments wouldcontribute.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We have now reached the admissions code clause,which it would be difficult to describe as anything other thanprescriptive—indeed, the only other way to describe it would bevery prescriptive.

The starting point to the wholesaga is section 84 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,which introduced prescription by stealth. Itstates:

“TheSecretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, acode of practice containing such practical guidance as he thinksappropriate”.

Itcontinuesnon-prescriptively:

“Thecode may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and othermatters in relation to the discharge of their functions under thisChapter”.

Then followsthe famousphrase:

“Itshall be the duty of...a local education authority, or thegoverning body of a maintained school...to have regard to anyrelevant provisions of thecode.”

Clause 37 ofthe Bill replaces thephrase:

“a code ofpractice containing such practicalguidance”,

with the moreprescriptive phrase:

“acode for school admissions containing suchprovision”

as theSecretary of State thinks fit. And of course it replaces the looser,“have regard to”, with the dirigiste wording, “actin accordance with”.

As everyone knows, the clausewas introduced to the Bill as a result of pressure from the Labour leftand following the Secretary of State’s letter on 6 February tothe chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, in which shesays:

“As youknow it has always been our intention that the Code of Practice onadmissions should have real force.”

Shecontinues:

“we areconcerned that recent legal judgements may have weakened the perceivedforce of the Code, so we will close the legal loophole so thatadmission authorities must “act in accordance” with it,rather than having to have “regard” toit.”

The Government wantthe code to have “real force”—the language ofprescription if ever there was. Of course, the truth is that all sidesin education debates are equally prescriptive when it comestotheir own principles and priorities—including theLiberals. Their amendment No. 435 would add to subsection (3), whichitself is very prescriptive, the phrase:

“including practices prohibited byregulation”.

Prescriptionpiled on to prescription. So let no one say that they are immune to thecharge of prescription.

I am happy to see syntheticphonics incorporated in the national curriculum; if that is perceivedas prescriptive, so be it. I believe that it will transform the lifechances of hundreds of thousands of children and ultimately lead tomuch higher standards in our education system. The Government want toprescribe to the minutest level of detail in their code of practice onschool admissions—the last draft before the skeletal code waspublished ran to 77 pages. For example, they want citizenship to be acompulsory subject up to the age of 16, whereas I believe that a modernforeign language should be compulsory up to that age. No one shouldfeel excluded from the charge: through amendment No. 211, the hon.Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) wants to make clause 37 even moreprescriptive by replacing the very prescriptive phrase, “act inaccordance”, with the extremely prescriptive phrase,“comply in all respects”.

One may see how prescriptivethe code is to become under the clause by looking at the wordingofMr. Justice Jackson’s judgment in the London Oratoryschool case, which involved the governing body of that school and theschools adjudicator. Mr. Justice Jacksonstated:

“Let mefirst consider the statutory effect of the Code.Section 84(3)of the 1998 Act imposes an obligation, first on the Governors of theOratory School and then on the Adjudicator ‘to have regard toany relevant provisions of the Code’. The phrase "to have regardto" means to take into account. It does not connote slavish obedienceor deference on everyoccasion.”

Through theBill, the Government want to achieve, in the words of ajudge,

“slavish obedienceor deference on everyoccasion”.

That is prettyprescriptive.

TheGovernment’s approach on admissions contrasts sharply with theirapproach to other issues of equal importance. When we discussedamendmentNo. 12 to clause 3, the Minister gave a number ofreasons for why it was inappropriate to impose guidance on localauthorities. Shesaid:

“Eachcommunity and school is different. It is right that, within a frameworkset out by the Secretary of State, local authorities should be able to determine their own arrangements to makesure that they work for their parents and theircommunity.”

She alsosaid:

“Theguidance cannot be exhaustive, as it would be impossible to anticipateeach type of representation that parents mightmake.”

Shecontinued:

“Wewant to ensure that local authorities have sufficient flexibility torespond to local needs when setting up theirarrangements.”

Later, shesaid:

“Whenwe are recommending good practice, it goes intoguidance andit is for local bodies to take it into account sensibly in their localsituations.”—[Official Report, Standing CommitteeE, 30 March 2006; Column Numbers152-153.]

I know that guidanceis not quite the same thing as a code, but the concerns that theMinister expressed apply just as much to a local authority or schoolsetting out its admissions criteria as they do to the consideration ofparental representations.

Let us return to the Secretaryof State’s letter of6 February and the two assertionsshe made to justify her concessions. The first was that it was alwaysthe Government’s intention that the code ofpractice “should have real force.” I looked in vain inthe White Paper for any reference to that. There was certainly noreference to the phrase “act in accordance with”. Thenearest that I could find was paragraph 3.22 on page 46, whichstates:

“Noone approach towards admissions will work inallcircumstances. This is why we want to ensure that allself-governing schools...are free to use the approach to fairadmissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, aslong as it is compatible with the Admissions Code.”

All the radio, television and newspaperinterviews given by the Prime Minister and the SecretaryofState between the publication of the White Paper in October2005 and the concession letter of 6 February this year categoricallyruled out the code of practice having any more statutory compulsionthan it had already. On the “Today” programme of 20January, the Secretary of Statesaid,

“Well,there’s a lot of misunderstanding about this because the code ison a statutory basis and it is enforced by the adjudicator bylaw.”

The Prime Ministersaid at his press conference on23January,

“Ican’t agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions,that this code becomesstatutory.”

Then, on 6February, the Secretary of State conceded that the code would becomestatutory and that a legal loophole would be closed. It is clear thatit was not always the intention to make the admissions code asprescriptive as clause 37 makes it.

Amendment No. 407 would removesubsection (4), which changes the legal requirement from “haveregard to” to “act in accordance with”. It isintended to put the Bill back in line with the vision set out in theWhite Paper, which both the Secretary of State and the Prime Ministerdefended until, overwhelmed by the extentof the Labourrebellion, they caved in on 6 February. The second slightly misleadingimplication in the6 February letter is that the change ofheart was prompted by “recent legal judgments”that

“may have weakenedthe perceived force of the Code”.

The implication is that those judgmentsoccurred after the publication of the White Paper in October 2005,hence the need for a last-minute change of mind. However, the case ofthe London Oratory school was decided on 17 December 2004, some 10months before the publication of the White Paper. That is the drivingforce behind amendment No. 407. If that amendment is not successful, wewill oppose the clause in principle, because we want to return the Billto its original vision.

The code is far tooprescriptive and reflects the left’s obsession with admissionsrather than standards. It is rather like the left’smisunderstanding of economics: they think that wealth is of a fixedquantity and that what is important is how it is distributed, but theyfail to understand that wealth is dynamic, that it is the aggregate ofhuman endeavour, creativity and innovation, and that its very creationcan be hindered or eliminated by extreme measures to redistribute it.So it is with school places.

As the White Paper says atparagraph3.25:

“Werecognise that no form of admissions arrangements can increase thenumber of places at an oversubscribed school. This is why we arecontinuing to increase the number of good schools and the number ofplaces in goodschools.”

The obsessionof everybody who is interested in education policy should be thecreation of more schools rather than the allocation of the scarceresource of the good school places that do exist. Shifting out of agood school one set of children and replacing it with another set doesnothing to raise standards overall: it merely replaces one injusticewith another. Our obsession and focus should be on why23 percent. of secondary schools are underperforming and a similar proportionare coasting.

Theintake of a school is largely irrelevant if there is extensive setting,where children are set according to theirability.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I have heard the hon.Gentleman say that several times, but the only evidence that he hasgiven is from a particular school in Telford. Has any other evidence orresearch to back up thatassertion?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That intake is irrelevant? Of course. What mattersin schools that achieve high standards is good leadership, goodteaching and setting by ability. There is plenty of research,especially from the United States, showing significant increases inlevels of achievement when children are set according to their ability,particularly at the top end of the ability range. At the lower end ofthe range of academic ability, there are no falls in achievementlevels, but there is a slight rise in self-esteem, because for thefirst time those children are helped to learn by being given the spaceand time to acquire knowledge, not humiliated by being taught in aclass of mixed abilities, where the brighter children seem to know theanswer and want to movefaster.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Has research been done that demonstrates thatsetting overcomes the problems related to intake? I hear the hon.Gentleman’s views about setting helping to drive up standards,but do the results of any research show that setting overcomes theimpact of intake?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. The debate is about admissions rather than setting.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is those who are obsessed by admissions who need to make the case. I have cited a number of schools with different intakes that achieve different results. There is no causal connection in the schools that I have cited between intake and achievement. There may well be a causal link between the school and its results in absolute terms, but intake is irrelevant to the achievement of a school. What matters is that every ability type of child who enters a school is stretched and that their educational attainment is raised to the highest level that can be achieved. Whether a school has a high proportion of one level of intake or another is irrelevant if those children are set according to ability in separate classes.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

If the Conservatives believe that intake is irrelevant, why is the hon. Gentleman arguing so forcefully in favour of schools’ rights to determine their own intake?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Because they may have other reasons, based on ethos, for wishing to influence their intake. They may wish, for example, to select 10 per cent. of their pupils based on a good aptitude for maths. Faith schools may wish to establish their ethos by ensuring that their intake is of children who have a commitment to a faith. There are all kinds of reasons of flexibility to enable schools to pursue their own ethos.

I am not as obsessed by those issues as some people on the right of politics, however. I think that we need to get away from ideological positions on the right and the left, because what matters is what happens in a school. High levels of attainment can be achieved, regardless of the ability range of the intake, provided that children in the school are set according to their ability.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

There is a debate to be had about the effect of intake, but before my hon. Friend moves on, will he agree that, in areas where the schools’ intake is predominantly of children from low-income groups because that is the nature of the area and there are no people of a different description, a mechanistic approach to intake, in which intake delivers everything, risks leading to low expectations for those schools? Because the admissions are all in accordance with socio-economic groups, low standards are tolerated and children are condemned to low expectations—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. That is far too long for an intervention.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If people obsess about admissions, it leads to low expectations. They will claim that because their school’s admission is of X or Y type they do not have to excel and achieve as schools in a different area with intakes A and B might have to.

In private discussions with Labour Members about schools such as the Thomas Telford school in Telford, which has a banded intake based on the national ability rating, I am told, “Oh, but they will select the top end of each of the nine bands.” One cannot win. Whenever one demonstrates that a school is achieving brilliantly because of other factors, one is told that it is fiddling within the bands. According to the left, there will never be a perfect intake. Even when all the points in the code are achieved in every school, it will not be perfect; and similar reasons will be found why the intake is not quite right in those schools that are still underperforming.

It is not admissions that make a school good or bad; it is leadership, the quality of its teaching, its discipline, its ethos, and the rigour with which academic and other subjects are taught there. That is what determines a good school, and there are plenty of examples of schools with difficult intakes that achieve far higher academic standards and better educational attainment than schools in the leafy suburbs that have none of those difficulties. Performance is not wholly determined by admissions. We need to get away from that obsession and start focusing on what determines the quality of education.

To return to my argument, in his speech on24 October, the day before the publication of the White Paper, the Prime Minister said:

“Local authority efforts to create equity often produced deadening uniformity, with child-centred learning and a rigid adherence to mixed ability teaching too often failing to raise expectations and meet basic standards.”

He was absolutely right; I could not have put it better myself. There is a growing consensus among mainstream politicians of the centre left and centre right about how to tackle the woeful underperformance of too large a section of our primary and secondary education system.

What of the code itself? We are grateful to the Minister for circulating copies of the skeleton school admissions code. It is a pity that it is still in skeleton form, but having read it over the weekend I am content that goes no further—at least, not in any material way—than the draft admissions code that was withdrawn before Christmas.

I am pleased that, like the draft code, the skeleton code regards first preference first admission arrangements as core practice. At paragraph 2.3, it states:

“Before adopting it, admission authorities should accordingly consider carefully the impact the use of this criterion will have on social equity in the area and on parents’ ability to express their real preferences for the schools they would like their children to attend.”

I believe that first preference first schemes are too complex and involve too much risk assessment for parents. If schools give priority to those who put their school down as No. 1, then parents have to assess the likelihood of their child getting into the first preference school. If the likelihood is less than 50 per cent., the temptation will be to for parents to put their second preferred option first; otherwise, and the child could end up at the fourth or fifth choice school. Equal preference schemes are much fairer, as parents are asked to rank schools in order of preference, with all preferences being considered at the same time and with equal weight. If two or more schools offer a place to a child, the school higher on the list of preferences is the one that will offer a place.

The skeleton code goes on to say that first preference first arrangements

“can create particular difficulty where there is also an element of selection by ability or aptitude.”

The hon. Member for Bury, North referred to that provision. I agree with that, as more and more schools are acquiring specialist status and it is possible that an increasing number will select up to 10 per cent. of pupils on the basis of their aptitude in certain specialisms. Paragraph 2.3 of the skeleton code is therefore clearly opposed to first preference first criteria, so I am slightly baffled by paragraph 2.4—that, too, was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—which states:

“Where all admission authorities in an authority with no selection by ability decide to adopt an ‘first preference first’ coordination scheme, this is acceptable practice.”

Will the Minister explain how paragraph 2.4 is compatible with paragraph 2.3, which clearly states that the use of first preference first criteria is normally considered to be poor practice?

The current code of practice, which was issued in February 2003, states at paragraph 3.20 on page 14:

“In those areas where grammar schools exist, parents should be asked to express school preferences before they know the outcome of selective tests.”

That was grossly unjust. It meant parents had to assess the risk of their child not passing the 11-plus. It was a gamble to put the grammar school first. That was particularly risky in a first preference first system. The argument for that approach was stated as follows:

“Adjudicators have consistently held that to delay the expression of preferences until parents interested in grammar schools know whether their children do or do not meet selective schools’ entry standards is unfair to other parents who want a place only at a non-selective school or schools.”

That is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bury, North. It is absolute nonsense and an example of the views of schools adjudicators, which makes clear the reason why an appeal process against their decisions is so important.

The real reason for the approach was to undermine grammar schools by the back door and, as such, it was wrong. Thankfully, the Government share our view, and the skeleton code, like the draft code that was published last year and then withdrawn, states at paragraph 2.20:

“It is good practice for grammar schools and other schools which are permitted to use selection by ability or aptitude, or their admission authorities, to ensure that parents are informed of the outcome of entry tests before they make their applications for other schools.”

In other words, parents will have the 11-plus results before expressing their preferences in respect of a secondary school for their child. Common sense prevails. It is just a pity that the other, absurd approach will have been in place for three years before being replaced. I wonder who advised the Government on the original draft of that paragraph of the current code and what he or she is providing advice on now.

I am concerned about aspects of the skeleton code. The first relates to home-school agreements. Paragraph 1.10 on page 5 of the code states:

“Home-school agreements are a useful means of promoting greater involvement by parents in their children’s education. However, they should be signed after a place has been accepted at a school as some children could be disadvantaged if their admission was dependent on an agreement.”

As the code says, section 111 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 makes it unlawful for admission to a school to be conditional on a home-school agreement signed by the parents. I see no reason why such contracts should not be a condition of entry. The overwhelming majority of parents would be happy to sign such an agreement. As for the parents who refuse to do so, it is important that they know from day one, whatever school they send their child to, where the boundaries are and what is expected of their child. Parents are in favour of home-school contracts, but most parents believe that they are not worth the paper they are printed on. That is because of provisions such as the one that I have mentioned. We need to have much higher expectations of parents about the behaviour of their children in schools. That is what parents want and it is what teachers want, so we are very—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. We shall discuss a new clause on those contracts later.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I understand that, Mr. Chope, and I will move on. I raised the issue because it is dealt with by the skeleton code that we are debating in relation to clause 37.

My second concern relates to the provisions on school uniforms, which appear to be a new addition to the code. There is nothing in paragraph 1.21 and1.22 of the skeleton code with which one can disagree per se. The skeleton code states:

“School uniform plays a valuable role in contributing to the ethos and setting the tone of a school.”

It continues:

“Governing bodies can help limit the expense of uniforms by ensuring that the uniform chosen is widely available in high street shops or on the internet rather than from an expensive sole supplier.”

Who can disagree with that? Uniform is very important to a school, and according to the heads of some high-performing secondary schools that I have visited, it is important that the uniform includes a blazer, shirt and tie, rather than the sweaters, sweatshirts and polo T-shirts that became the fad in comprehensive schools in the 1980s. [Interruption.] I am merely citing the view of heads whom I have met. In their view, if children are dressed like primary school children, they tend to behave like primary school children, whereas what is needed at secondary school is for children to become young adults.

When I go to a secondary school whose uniform includes a blazer, I ask about the cost of them to parents. In one secondary school in the poorest part of the poorest part of London, where blazers are compulsory, the head teacher said that the cost of a blazer does not present a problem, and for the few for whom it is a problem blazers are provided out of school funds. My concern is that even though the wording is benign, including a paragraph about uniform in the code may send the message that school uniforms are to be regarded as a way to engineer a more middle-class intake and are, therefore, to be discouraged. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister were to allay that fear and emphasise the Government’s support for school uniforms as part of a range of methods to inculcate an ethos and high standards of good behaviour.

I wish to use two examples to highlight one final issue arising from the code. Some commentators have highlighted the wider, less technical wording of the part of the skeleton code that concerns itself with social fairness. It was not in the previous draft, nor is it in the current code. For example, at paragraph 1.15 it says that

“Admission authorities and governing bodies must ensure that their admission arrangements and other school policies are fair and do not disadvantage, either directly or indirectly, a child from one social or racial group or those with a disability or a child with special educational needs”.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with such an exhortation. At paragraph 1.27 it says that

“Admission authorities should analyse information about their intakes, and where possible their applicants, to find out whether they attract a wide range of families or whether their school fails to attract all sections of local communities.”

There is nothing unduly perturbing about such aims, but will the Minister explain what that will mean in practice and whether it will interfere with the code’s clarity, which is the overwhelming priority?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman have any concerns about the high proportion of head teachers who said that they did not act in accordance with the guidance of the present admissions code? On that basis, exhortation is simply not enough.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The great dilemma in making public policy is between being prescriptive and allowing professionals to run schools on a day-to-day basis. There are some issues that need to be addressed by central Government. For example, whether we teach reading through synthetic phonics or with the look-and-say method is so overwhelmingly important that it should be included in the national curriculum, but matters such as admissions should be left up to the professionalism of head teachers.

I do not have such a jaundiced view of the ethics and professionalism of the head teachers in this country as to think that they will manipulate their intakes in an unethical way to massage their results. I have not spoken to head teachers who say that that is what they do and I have not met any head teachers whom I suspect of doing that. I have much higher regard for the head teachers of this country, and from the section of the Committee that seems to talk about localism at great length, it is surprising that on certain issues, the Liberal Members are as prescriptive—in fact, on this issue, more prescriptive—than the Government. It goes back to my earlier point that prescription is something of which we are all guilty in education debates. Whether we are prescriptive on one issue or another just depends on one’s priorities and principles. We must be honest about that.

On the schools admissions code, the position in the White Paper was the right one. I am happy for there to be a code, but it should not be as prescriptive and detailed as the full version of the code that was published before Christmas. It should not be enshrined in legislation, with draconian words such as “act in accordance with”. We should leave those issues to the professionalism of head teachers who, I believe, do not want to bring in all kinds of selection methods by the back door in an unethical or unprincipled way.

I have taken up enough of the Committee’s time to outline our concerns. The approach to the admissions code is one example of the Government’s giving unnecessary concessions to the left to get the Bill through Second Reading and Third Reading. It was unnecessary, because the Bill was always going to have the support of Conservative Members, and I hope that the Minister will agree with us and try to restore the Bill, in this and in other respects, to the original vision and judgment of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

We tabled amendment No. 435 to provoke a debate about what the Government would consider to be unacceptable in terms of admissions policies. Many of the issues have been dealt with in the code, so I shall take the opportunity to make some general comments about the code and its enforcement. We have always had considerable concerns about giving schools more power to control their own admissions. Everybody who has provided evidence, from the Sutton Trust to Rebecca Allen at the Institute of Education, has found that giving schools greater freedom on admissions tends to make them—surprisingly, perhaps—far more socially segregative than geography or house prices might suggest.

As the hon. Member for Bury, North has already stated, a recent survey in The Guardian showed that25 per cent. of head teachers admit to bending the rules on admissions in order to cherry-pick. They were specific about why they did it. That is not surprising when there is so much pressure on schools to raise their GCSE, A-level and SATs results because of league tables. Therefore, we would strongly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a statement that it is obligatory to act in accordance with the code, not merely to have regard to it. The Conservatives have said that that is too prescriptive. I would argue that this is a similar case to the anti-discrimination legislation, which we and the Government favoured and even the Conservatives eventually came to support. The principles at issue are fair access and equity, and they are covered by the code. This is not about prescriptive policy on what happens in the classroom; it is about ensuring that every child has access to the school of his choice.

There are some welcome additions to the code. It deals specifically with covert selection—for example, the tendency of schools to use knowledge of the family in order to select out difficult families. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North on the supplementary application forms. I cannot understand why they might be needed, and shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to him. Although it is clear what is not acceptable on the forms, it is not clear why we might still need to use them except to find out whether somebody is of a particular faith.

Paragraph 2.11 gives a helpful explanation about what is acceptable in relation to faith schools. It states clearly that it should be adequate to ascertain that a family is practising, and that it is not necessary to test its religious commitment. That is a point of concern, and it touches on the other point about supplementary forms. In most Catholic churches—my church is a prime example of this—the priest requires a family to have an interview before he will write a report to say whether its members are eligible for the primary or secondary school. I do not know what happens in that interview. It will be interesting to learn what discussions the Government have with the Church representatives on the back of the code. It is important to stamp out any practice that involves a great deal of testing of people’s religious commitment, because it is not clear whether that would make other forms of social segregation acceptable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to be clear about what the hon. Lady means. Is she saying that she is against some kind of test of people’s commitment to the ethos of a faith school, or that the test must be a certain one—the people must be not just on the way to heaven but already saved? They must be real Christians or not Christian at all. Is that the gist?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I was saying neither of those things. It is not clear to me why a Catholic priest requires an interview to find out whether a family is practising. Surely he should know who attends his local church. My question is, what happens during that interview? Is the family tested on how committed it is to the religion? If so, why? It is clearly laid out in the code that that would be unacceptable. Or is it a means of applying another form of social segregation? I am uncomfortable with that. The Government need to explore the matter with the various religious bodies when the code is being considered.

The code also touches on more subtle aspects of selection—such as expensive uniforms and school trips that tend to put off children from poorer families—which is very welcome. I was pleased to see the section on home-school agreements. Liberal Democrats very much agree with the Government that it is unhelpful to use them as a means of excluding children prior to their getting into a school. It is an unfair method of selection.

We have some concerns about the language and implications of the code, which I want to test with the Minister. For example, various issues are described as “poor practice”. I am not clear about the implications in respect of adopting poor practice. Is it forbidden or frowned upon? What would happen if a school adopted a practice that the code considered to be poor practice? Would it be enforceable and if so how?

Some aspects of the code clearly have teeth but it is difficult to see how they will be enforced. Many head teachers say that they already bend the rules, which is why new clause 4 proposes an anonymised admissions process, which may be able to remove some of the difficulties involved when schools bend the rules. Although the code clearly states that the criteria should be clear and objective, testing that out when schools fail to adhere to it would rely on a set of subjective judgments, which are very difficult to make. The code will be very difficult to enforce in that respect. We will make more detailed comments on the matter when we discuss new clause 4.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I start by contesting the view, represented by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb), that pressure for the changes in the White Paper came from the Labour left. How that is defined is perhaps for another debate, but a large number of Labour Members, including me, worked hard behind the scenes to ensure that there was a reasonable compromise on the Bill. The admissions code represents the compromise that we sought; it is exactly the right way forward in regulating admissions and admissions authorities in England and Wales.

If being prescriptive is believing that the Government need to screen out prejudice from the admissions system, I plead guilty to being prescriptive. If being prescriptive is about ensuring that all children enjoy an equal opportunity to access the school of their choice and to be part of an admissions process that is administered on a level playing field, I am guilty of being prescriptive and so are many of us on the Government Benches. I believe, too, that equity and excellence belong together in the admissions systems and the education system; it is possible. The Prime Minister is right to promote excellence in our schools and that is one reason why I strongly support the Bill.

Many of the so-called prescriptive elements in the code are exactly right to screen out prejudice inthe system. The hon. Member for Brent, East(Sarah Teather) mentioned uniforms and I give the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton credit for recognising that the advice on uniforms is very sound. Recently, my sister, whose son is in year 6 and ready to go up to year 7, was informed by a teacher at the comprehensive school he will be going to that she has to buy the school uniform from one supplier only. That is one of the conditions for entering that school. I feel strongly that that is not fair. It puts a burden on parents with low incomes, whose children are not necessarily on free school meals, and it makes it difficult for parents to enjoy equality of opportunity in terms of their children’s education. My grandmother was prevented from going to pupil teacher training school back in the 1920s because her parents could not afford the uniform and she ended up as a steelworker rather than a teacher. We still run the risk of such things happening in 2006, so I strongly support the code’s advice on uniforms.

For the same reasons, it is important that addresses are not disclosed when admissions are considered. My mother scored higher in her 11-plus than some of the other pupils in her class. They went to grammar school, however, while she did not, and that was on the basis of their addresses. That was in the 1940s, and I hope that it does not happen now, but we need to ensure that the code guards against such a possibility. Such things even happened under the comprehensive system, and although I was recommended for a grammar stream place, pressure on numbers meant that the head teacher at my primary school decided not to place me in that stream because I lived in a council house and other children did not. That is surely wrong and needs to be made illegal.

On children’s behaviour, we should not discriminate against a child because of the behaviour of a sibling at the school. That would clearly be unfair. Although some hon. Members will find this anecdotal, let me illustrate my point by mentioning a family that I know of. There were four boys, and three of them were well behaved, but the eldest was not—he was a problem in the school. In such a case, it would not be fair to discriminate against the other three on the basis of his behaviour.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am trying to rationalise the point about the school uniform supplier. What difference would it make in terms of children’s outcomes if there were two or half a dozen school uniform suppliers at the school that your brother or other family members went to? If the school uniform is the same price wherever it comes from, what is the difference? [Interruption.]

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I shall answer the hon. Lady’s point, although other hon. Members have already done so. The answer is simple: the uniform is much more expensive at the accredited supplier than it is at places such as Asda and Sainsbury. I do not want to get into the argument about sweatshirts, but many parents will buy a blazer as long as they can do so at a price that they can afford. That is an important point.

There are other elements in the code that we need to take seriously. They include marital status and not allowing schools to use parents’ financial donations and relationships between governors, school staff and parents as a basis on which to make admissions decisions. Those are fundamental points when it comes to having a credible admissions code that is based on the need to ensure fair access. It is illegal to discriminate on such grounds when offering somebody a job, and if that is good enough for potential employees—if it is right that they should be protected against discrimination based on whether they are married, whether they know somebody in the firm and whether a friend of the family has made donations to or bought shares in it—it is surely good enough for our children, too. Our children surely need protecting as much as employees do against such discrimination and against people who buy their way into schools or employment. The fundamental principle underlying the code is that equality of opportunity applies to all people—children and adults—and I hope that the Minister will reject the Tory amendments and stick with the code as it stands.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I endorse Opposition Members’ comments that it is important to ensure fairness and equity. Those points have been well made and we are short of time, so I want to raise just two specific points with the Minister. I thought that it would be easier to do so now than to intervene. I am very involved with various groups of young carers—young people one or both of whose parents have severe disabilities. I should like to be assured that their needs are taken fully on board. There are, allegedly, more than 1,000 carers of school age. It is quite a large cohort who undoubtedly find it difficult to attend school regularly and can very easily not get the best school arrangement.

Secondly, I shall raise a point that keeps hitting me every time that I read it. I absolutely agree with the thrust of the point on school uniforms, but it does seem slightly odd to say:

“Governing bodies should not seek to raise additional funds through the sale of school uniforms.”

Obviously in the case of new uniforms and the monopolistic supply they should not do so, but parents associations raise money through the sale of second-hand school uniforms which is really important for everyone concerned. It is a minor point, but it should be mentioned.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall start byspeaking to Government amendment No. 427. Given the general support forthe code that seems to have come through this discussion we shouldobviously introduce the code as soon as possible. In order to do thatfor admissions in September 2008, it will haveto be in forcein February 2007 and we will want to consult on a draft before then.The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made areasonable point about carers and that is precisely the sort of issuethat needs to be considered as we consult on a full code.

Government amendment No. 427amendssection 84(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act1998 to insert an express provision to provide that a consultation thatstarts before the Bill receives Royal Assent will still satisfy thestatutory provisions for consultation. Assuming that the amendment isaccepted, we hope to start that consultation in September. I hope thatthe Committee will see that as a reasonableapproach.

Inresponding to the other amendments, let me remind the Committee that wegave a commitment to the Education and Skills Committee to strengthenthe school admissions code to make admissions fairer. Clause 37delivers on that commitment. This is not simply a mutual admirationsociety, but I know that even before it become fashionable my hon.Friend the Member for Bury, North had taken a considerable interest inthe impact of admissions arrangements. Not only in his contributionstoday, but in his work up until this point he has played an importantrole in what we have achieved on the code—as have, as my hon.Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) pointed out,many other hon. Members and many people outside the House.

I agree with the hon. Memberfor Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that what matters most in our schoolsystem is that we strengthen the leadership in governance and qualityof teaching in our schools so that more schools can respond to theindividual needs of children and be schools that parents will be happyto choose for their child. That is absolutely crucial. It is not thenunreasonable to argue that in achieving that we should also expect fairaccess to those schools with a transparent, clear and objective system.We are making these changes to admissions arrangements in order todeliver that.

As several hon. Members havepointed out, while most schools adopt good practice in their admissionsarrangements, there are still examples of unfair practices and ofoversubscription criteria that do not deliver those objectives oftransparency, fairness and objectivity. There are still examples ofadmissions practices and oversubscription criteria that candisadvantage one child compared with another. For example, we havediscussed the use of supplementary application forms. If a school asksfor information that has no relevance to a child’s application,not only might that have an impact on admission decisions, but it couldput parents off applying. That would not lead to a system in whichevery parent feels capable of expressing the preference that woulddeliver for theirchild.

Paragraphs 1.19and 1.20 of the code, about which questions have been asked, make clearthe limited circumstances in which supplementary information may benecessary. They also prohibit supplementary application forms that lookat a child’s background.

There are stilloversubscription criteria that give priority to the children ofgovernors and staff. As hon. Members have said, that is clearlyunacceptable, as are statements in schools’ literature that theyexpect a voluntary contribution from parents to support the school.Each of those practices reduces a parent’s ability to make areal choice for their children, and it is right that they should beruled out by thecode.

I shall respondto the discussion on the use of first preference first criteria. Myobjective, as that of any admissions arrangement should be, is toensure that parents can take decisions about their children based onthe fullest possible information and express a real preference. Nobodyshould argue that the admissions system should protect admissions tocertain types of school rather than others. At the heart of ourdecision making should be the consideration of what ensurestransparency and fairness to parents and children. Transparency is key,and in the selective system the 11-plus creates a unique situation. Aparent cannot know the chances of their child getting into a schoolbefore they have the test result, and therefore cannot make thenecessary decisions about theirpreference.

The otherdifficulty with having a first preference first system alongsideselection would be that those who can be confident enough to apply toselective schools would often be those with a plan B, which may involvegoing into the private system. I do not want to set up a system thatmakes it easier for a parent to express a preference for a selectiveeducation, and then opt out of the state system if that preference isnot attained. That would disadvantage those who want to express apreference for a grammar school but do not feel able to because theysee it as too big arisk.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, thatthe inevitable consequence of reintroducing first preference first inselective areas is that there may well be—no, there willbe—an increase in the number of parents there who choose to goprivate, because of the larger number of children securing places inselective schools? Does she also accept that the problem of not beingable to guarantee a place in a first-preference school applies toparents in non-selective areas, unless they live in the immediate catchment area? It is not a difficulty that applies only to parents inselective areas who choose to submit their children to the 11-plustest.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Of course we cannot have a system that guaranteesevery parent their first preference. We can make it more likely thatthey will get it, and we have done so through co-ordination. However,the system must enable parents to express their preferences, and givethem confidence about the way those preferences will work. My concernabout the combination of first preference first and a selective systemwhen people do not know the results before they express theirpreferences is that—I am afraid that on this I agree withOpposition Members—it benefits those parents who are willing to game in the system as opposed to those who want to express a genuinepreference.

Thereason for the distinction between the two sets of circumstances isthat first preference first, as the code sets out, is poor practicewhen schools use it to try to undermine parental preferences and whenit means that parents cannot say what they really want; however, whenall schools and the local authority are happy with a first preferencefirst scheme, and there is no selection in any of the schools, it isreasonable to give them the option to operate that system if, and onlyif, no one objects. That is a good example of the complexity of theadmissions system and the reason the code is written as itis.

In the Wirral caseraised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, the localeducation authority wanted parents to have their 11-plus results beforethey expressed their preference. The schools adjudicator ruled againstthat and the court upheld that judgment, as my hon. Friend said. Thatdoes not, however, mean that we cannot change the code, using thearguments that I have just used. The court was ruling on whether theschools adjudicator’s judgment was a reasonable judgment, not onwhether it was the only possible judgment. Therefore in answer to myhon. Friend’s question about whether we have taken intoconsideration the implications of that judgment, the answer is yes, wehave.

It is clear,not so much with respect to first preference first—which is aquirk in the system, and which it is important to workthrough—but with respect to some of the other practices that Ioutlined, that they amount to the selection of children by schoolsaccording to their parents’ background, education or ability tosupport the school. Those practices and criteria are wrong, and will beruled out by the new code, which, as hon. Members have mentioned, Ihave made available to them.

Amendment No. 407 wouldmaintain the status quo, so presumably it is intended to maintain andsupport the examples of unfair practice that I have outlined. The hon.Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton cannot have it both ways. Ifwe accept that there is unfair practice in the system—I thinkthat there are some examples of that—support of the status quois support of thosepractices.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

In that case, why did the White Paper not oncemention the phrase “to act in accordancewith”?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we made clear in the White Paper, ourfundamental objective was to ensure fair access to the system. Ifconcerns about fair access have emerged from the admissionsarrangements, it is in keeping with the objectives that we set out inthe White Paper that we should deal with those. Furthermore, we havemade it clear that it was always the objective of the previous code toget rid of those unfair practices; but as we set out in the letter tothe Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, some recentjudgments brought into question the force of the code, and it wastherefore right to consider what force it had, to recognise the impactof those judgments, and to strengthen the code to bring it to the levelthat we had always intended, by means of the provisions in the Billrequiring admissions authorities to act in accordance withit.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Why had not the Government considered theimplications of those cases before the publication of the White Paper?The classic case relating to the issue is that of the London Oratoryschool, which was decided in December 2004. The White Paper waspublished in October 2005. Why were not the implications of that caseconsidered and the policy implications decided before October2005?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This is, of course, the first Bill in which we havehad an opportunity to take the action that we are taking. As I said, wewere considering the implications of the code, and alongside that wegave the commitment in the White Paper to fair access, so I think thatthe approach that we have taken isreasonable.

The hon.Gentleman can make political points about our approach, but thequestion remains: does he want to maintain the status quo because hesupports the unfair practices that I have outlined, which the code willdo away with? That is the fundamental question.

As hon. Members will see fromthe skeleton draft, the new code will contain mandatory provisions thatrule out some practices and criteria entirely. It will also containexamples of good and poor practice, which must be taken into accountwhen setting admissions arrangements. Admission authorities will haveto justify any departure from the guidance if an objection is made, andit will be easier for the schools adjudicator to enforce. That coversthe question raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East about the natureof good and poor practice.

Legislation does not have theflexibility we needto rule out unfair practices in particularlocal circumstances. Some criteria, for example, represent goodpractice in some circumstances but not in others. Giving priority tochildren who have a sibling at the school is a good example of that.That criterion is particularly helpful for parents with young children,but when it is combined with selection by ability, it would not be fairto admit siblings of pupils who were admitted by ability, as that wouldreduce the opportunities for other children.

To deal with the complexitiesraised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, the new code willmake a distinction that rules out the use of the criteria in wholly selective schools, while describing it as poor practice inschools with high proportions of selection by ability and as acceptablewhere there is up to 10 per cent. selection by aptitude. That comesback to my arguments about the reasonableness, in certain limitedcircumstances, of selection on the basis of aptitude, and theGovernment’s view that there are not circumstances in which itwould be appropriate to select directly or indirectly on the basis ofability.

Where thecode describes a criterion as “poor practice”, theadmissions authority will have to justify its use if an objection ismade to the adjudicator. I think hon. Members will agree that thatwould be hard to accomplish in legislation. We need a code that willrule out unfair criteria and also support admissions authorities byproviding guidelines and examples of good practice that allows them theflexibility to determine criteria that are fair and promote equity inthe circumstances. I hope that that responds to the probing comments ofthe hon. Member for Brent, East in relation to amendment No.435.

I will say justone thing about uniform. I found it a bit bizarre that the hon. Memberfor Bognor Regis and Littlehampton read out various parts of theskeleton code with which he completely agreed and thought benign, buton which he nevertheless sought reassurance. I will reassure him on thesubject of uniform. The Government can clearly see the benefits of auniform in schools. I personally am strongly supportive of blazers andties in secondary schools. The point that we are making, however, isthat uniform, important though it is, should not, because of the way inwhich it is supplied, act as a disincentive to pupils to apply to aparticular school. The skeleton code makes that pretty clear.

Amendments Nos. 445 and 444,tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, would require theschool admissions code to include oversubscription criteria as one ofthe requirements that it may impose on admissions authorities, localauthorities, governing bodies, appeal panels and admissions forums. AsI have argued, it is important that admissions authorities have theflexibility to determine arrangements that work, are fair and willpromote equity in their local area. Circumstances might vary across thecountry and admissions arrangements will have to take account ofthose.

The problemwith amendment No. 445 is that it would require the oversubscriptioncriteria to be used in the order listed regardless of the local contextor circumstances, thereby taking away flexibility. Part of my hon.Friend’s concern is whether the code is strong enough or whetherlegislation would be better. I hope that he is reassured that althoughthere must be local flexibility, the new code will be tough on unfairpractice and criteria. Significantly, not only will it be tough, itwill be coupled with enforcement provisions that, through theadjudicator, will ensure that those unfair practices cannot be put intooperation. The combination of the clearer provisions of the new codeand the enforcement will guarantee us fairer admissionsarrangements.

I shallgive a few details on the specific criteria that my hon. Friend listed.First, criteria (a) and (b) are unnecessary because they are alreadyenshrined in law. The first would require children with a statement of special educational needs to be given the highest priority. Section 324of the Education Act 1996 provides that where a statement names aschool, the school must admit that child. We shall include provisionsand guidelines in the new code that will ensure that children withspecial educational needs, or who are disabled and do not have astatement, are not disadvantaged in any way. We will make that clear inthe code.

The secondcriteria deals with children in public care. Again, it is not necessarybecause admissions authorities are required by regulations made underprovisions in the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 to givethose children the highest priority in their admissionsarrangements.

Theother criteria could be used by admissions authorities if appropriatein the local context. Many of them would be good practice and the codewill provide guidelines for their use. My problem is that they shouldnot be mandatory in all circumstances, as amendments Nos. 444 and 211would require. Admissions authorities must be allowed to determinewhich acceptable criteria they will use and in which order, so as tomeet the needs of children and parents. For example, there might becircumstances in which proximity is not the most appropriateoversubscription criteria. As has been shown by today’sdiscussion, proximity can have an impact on house prices and it ispossible that there is a disproportionate impact on, or benefit to,those who can afford to move into the immediate area of aschool.

As happenedin my constituency, there are times when different transitionalarrangements are necessary, perhaps because of a reorganisation ofschools. We need to bear that in mind and be flexible about theadmissions arrangements in particular circumstances. One of thecriteria relates to the safe walking distance to a school. In ruralareas, for example, that might not be relevant to the admissionsarrangements for a particular rural school. Another relates to the easeof access to public transport. Of course, public transport arrangementschange, as do local catchment areas and populations aroundschools.

Although onthe face of it certain criteria might appear to be fair, in relation toparticular circumstances they might not deliver the objective that Iand my hon. Friend share—that the admissions criteria, and inthis case the oversubscription criteria, is fair, objective andtransparent, and does not discriminate against pupils and parents onthe basis of their background. I hope that he will accept that I am notjust being a difficult and intransigent Minister, but that there arepractical considerations and that although I share his objectives, I donot think that his approach in the amendments would deliverthem.

Finally,amendments Nos. 231 to 234 relate to admissions forums and theirinteraction with local authorities. Forums already consider, andrightly so, how well local admissions arrangements work, and theyadvise admissions authorities about any changes that they feel arenecessary. We think that they should have an even stronger role inensuring that admissions arrangements operate fairly for all children.The Bill will give them extra powers in England to object to theschools adjudicator about the admissions arrangement of any localschool and publish reports on the way admissions operate in the area. Later groups of amendments deal withthat.

Amendment No.231 is intended to ensure that local education authorities establish anadmissions policy that complies with the school admissions code.Amendment No. 234 would mean that the local admissions forum has tohave regard to that policy when exercising its functions. Bothamendments are unnecessary. The clause already requires local educationauthorities to act in accordance with the code, so any admissionspolicy that they adopt must be co-compliant, as must be both theadmissions arrangements of any other admissions authority in the areaand the admissions forum, which must also act in accordance with thecode.

Amendment No.231 would therefore require a local education authority to formulate anadmissions policy regardless of whether it had any community orvoluntary controlled schools in its area. It is completely within thepower of a local authority, in discussion with other admissionauthorities in an area, to come up with a common approach toadmissions. That issue has been raised elsewhere by my hon. Friend theMember for Sheffield, Hillsborough. My argument is that amendment No.231 is not necessary to ensure that that happens, and it could lead totwo different admissions policies being set up, both of which wouldhave to be in accordance with thecode.

Finally,amendment No. 232 would require an admissions forum to give advice toits local authority on whether it has complied with the code whendrawing up its admissions policy. However, admissions forums alreadyhave a role in advising admissions authorities on the fairness andeffectiveness of their admissions arrangements and the ways in whichtheir arrangements could be improved. Although we share the motiveunderpinning the amendment, it addresses a point of detail that isbetter dealt with through the changes that we will make to theadmissions forum regulations.

I hope that my hon. Friend theMember for Bury, North and Opposition Members—I am slightly lessoptimistic about that—agree that clauses 37 and 38 willstrengthen the code, enhance the role of admissions forums in Englandand, most importantly, help to support us in producing a faireradmissions system, in which access to schools that will be of a higherquality, owing to the other actions that we are taking and our reformand investment programme generally, will be open on a fair basis to allchildren. That can only be in the interests of children. I thereforehope that the Committee will feel reassured, that the amendment will bewithdrawn, and that hon. Members will support the new approach and thenew framework foradmissions.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This has been an interesting debate. There has been a lot of common ground and some differences. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who said that if prescription gets rid of discrimination, she stands guilty. Who can disagree with that? My point is that we all stand guilty of prescription in certain aspects of education policy, and policy generally. The Bill is packed with prescriptive measures of all kinds, with a great deal of prescription on some minor things. We should hear nothing more from Labour Members about Conservatives being over-prescriptive. Even the Liberals have been prescriptive in their views on the code and how they would like it to be enforced.

There has been considerable agreement about the code and the approach to admissions, particularly between the Minister and Conservative Members. We agree, for instance, on first preference first. Parents need to be able to express a preference and not have to engage in gaming or risk assessment in determining to which school their children go. The people who are most discriminated against by that kind of approach to admissions are those who are not familiar with the complexity of the system and who have not sat on the Select Committee on Education and Skills for several years, as the hon. Member for Bury, North has, and who therefore cannot understand the nuances and the differences between systems in different local authorities and schools. The people who suffer most from such schemes are the very people who should benefit from education and from being given the fairest chances, and we want to ensure that they receive them.

The Minister is right that those who can gamble and take a risk are those who can afford to have a plan B, whereby they opt out of the system if the gamble does not pay off, so I agree that the system in force under the current code is wrong, because it is wrong for parents to have to submit their preferences for a secondary school before receiving their children’s 11-plus results. That is a mean-spirited approach to the admissions process, which that was clearly designed to undermine the grammar school system, and I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s view that parents who submitted their children for the 11-plus test were somehow less worthy to send their children to the best-performing non-grammar school in the area, because they had committed the unpardonable sin of trying to get their children into a grammar school.

Nevertheless, there has been considerable agreement. The Opposition are relaxed about the existence of a code, and contrary to what the Minister implied we do not want to see any unfair practices—it is not the our intention to encourage schools to manipulate the admissions system to improve their results. Publication of league tables is the policy of the Labour party in government, and it would be the policy of the Conservatives in government too. League tables exist solely to improve results, so we want them to be used to improve standards of education. They are not a type of football league table that should be manipulated by hook or by crook to get a school further up the table; they exist solely to encourage a high quality of education in schools, and head teachers should behave, and do behave, accordingly.

We do not believe that head teachers are engaged in unethical conduct. We believe in the professionalism of this country’s head teachers, so there is no need to be too prescriptive in the drafting of clause 37. The judgment of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State should be unclouded by the problems of managing the Labour party, which is why we believe that the clause should revert to its form before the concessions of 6 February—the day on which the Government published their response to the Education and Skills Committee.

I admit that the point is a political one, but it is politics that have led the Government down this path. Until all the pressure from the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, the Government had no intention of changing the law to make admissions authorities act “in accordance with”, because they were perfectly relaxed, as are we, with the phrase “to have regard to”. Wherever there has been a concession as a result of that pressure, we want to restore to the Bill the vision that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had before concessions were made, and we shall press amendment No. 407 to a vote.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I should like to continue the debate briefly on the question of the first-past-the-post system—sorry, I mean first preference first; I was thinking of my ten-minute Bill that will come before the House in June.

As I see it, it is not possible for any parent or group of parents to avoid what the hon. Gentleman described as gaming and risk assessment. The difficulty of supporting first preference first in those areas that select is that it gives protection to a certain group of parents against gaming and risk assessment—protection that is not provided to other parents. The fact of the matter is that the protection given to the parents of the most academically able children is not extended to the parents of the less academically able. That is the heart of the matter. All parents should be treated equally, should be in the same position, and should have to do the same amount of gaming and risk assessment, given the situation in which we find ourselves.

I was grateful for clarification on the status of the Wirral judgment, but of course there is supreme irony in the Government defending the fact that they have not incorporated it into the legislation or the code on the grounds that they merely had to have regard to it and were not required to act in accordance with it. I am sure that many admission authorities will spot that irony as the weeks and months go by.

I want to comment briefly on intake, and whether it is relevant. I believe it is. I do not feel that I have an obsession with intake, nor do I believe that it is the overriding factor in the success or otherwise of individual schools; it is one of a number of factors. I reiterate the point—I am glad that the Opposition are taking it up as the debate moves on—that management, leadership, quality of teaching and flexibility of the curriculum are the key factors. However, intake is important, too, and the overwhelming body of evidence in this country and abroad is that education systems comprising schools with more balanced intakes deliver higher levels of achievement overall and are most likely to fulfil the potential of each child.

In the United Kingdom, and particularly in England, we do not fare well in terms of the objective of delivering the potential of each child. The gap between the highest and lowest achievers is too big. There is still a long tail of under-achievement. The chances of a child developing his or her potential is closely related to which school they attend. In other countries, the impact of the individual school on the child’s performance is far smaller. That is why intake is important. Also, it remains a complete contradiction in the Opposition’s argument for them to deny that intake is relevant while forcefully arguing that schools should retain control over their own intake. We cannot have it both ways. Either intake is not relevant, and so it does not matter whether schools control their own intake, or intake is relevant, and so it is absolutely right that the Government should publish a stringent code, along with efficient compliance mechanisms.

On the Conservative party’s position on selective admissions procedures, both overt and covert, it always strikes me that the degree of fervour with which individuals support those selective procedures is absolutely related to the likelihood of their having been selected, or of their children having being selected. We have to consider the impact of selective procedures on all children, and not just speak from our own experience.

Finally, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that the code and its new mandatory status are to do with the difficulties of managing the Labour party. I do not deny that there are difficulties in managing our party from time to time, but the issue is not about politics; it is about logic and reason. The Government listened to the rational arguments made about the importance of the mandatory status of the code and responded to them, and that is how a Government should proceed. I am delighted that they have taken that view, and I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 38

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 212, in clause 38, page 27, line 24, leave out from ‘England' to end of line 26 and insert

‘shall consider the report published by the local education authority under section 85C (admissions report by local education authority) and prepare and publish its response to this report, which may include rejection, as may be prescribed.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16—Admissions report by local education authority—

‘After section 85B of SSFA 1998 insert—

“85C Admissions report by local education authority

(1) A local education authority shall once in every school year make a report to the admission forum containing the following information—

(a) the proposed admission arrangements for every school, including academies and city colleges, in the local education authority area,

(b) the number of applications for each year group admitting pupils for each school,

(c) the number of pupils accepted for each year group and, if oversubscription criteria are used, the number of pupils selected using each oversubscription criterion, and

(d) the area which the school recruits pupils compared to the area in which the school is situated.

(2) The opinion of the local education authority shall be included in the report as to—

(a) whether the proposed admission arrangements for each school comply with the Code for School Admissions,

(b) what changes, if any, each admission authority, or as the case may be the governing body or each academy or city college, should make to their admission arrangements to comply with the Code for School Admissions,

(c) the accuracy and appropriateness of information given to parents seeking admission to the school, and

(d) whether the totality of the admission arrangements for the area produces fair access to schools for all pupils, and if not what further action the authority intends to take to ensure fair access to maintained schools and academies and city colleges.”'.

New clause 53—Reports on school admissions—

‘(1) A local education authority in England may prepare and publish reports on such matters connected with the admission of pupils to maintained schools, Academies or City Technology Colleges in that area as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purposes of the preparation of a report under section (1), a local education authority may request any of the following bodies to provide the authority with any information held by them which falls within a prescribed description and is specified by the authority in its request—

(a) the governing body of any maintained school, Academy or City Technology College in the area for which the local education authority has responsibility or whose catchments area falls into that area;

(b) any local education authority in England for an area which adjoins the area of the authority requesting the information.

(3) A body mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) must comply with a request made by a local education authority in pursuance of that subsection.'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I shall speak to amendment No. 212 and new clause 16. The context of the amendments is the increased emphasis by individual admission authorities on effective mechanisms of compliance with the code of practice for school admissions.

I must admit that I feel a little ambivalent about the amendments, particularly new clause 16. I welcome the content of clause 38 and the fact that the Government have recognised the potential of admission forums, which are comparatively newly established bodies. Some of them operate fairly informally, and they might not all have had time to establish their sense of purpose. The clause will give them an important role.

Clause 38 needs to be seen in conjunction with the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, which spelled out that membership of admission forums would be changed to ensure that all schools were properly represented, thereby supporting and strengthening their new and important role in monitoring admission procedures on the local level.

The purpose of amendment No. 212 and new clause 16 is to question whether the responsibilities in clause 38, which will give admission forums the key role in preparing annual reports on how admission policies and procedures are operating locally and in identifying any unfair practice, would not be better conducted by the local education authority. The arguments are quite straightforward and twofold. In clause 38, the admission forum simply has the power to prepare and publish the report on all matters connected with pupil admission. Many admission forums might decide to use that power; some might not. Given that participation in the forums is largely voluntary and that they do not have their own permanent secretariat, it is an open question whether take-up of the new power would be significant.

Because the argument about the role of admission forums in monitoring compliance locally has been won, there is now a further debate about whether it would not be more effective for the local education authority to be responsible for producing the annual report and for that to be a statutory duty and not simply a power. Those are the two issues.

New clause 16 lists fairly precisely what the local education authority should include when preparing its annual report on the proposed admission arrangements: detailed analysis of applications to schools and descriptions of the area from which schools recruit their pupils, together with the local education authority’s opinion whether the proposed admission arrangements comply with the code for school admissions.

Whether or not the Government accept the amendment—whether the function rests with the admission forum supported by the local authority in its secretarial function or transfers to the local authority—it is a significant step forward in the effectiveness of the compliance mechanisms and in the potential for building consensus among schools on what constitutes good practice.

As I said in the debates on clauses 36 and 37, the current arrangements for school admissions, to secondary school in particular, are unsatisfactory. They provide an administrative nightmare, and they generate huge pressure on parents to secure a place at their preferred school and on head teachers to ensure that their school is not disadvantaged by its position in the league tables.

There is a powerful argument to have new arrangements locally, involving the local education authority and the admission forum to try to build a stronger consensus, establish peer group pressure and ensure that all schools play by the rules.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I want to make some general comments about the clause, before turning to our motion, new clause 53, and the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.

To put the matter into context, we must separately consider four stages of the admissions process. First, there is the setting of admissions policy, which is done by the admissions authority—either the local authority or, if it is an own-admissions-authority school, the relevant school. Secondly, there is the administration of that policy. Thirdly, there is the monitoring and reporting of it. And fourthly, there is the enforcement of any breaches of the code.

In common with the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that there is an important role for admission forums in trying to broker practice between schools and advising the local authority on setting its own admissions criteria for schools where it is the admissions authority. However, we have tabled an amendment to which we will speak later, in which we say that it would be far better if the local authority were to administer the admissions process. I am talking not about setting the policy, but administering it.

Then, there is the question of who should monitor and record the process. No matter who reports on it, there are some general principles in common with comments already made. First, whoever reports, it should be a duty, not just a power, because reporting is important and controversial.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is that more or less prescriptive thanthe Bill?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

It is more prescriptive than the Bill, but as I said, admissions is a matter of discrimination, and it is important that we ensure fair and equitable access. With respect, I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is the last time I shall answer that point because every time he interrupts my flow, my contribution takes longer, and I am trying to be speedy.

The second principle is that whoever produces the report should have the power to require schools to provide information allowing them to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point. We have included it in new clause 53(3). In common with provisions that the hon. Member for Bury, North has tabled, the report would include an assessment of the social mix.

Some aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment are far better than our new clause, and some aspects of our new clause are not included in his proposed provision. I suspect that the ideal amendment includes a combination of both.

Who would be the most appropriate person to write the report? I have some concerns about admission forums. Who would sit on them? Every school in the locality or just representatives? If it were every school, would not the forum be unmanageably large? Could it be expected to make decisions? I have some concerns about whether it is reasonable to expect admission forums to report a complaint to the adjudicator if they find that one of the schools on the forum has breached the code. Is it likely that they would do that, especially if representatives of that school are on the forum? Also, who will chair it, and who will resource it? One of the problems with admission forums at present is that they struggle with their resources, and they are often heavily driven by the local education authority.

Let me return to my earlier point about whether we need to separate the different aspects of admissions policy—setting the policy and administering it. Perhaps the answer is that the local education authority ought to be the body that scrutinises the setting of admissions policy for schools where it is not the admissions authority, and that it should test whether those schools are setting policies that are in accordance with the legislation. Should it not be the body that reports on that? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has examples from her constituency of schools that were found to be in breach of the law for quite some considerable period, because nobody had monitored them and noticed things. Perhaps the most appropriate body to produce a report on that aspect would be the local authority. However, if the local authority were the body administering the policy, perhaps it would be more appropriate if the admission forum were to be the body scrutinising the administering of that policy. Perhaps we need to separate these two aspects.

That is perhaps a complicated explanation. I suspect that it would be easier in practice than I have managed to elucidate.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is there not a role for politically elected representatives to fulfil as well, by way of scrutiny boards?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

That was exactly the other point I was going to come on to.

When we have these reports, where will they go, who will read them, and what will we do with them? It is also important to state on the record—this does not need to be included in the Bill—what should happen to those reports. It is vital that they go before a scrutiny committee to be evaluated; otherwise nothing will happen to them. It is no good just producing reports that end up on a website somewhere. Something must be done with them, and there must be power within the elected and accountable body to implement any changes brought up by that scrutiny process.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Clause 38 increases considerably the functions and powers of admission forums. Admission forums were created by the Education Act 2002 and are now governed by section 85 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Each local authority must have an admission forum, and its function is to advise the local authorities and admission authorities on a range of school admission issues.

Each admission forum has to have in its membership between one and five members of the local authority, between one and three members from the diocesan board of education, between one and three members nominated by the local Roman Catholic bishop, and between one and three members from each school group—not from each school—which are community and voluntary controlled schools, voluntary aided schools and foundation schools. The membership must also include at least three appointed to represent the community, academy representatives and city technology college representatives, and between one and three parent-governor representatives. This core group of people then co-opt other people representing the interests of the local community.

Therefore, there is an entire school admissions industry, and clause 38 seeks to extend its role and powers. If one wonders where all the money goes that is siphoned off by local education authorities before it reaches schools, this is just one example. There is an entire subsection devoted to the expenses of these 173 or so admission forums. Subsection (6) states:

“Regulations may make provision with respect to the expenses of an admission forum...the expenses of an admission forum for the area of a local education authority...are to be defrayed by the local education authority by whom the forum was established.”

The clause states that admission forums now need to do extra things. They need to make reports on admissions in the area, and request information from local education authorities and governing bodies. They have things to do in respect of the publication of these reports. They need to require schools to notify the admission forum of its admission arrangements. The clause allows the forum to refer admission arrangements to the adjudicator.

Not only do the admission forums have extra things to do; doing them will require schools and governing bodies to do things and supply information to enable the admission forums to do those extra things. That is why council taxes keep going up and why bureaucracies keep expanding; it all starts here. The hon. Member for Bury, North laughs but it all starts in Committee Rooms like this one, passing clauses like this. That is why we need to employ officers and bureaucrats locally and nationally, but to what effect? What effect does all this expenditure and employment have?

I have already rehearsed the arguments against over-obsessing about admissions and I will not repeat them. But the effectiveness of these bodies and initiatives on the very children that they were intended to help has been zero. Government figures from the Department for Education and Skills show that in 2002, at key stage 2, the gap between the achievement of children eligible for free school meals and those who are not eligible was equivalent to 2.8 terms’ worth of school time. The gap had widened to 2.9 terms by 2005.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman would simply add to the functions and role of admission forums, increasing their cost and the cost to schools and local authorities with no consequent increase in the quality of education.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we heard, the amendments relate to the interaction between an admission forum and its local authority. Forums already consider how well local admissions arrangements work and advise admissions authorities about any changes that they feel are necessary. We think they should play a more active role in ensuring that the arrangements operate fairly for all children. It falls under the stage of the process, outlined by the hon. Member for Brent, East, which comes under the monitoring role. It is appropriate that the admission forums be reconstituted; I shall come in a moment to some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the new arrangements.

The Bill gives admission forums extra powers to object to the schools adjudicator about the admission arrangements of any school in their area and to publish reports on how admissions operate in their area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, it is a power, not a duty, but it is pretty inconceivable that an admission forum would not carry out the very important new responsibility, which we are giving it the power to carry out, not least because of other changes that we are making to the arrangements for the admission forum.

The hon. Lady raised several issues. First, she questioned the membership of the admission forum. We propose that the membership should change to facilitate the additional powers we are giving to forums. Well researched as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton always is, he was wrong about the new membership of the admission forum. Yes, it will continue to contain the core members that he outlined, but we will add in the membership of every school in a particular area. That will not make the process of the admission forum unwieldy; sub-committees of admission forums which consider the situation in particular areas may be appropriate where there are big local authorities. It will not be necessary for every school to attend every meeting, but they may want to attend when, for example, the consideration of a referral to the adjudicator is relevant to their school or to a neighbouring school.

The hon. Member for Brent, East asked in so many words if the admission forums will be willing to shop another school. I think that they will, not because they want to shop another school but because, when the stakeholders concerned about the efficient and fair operation of admissions arrangements in an area are brought together, they will act together to identify the relevant cases and, where necessary, object, although the identification and what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North called peer pressure will have an important impact on admissions arrangements in the area.

Let us also remember that we are providing for admission forums to have the power to object to the adjudicator which local authorities and other schools in an area already have. The hon. Lady may fear that admission forums would not object, but the power already exists, and will continue to exist, for local authorities and other schools.

It will be for the core members of the admission forum to decide who will chair it. The local authority will need to provide administrative support for the admission forum as it does now. The hon. Lady asked where the report would go. Significantly, and importantly, it would go to the schools commissioner to help in the preparation of the two-yearly report on fair access. That will be important information in ensuring that the objective of fair access is achieved in a given area.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Select Committee was very concerned that the monitoring of compliance with the code should be as rigid as possible. Will she confirm that the schools commissioner’s reports on compliance with the code will be public documents?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, because the whole point of the report is that the schools commissioner should be able to identify whether the important objective of fair access is being achieved, and to ensure that it is.

Although new clause 16 is not undesirable, it is not necessary to table a new clause to require local authorities to report in detail to their admission forum on the admission arrangements of schools in their area, and on whether they believe that those are fair and in compliance with the school admissions code. Local authorities can already compile reports and give the forum any advice that they consider appropriate. In addition, as has been said, clause 38 will give admission forums the new power to prepare and publish a report on how fairly admissions arrangements operate in their area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who, I think, supports the idea of producing the reports, questioned the most appropriate place for it to happen. In my view, with its wider membership and the representation of parents as parent governors, for example, with the membership of other members of the community who may be on admission forums, and with the involvement of all schools, including those who are their own admissions authorities, the potential contribution of an admission forum may be broader, and the resulting report fuller, than if the local authority were to do it.

The important point is that the work is done and that the report is full. That is why regulation 2, paragraph (2) of the School Admissions (Admission Forums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which have been circulated to the Committee, includes a pretty full list of what we expect those annual reports to contain, including

“the number and percentages of...preferences met...

(b) the number of appeals made...

(c) the ethnic and social mix of pupils attending schools in the area...and the factors that affect this;

(d) the extent to which existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of looked after children, children with disabilities and children with special educational needs;

(e) how well the hard to place protocol has worked...

(f) whether primary schools are meeting their statutory duties in relation to infant class sizes;

(g) details of other matters that might affect how fairly admission arrangements serve the interests of children and parents within the authority; and

(h) any recommendation or recommendations that the forum wishes to make in order to improve parental choice and access to education in the area of the authority.”

That is pretty full, and in connection with the report the forum will be able to require the local authority and any other admissions authority to provide it with the information that it needs to carry out its task.

That was characterised as a massive additional burden that would cause council tax levels to rise. Given the usually measured approach of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I can only attribute his considerable over-statement, which does not bear any resemblance to what will happen, to our being just two days away from the local elections.

The large majority of the information is already collected, for example, through the pupil-level annual school census. We will not be placing a new burden on schools and admissions authorities or the local authority if they are to collect the information that I have outlined. Therefore, the need for local authorities to be given an additional, specific power for that purpose becomes redundant, as do the proposals in amendment No. 212.

New clause 53 is also unnecessary. As I have already explained, clause 38 allows admissions forums to prepare and publish a report into admissions matters in their area, and local authorities already have the power to publish reports on that.

I hope that, given the additional information and reassurance about that power, content and use of that report, with which I have provided the Committee—along with the information about the new proposals that we are making for the constitution and membership of admissions forums—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North will withdraw his amendment.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I want to thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. She has made clear her commitment to ensuring that we have effective compliance mechanisms locally. If we did not operate within a structure with a direct relationship between the capacity of a school to determine its own admissions and the level of segregation in the immediate locality—for example, schools controlling their own admissions have far lower percentages of children on free school meals, with special educational needs and whose first language is not English—and were not operating and had not inherited such a high level of segregation in our system, there would be no need to establish the mechanisms locally. To dismiss the provisions of the clause, or those of new clauses 16 and 53, would add a burden to the taxpayer and ignore the damaging effects of segregated intakes in our schools.

I welcome the emphasis that the new code of practice places on making avoidance and elimination of social segregation a major social theme in all our admissions policies. All schools, whatever their background, ethos or tradition, have to take that on board, because if they do not, in many parts of the country segregated schooling will increasingly become a reality—although not necessarily in the constituencies represented by members of the official Opposition—and we all know the disastrous consequences that that can have.

Given the Minister’s strong reassurances about her commitment to ensuring that effective compliance mechanisms are in place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I beg to move amendment No. 437, in clause 38, page 27, line 25, after ‘schools', insert

‘, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 438, in clause 38, page 27,line 34, after ‘school', insert

‘, academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts'.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The amendments are intended to probe the Government’s definition of “maintained schools”. Under clause 5(6) and clause 30, the definition does not include academies or city technology colleges. However, when the Minister was discussing school improvement partners, she described how SIPs would be provided by the relevant maintaining authority, which, in that case, was the Secretary of State.

The amendments were tabled to test whether the admission forum has the power to scrutinise and publish reports on academies and city technology colleges and request the relevant information from those schools.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Academies, through their funding arrangements, are required to comply with admissions legislation and the school admissions code. That means that academies must provide the admission forum with any information that it wishes to include in its report. In the case of CTCs, most have either become academies or are in the process of doing so. We are happy for admission forums to include in their reports the impact that CTCs have on the admissions in their areas. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady feels suitably reassured.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

On a point of clarification, the Minister said that she is happy for CTCs to be included, but will there be a requirement for them to co-operate?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by a requirement to co-operate. I was clear that academies and, I think, CTCs, where they exist, are members of admission forums. An admission forum’s report will detail the admissions arrangements of academies and CTCs. Academies, because of their funding agreements, will have to provide information to the admission forums. If it was necessary, or there was a difficulty with getting information from a CTC, we would be willing to obtain any information that an admission forum needed if it was not forthcoming.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I thank the Minister for putting those aspects on record, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 39

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I beg to move amendment No. 446, in clause 39, page 28, line 41, leave out first ‘of' and insert ‘and their'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 447, in clause 39, page 28,line 42, leave out ‘them' and insert ‘parents'.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

These are brief amendments, designed entirely to probe the Minister’s thinking about the way in which choice advisers may perform their duties. They make the point that it is not simply a matter for parents. In some shape or form, children must be involved in decisions about the future of their education. Clearly, for children coming up to the age of transfer to secondary school, parents have the prime responsibility. However, it is generally accepted within the context of the Children Act 2004, and with the appointment of a children’s commissioner to stressthe importance of a voice for children in all aspects of the way in which their health, education and welfare are delivered, that children should not be excluded from this process. The amendments make that point clear, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As my hon. Friend said, this clause complements existing provision in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which gives parents and carers the right to express a preference for the school that they want their children to attend. It places a duty on local authorities to provide advice and assistance to parents in their area so that they can make the most of the choices available. We said in the schools White Paper that we wanted local authorities to look again at how to improve the independent information that they provide to ensure that they enable parents to make well-informed choices. A combination of that duty and targeted funding to provide choice advisers will enable them to do that, ensuring that those parents who are least able to navigate the school admissions process will get the help that they need.

I agree with both elements of my hon. Friend’s points. When parents are making a choice about a school, it is important, as far as possible, that they discuss the decision with their children. That is why we encourage parents to involve their children in the decision-making process, which might involve, for example, choice advisers facilitating joint sessions with children or providing parents with advice on talking through these issues with children. However, it does, as my hon. Friend said also, remain the parents’ final decision. We think that that is right, especially when it involves younger children. We are largely talking about children who will be 10 or 11 at the point at which parents make this decision.

I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured that we would encourage parents to involve their children in the decision-making process. However, we do not feel that it is necessary to make the legislative provision that the amendments would bring.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I am grateful for that clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 39, page 28, line 43, at end add

‘, such advice to include full information regarding the provision of special schools available in the geographical area.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Amendment No. 192, in clause 39, page 28, line 43, at end add

‘, such advice to be monitored and evaluated by the local education authority for its effectiveness, with examples of good practice being collated and disseminated.'.

Amendment No. 388, in clause 39, page 28, line 43, at end add

‘, and no person shall be appointed to provide such advice and assistance unless he has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.

New clause 46—Professional standards for teachers—

‘Professional standards for teachers shall require that all those receiving—

(a) initial teacher training,

(b) assessment for induction or as a main scale teacher,

(c) assessment for threshold or as a senior teacher, or

(d) assessment for suitability as a head teacher,

shall be required to demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.

Amendment No. 387, in title, line 9, at end insert

‘to make provision about professional standards for teachers;'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause is about choice advisers. Amendment No. 47 would add to the requirement that local authorities provide advice and assistance to parents regarding their preferred choice of school the words,

“such advice to include full information regarding the provision of special schools available in the geographical area.”

That would ensure that choice advisers include information about special schools in an area. There is often an incentive for local authorities not to publicise fully their special education provision, particularly in special schools, due to the expense of the statementing process and educating challenging pupils in special schools. Parents of such children should be able to make meaningful choices, and they should be given information on the full range of special needs provision in an area. Too often, parents find out about special schools by chance.

Page 126 of the regulatory impact assessment states that the legislation will

“ensure that help is directed to those parents that require it most and local authorities will have to promote measures that help disadvantaged children.”

Children with special educational needs often come from the very groups whom the clause is intended to assist.

Amendment No. 192 is a management-type amendment to ensure that choice advisers carry out their role effectively. One way to achieve that would be to ensure that best practice is disseminated to them.

Amendment No. 388 states that

“no person shall be appointed to provide such advice and assistance unless he has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.”

It has the support of the Special Education Consortium, which argued:

“Where advice and assistance is provided to parents, those providing that advice and assistance should have a clear understanding of the statutory duties owed to disabled children and children with SEN.”

It is self-explanatory, and I hope that it will have the support of the Minister.

The Special Education Consortium also supports new clause 46 and amendment No. 387. The latter would amend the long title of the Bill to include the provisions of new clause 46, which would bring in professional standards for teachers. All those receiving teacher training or being assessed to be a main scale teacher, senior teacher or head teacher would be required to

“demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.”

The Special Education Consortium believes that to be necessary because of a series of Ofsted and Audit Commission reports that point to serious problems in the area. In its 2004 report, “Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools”, Ofsted reported:

“The quality of teaching seen on the visits for pupils with SEN was of varying quality, with a high proportion of lessons involving pupils with SEN having important shortcomings.”

It reported that, in a significant proportion of lessons,

“the teaching for the lowest-attaining pupils had weaknesses which prevented those pupils fully reaching their potential, even when the teaching for the rest of the class was good.”

In its 2002 report, “Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue”, the Audit Commission reported:

“Many teachers feel under considerable pressure, on the one hand to meet the needs of individual pupils, and on the other to deliver a demanding national curriculum and achieve ever-better test results; research suggests that many feel ill-equipped forthis task.”

The Special Education Consortium believes that training is the key to resolving such difficulties. It argues:

“Improved outcomes for disabled pupils and pupils with SEN are dependent on the improved knowledge, skills and understanding of those working with and for them. Training holds the key to this, and SEC believes that for teachers, for school leaders and for staff working at every level of the education service, SEN and disability should be a required element in their training and accreditation.”

Of course, the Government’s policy, as set out in their 2004 strategy document, “Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN,” says that it wants to see

“all teachers having the skills and confidence—and access to specialist advice where necessary—to help children with SEN to reach their potential.”

The strategy also sets out the Government’s intention to

“work with the Teacher Training Agency and higher education institutions to ensure that initial teacher training and programmes for continuous professional development provide a good grounding in core skills and knowledge of SEN and work with higher education institutions to assess the scope for developing specialist qualifications.”

In light of that, I hope that the amendments and the new clause will have the support of the Government.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I want to speak about the responsibility of authorities to inform parents about the special provision that is available for their children. I was about to cite my experience when my daughter, who will be 21 tomorrow, walked into the room, and I thought that I was not going to be able to speak. However, she has just walked out again. One of the reasons for authorities’ not informing parents is the wording of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which says that if a statement is maintained for a child under section 324, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That puts a presumption on the authorities to educate children in main school.

I know from first-hand experience that, because of that presumption, authorities do not inform parents fully of the special school provision that is available. My daughter, who has not come back yet, was educated in a non-maintained school—Kingham Hill school—in the “Greens unit” in year 7. She ended up having to go there because we, as parents, had no idea that special provision was available for children with special needs of her type. Since I have been an MP, many of my constituents have come to me with the same problem; they are not aware of what is available for them and they are not informed by the local education authority. Even when their children are statemented, they are still not informed by the LEA that special school provision could be given—and that is because, thanks to the wording of the Act, mainstream school is the presumption.

I fully support the amendment. The Bill should provide for LEAs to have a duty and a responsibility to inform all parents of what special provision is available, and for the presumption to be not on mainstream school but on where parents want their children with special needs to be educated.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments underlying the amendments. The hon. Lady has spoken passionately about something that we all know happens, albeit some of the parents who attend our surgeries have the ability to research schools and come to ask for funding while others have not managed to get all the information. Often, the schools in question come under the next-door authority or something like that. I accept that there are big issues.

We have made enormous improvements in the teaching of those with special educational needs in all sorts of ways, such as greater professionalisation of staff, but nobody can deny that we have a long way to go. I am very much in favour of inclusion, but I believe that the pendulum has swung a bit too far towards mainstream education, so I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendments.

My questions concern the draft code of admissions. I imagine that it covers—it certainly should—the first two amendments in terms of the information that is to be provided and the monitoring that is to take place to ensure that it has been provided, and I seek the Minister’s assurance that special educational needs will be fully covered by its provisions.

I understand exactly where the last amendment is coming from; there are so many examples. I recently asked all the local education authorities in our vicinity whether they had considered the kitemark for dyslexia in all their schools. One replied that it had never heard of it; another replied that it was working on a much wider kitemark for special educational needs, which seemed a good thing; a third replied that it did not want to know. It was very variable, which is why there is a lot more to be done to achieve a whole-school engagement with all the issues surrounding special educational needs. However, the wording here leads me to ask what the professional standards for teachers shall require, how and by whom.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Does the hon. Lady agree that inmany teacher training schools, particularly on the postgraduate certificate in education courses, some teachers receive as little as one hour’s training on children with special needs? Some have none at all.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I certainly cannot claim to be entirely up to date on this, although my daughter trained about 10 years ago and she certainly chose to get the whole special educational needs qualification once she was a practising teacher. That perhaps shows that she personally felt that there were huge deficiencies in what she was presented with. We are also looking for ongoing professional training, because teachers appreciate different aspects of teaching the more experienced they become. There are difficulties with the wording here and the prescription, but I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. There is good practice around and I should like to be assured that the Government are spreading that message. Iam not at all sure about the wording of amendment No. 388. I will leave that for the Minister to comment upon.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we have already discussed,clause 39 will ensure that local authorities provide better advice to parents to help them to make decisions about the choice of school for their child. Amendment No. 47 would require local authorities to give parents information on the availability of special schools in their area. Clearly advice to the parents of children with special needs will be a key part of the role of choice advisers, as I will outline in a moment. But it is already the case that under the special educational needs code, when local authorities make a statement, they must provide parents with a list of all primary and secondary schools and maintained special schools. In addition, they must provide parents with a list of non-maintained special schools and independent special schools that have been approved by the Secretary of State.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Does the Minister not accept that this does not happen and that local education authorities simply do not do this?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I certainly cannot accept that all local authorities always do not do it. A reason for having it in the special educational needs code is to make it absolutely clear in statutory guidance that that is what should happen. In circumstances where it does not, it is wrong and complaints should be made.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

My right hon. Friend may not be aware that Mossbourne city academy in Hackney takes all children with autism as a priority. The aim within the family of schools in Hackney is that each school will take their responsibilities to children with special educational needs properly. I am sure that she would agree that that is a good model for what the Bill outlines.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Once again my hon. Friend has demonstrated good practice with respect to academies in those circumstances.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, not for the moment. [Interruption.] Okay I will, although I can never guess what the hon. Lady is going to ask.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Would the Minister clarify whether it is a responsibility for academies to take children with special needs? Is it not the case that there is no responsibility when a child has been statemented for an academy to accept him or her?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I did not know that the hon. Lady would ask a question that we have covered already. I made it clear that academies, through their funding agreements, have to fulfil the legislation with respect to children with statements. So, yes they do have to.

Standing Committee E

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

May I say what a pleasure it is to be back after our snack break? I have a suspicion, however, that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is not yet here, will have fitted in more than a snack.

Moving away from our digestion, I remind hon. Members that before the suspension I was, I hope, reassuring them about the provisions already in the special educational needs code of practice which require a list of schools, including special schools, in an area to be brought to the attention of parents during the statementing process.

I intended to talk about the fact that the guidance to local authorities on the provision of choice advisers already states that such advisers will be expected to have an understanding of special needs policy and provision in the area for children with special educational needs. Advisers will also be expected to draw on the knowledge and expertise of local parent partnership services in providing advice to parents. I hope that my comments reassure hon. Members that we are clear that choice advisers have an important role in respect of children with special educational needs and that we have made that clear in the choice advice guidance.

Amendment No. 192 relates to monitoring and quality assurance of the work of choice advisers. We have already made provision for that through the choice advice support and quality assurance network, which will be operated by the voluntary and community sector. That network is external to and independent of local authorities and will have a key role in ensuring the impartiality of the advice given by choice advisers. It will examine the quality of what is offered.

In addition to that work, we plan to contract for formal external evaluation of choice advice. That evaluation is likely to focus on issues including the effectiveness of choice advice delivery and operations; the effectiveness of our measures to ensure independence of choice advice; the impact of local authority and/or school performance management arrangements on choice advisers; parental perception of the quality of that advice; and the impact of the advice on admissions patterns for disadvantaged children and on social mobility.

With regard to amendment No. 388, a key element of providing choice advisers for parents will be ensuring that the individuals appointed receive full training to enable them to provide the advice that parents need. I can assure the Committee that SEN and disability legislation, along with admissions law, the school admissions code and other equality legislation, will be part of that training. This is a broader requirement than the amendment proposes and will also cover schools’ own descriptions of what they offer contained in the online school profile, their ethos and any special facilities, including those for children with special educational needs and disabled children.

New clause 46 and amendment No. 387 relate to professional standards for teachers. The Secretary of State already has the power to set professional standards for teachers and does so in secondary legislation and associated guidance. There is no need to set out specific standards in primary legislation, but I assure hon. Members that the current standards for teachers are under review. It is proposed that, once revised, they will include a standard that requires teachers to know and comply with current legislation on the well-being of children and young people, a standard that requires teachers to know and understand the role of others when dealing with children who have special educational needs and/or disabilities and a standard that requires teachers to communicate effectively with parents and carers. That provision, too, will be stronger than the amendment, which talks only about people demonstrating

“an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation”.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members on the amendments and that they will not press them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that response from the Minister and I am reassured by some things. The external evaluation for choice advisers is a useful measure to ensure that the quality of advice being given is good. I am also reassured by what she had to say about the training of choice advisers and by her comments regarding standards for teachers. I understand why they are set out in secondary legislation, but in this Committee we can only table amendments to primary legislation. I was reassured by her mention of the current positions under review, and I was content with what she had to say about the new words concerning professional standards in relation to children with special educational needs and disabilities.

However, I am not yet convinced by the Minister’s response concerning the requirement in amendment No. 47 that choice advisers give full information regarding the provision of special schools available in the geographical area. Committee members have seen too many examples of parents being denied this information. It will send a clear message if we include in the Bill the provisions in amendment No. 47. I was particularly struck by the real-life experience outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). In light of that, and other experiences from outside the House of which I have been made aware, I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) to move amendment No. 204, I should apologise to the hon. Member for Bury, North for the fact that amendment No. 448, in his name, has been left off the amendment paper in error. In any event, the amendment has not been selected.

Clause 40

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in clause 40, page 29, line 4, after ‘school', insert

‘(except a school to which this section does not apply)'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 213, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview', insert ‘or written test'.

Amendment No. 436, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview', insert

‘(whether face to face or by telephone)'.

Amendment No. 214, in clause 40, page 29, line 6, after ‘interview', insert ‘or written test'.

Amendment No. 48, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) If the maintained school is one which has been designated as a school having a religious character in accordance with section 69, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess religious commitment and religious practice.'.

Amendment No. 49, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview conducted to assess intended compliance with a home school contract.'.

Amendment No. 369, in clause 40, page 29, line 12, at end insert—

‘(2A) If the maintained school is of a religious character and preference is given to applicants for admission to that school on the basis of the religious practice of the pupil, then subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess the suitability of the applicant for such a school.'.

Amendment No. 406, in clause 40, page 29, line 15, at end insert ‘interview,'.

Amendment No. 208, in clause 40, page 29, line 18, at end insert—

‘(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any interview conducted in connection with the admission of pupils to the school for secondary education suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsory school age.'.

Amendment No. 205, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end add—

‘(5) This section does not apply to a foundation, voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled school which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 69 as a school having a religious character.'.

Amendment No. 215, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end add—

‘(2) In section 482 (academies) of EA 1996, in subsection (2)—

(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after paragraph (b) insert “and

(c) does not have admission arrangements which require or authorise any interview with an applicant for admission to the academy or his parents, where the interview is to be taken into account (to any extent) in determining whether the applicant is to be admitted to the academy”.'.

Clause stand part.

New clause 9—Freedom to interview—

‘A maintained school shall have complete freedom to interview candidates for admission at its absolute discretion, including in cases where the interview plays a part in deciding whether the candidate is to be admitted to the school.'.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I must admit I am very hurt that the Minister has not seen fit to accept any of my amendments so far. Despite all the plaudits that I have given her, and the advances that I have made to her through my speeches, they have been all cruelly rejected. However, there comes a moment when one gets angry, and I am a bit angry about this aspect of the Bill. It first motivated me to take an interest in the legislation, and I put my concerns directly to the Prime Minister, face to face, in the Liaison Committee.

The reason why I feel angry is no secret. I am interested in faith education—specifically Catholic education, but Anglican education, too—particularly in London, where such schools are oversubscribed. It is no secret that the Prime Minister sent his sons to the London Oratory school, which has always interviewed pupils. I have sent a son there and another of my sons is going there next year. Some people think that Conservative MPs have a go at the Prime Minister over the London Oratory only because they are trying to make a political point. I feel strongly about the school not because I want to make such a point but because it provides a superb ethos, and that is precious.

Presumably, the Prime Minister had to be interviewed to get his children into the school. Having enjoyed the education that it gives, it is wrong that he should now put his name to a Bill that will ban that and other faith schools from interviewing. I feel strongly about the issue and I freely admit that I speak from personal experience. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister or the Minister in their heart of hearts really want this unnecessary clause.

My hon. Friends support the Bill. Some parts of it are really worth while and will provide a small impetus towards getting more choice and diversity. All that is fair enough. However, why does there have to be this mean-minded little clause to ban interviews, just to appease the Bill’s critics? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said many times, the Bill was going to get an enormous majority in any event, so the clause was quite unnecessary.

Perhaps I will be told, “Edward, don’t worry about the banning of interviews; only a few schools interview now.” But why on earth do we have to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Given that only a few of the 3,500 schools interview, do we need the clause? I do not think so. Relatively few schools interview, but I am aware only of faith schools that do so.

Incidentally, the Bill makes it clear that interviews can be held to ascertain a propensity for boarding. I would have thought that a state boarding school, or a state school that takes some boarders, could use that as a device not only to ascertain the aptitude of children in respect of boarding, but—horror of horrors—in a hidden way to select parents who are middle-class or support the ethos of the school. Apparently, interviewing is allowed for some things, but a faith school cannot interview to preserve its ethos.

I have a lot of time for the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and he feels strongly about this issue. He is very knowledgeable and perfectly entitled to his point of view, but I understand that he, along with many others in this House and many in the educational world, is strongly opposed to faith schools. I happen to think that those people are wrong.

There is a bit of a hidden agenda. I do not think that many such people are really opposed to existing faith schools—the very small number of Jewish schools or the long-established Anglican or Roman Catholic schools. Some people who oppose faith schools are opposed really to Muslim schools, not because of nasty, racist views or views against Muslims or any other such thing, but because they are worried that such schools will create a ghetto mentality. They are particularly worried about single-sex Muslim schools, which provide different education for girls and for boys.

We live in a very politically correct society, and although nobody dares admit it, I think that many people opposed to faith schools have that hidden agenda. Others oppose such schools because they believe that they cherry-pick and use the interviews, which are supposed to assess Anglicanism or Catholicity, as a hidden means of selecting middle-class pupils.

I can speak only from personal experience of a Catholic primary school, a Catholic comprehensive school and an Anglican school—Lady Margaret school in London, to which I tried and failed to send a daughter and which also interviewed at that stage. When I went to those schools to be interviewed with my children, it was clear that the questions asked were a genuine attempt to test the commitment, particularly of the child, to the Catholic or Anglican faith. It will be said by the opponents of such interviews that when the headmaster or the deputy head asks a 10-year-old child what he or she understands about Easter, it will be easy—it will happen in a trice—to work out the social background of the child and so on. The opponents of interviews say that they are hidden a means of selecting middle-class parents.

I do not believe that. I genuinely believe that the London Oratory school and others that I have come across are trying in a difficult world to preserve their ethos. That is important. Such schools tend to be oversubscribed. Many parents living in inner-city areas find it quite difficult to gain access to really good education unless they are prepared to pay for a private school—most cannot afford to do so—or unless they get a priest to sign a chit in order to get the child into a faith school.

It is distressing to attend open meetings at such schools as I have done, because one comes to realise that some are oversubscribed by as much as 8:1. Many parents will be bitterly disappointed at not getting their children a place. What can be done by those who run schools that are so oversubscribed? They are comprehensive schools: that is in the statute. They cannot select on ability—we are not going to have that debate again. It is only fair that a Catholic school should give preference to Catholics and an Anglican school should give preference to Anglicans. I presume that the same applies to Jewish schools, although I suspect that the constituency for that faith is much smaller and easier to manage.

If we are going to give preference, how should it be done? What is the best way to do it? The best way is surely to interview. It will be said that interviews cause much stress and difficulty. Frankly, the stress is not due to the interview but to being turned down—often for what are thought to be unfair reasons. It will be said that a form can be filled in by the local priest—I presume that the same applies in the Anglican world—and that the form is supposed to determine one’s commitment. If a Catholic school is oversubscribed by 8:1 or 7:1, or even 6:1, we are surely agreed that it should give preference to people who are strongly committed to their faith. That is a given, but how does one determine it?

I have seen the form. I also know that some London parishes are booming because of the great influx of people from the Philippines, from Poland and from other areas. In some parishes in the outer areas of inner London, 2,000 or 3,000 people are coming to services on Sunday mornings. How can the parish priest possibly know whether or not someone is a keen Catholic? We all know what goes on. Because parents are so desperate to get their children into the few faith schools, they will turn up at church a few times, if possible make themselves known to the parish priest and get the priest to sign the form because they want their child to get into a faith school—all because the other schools are rubbish. It is virtually impossible for many priests to know who is in their parish and to give a proper rÃ(c)sumÃ(c) of their faith, so a lot of cheatinggoes on.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that because lots of new Catholics are arriving from Poland and the Philippines, particularly in the capital, interviewing should remain. How does he think someone newly arrived from Poland without much English would fare in an oral interview?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a fair point. Schools should be very careful in how they handle the situation, but I think that they are experienced. My impression is that they make no attempt to disadvantage people because of difficulties with language. A genuine attempt is being made to conduct the interviews in an understanding way. They could be done through interpreters or by using help. They are not brutal occasions. They are not like House of Commons Committees; they are not confrontational. The people involved are experienced in posing questions. Many people can be given help. What the Minister says is not necessarily an argument against interviews.

The trouble with not having interviews and basing everything on a form is that it is difficult to obtain an accurate answer. A Catholic priest told me that priests do not want to become spiritual policeman. They do not become priests—Anglican or Catholic—to go through this heartrending business of having to make a decision. They are faced with 10, 15 or 20 forms that John McIntosh from the London Oratory school, or the head teacher from another school, has demanded. They do not want to have to say whether X is a good Catholic. Such a situation is ridiculous. It is not what those religions are about. They should be welcoming to everybody. Priests want this burden placed on the school and not on them.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Surely the Catholic priest should simply be ticking a box to say whether someone is a practising Catholic and not determining the extent to which someone has a religious commitment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I agree that that is supposed to be the situation. However, it is difficult for someone running one of the huge parishes in London to say with any certain knowledge whether or not someone is a practising Catholic. This the last thing that a priest wants to do; they do not want to have to tick a box that could affect somebody’s entire future by saying that he or she turns up every Sunday. Such a situation would be ridiculous. They should not be required to do that, because it is unfair on them.

I go to my local parish in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire. My constituency does not have any Catholic schools but there is a Catholic primary school in Brigg and a Catholic secondary school in Lincoln. The issue is different there. Those schools are not oversubscribed; the parishes are small and stable; and people are well known in the area. There is not a great mobility of population. The system works there, but things are much more difficult in London. It is wrong to put priests in this invidious position.

Why is the clause included? Why are interviews being banned?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.