Clause 1 - Purpose and Interpretation of Chapter One
[Part I]Education Bill
4:30 pm

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 40, in page 1, line 8, leave out

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

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

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

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

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

''and the improvement of social inclusion''.

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

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

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

''and promoting equality of opportunity''.

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

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

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

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

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

''and promoting equality of opportunity''.

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

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

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

Just before we adjourned I mentioned the Minister's suggestion that amendment No. 3 might be a charter for lawyers. I highlighted the exchange between the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the Minister. A word such as ''innovation'' can have a panorama of meanings in the context of the Bill and the amendments.

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

May I put to the hon. Gentleman the example of a former grant-maintained school in my constituency? The school is at the forefront of innovation, but like many successful schools that have been innovating for a long time, it

does not want to build on that and lose further support. That would happen under the hon. Gentleman's amendment because it refers to

''any change from existing practice''.

Hayfield school attained beacon status for its teacher training. His amendment would negate any bid it might make for further innovation support.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

That point highlights the difficulty of the word ''innovation''. I would sympathise with a school that is at the forefront of innovative practice, which would find it inappropriate and frustrating to have such an imposition placed on it. The word ''innovation'' is tried and tested, especially in company law. In the context of intellectual property, an improvement or a development would be something growing from existing practice, such as in the hon. Lady's example. An innovation is something wholly new, and would be the basis of an intellectual property application if subject to a patent.

The word ''innovation'' has a meaning in the lay world that we understand. All parties welcome innovation and best practice in schools, especially when successful. However, the word ''innovation'' demands clarification. My remarks had to be made in a stand-alone speech rather than an intervention. I am concerned about amendment No. 3 being a charter for lawyers. The boot is on the other foot, because without amendments Nos. 1, 2 and particularly 3, the potential for a charter for lawyers exists. That is partly because of existing practice in law concerning use of the word ''innovation''. Under part 1, all schools can apply and some will be disappointed, which could lead to a legal challenge. That would become a lawyers' charter. To have a cause of action before the appropriate court, judgment would have to be made about what had taken place in schools, at whose initiative, in what time period and whether it qualified as an innovation, an improvement or a development of existing practice. The hon. Lady was kind enough to highlight that in her example.

Our discussion shows that the Bill is not clear and that the amendments are needed. I fully support the work of my hon. Friends. The Minister's judgment about the amendment being the cause of a lawyers' charter cannot be supported. On the contrary, the current wording is more likely to be a lawyers' charter and, therefore, more likely to cause interruption and disappointment for those who want the Bill's aims to succeed.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

I am delighted that you are back to look after us again this afternoon, Mrs. Adams, and I welcome you. It is becoming apparent that we may need to sit this evening. I do not know whether you will be able to continue in the Chair if we do, but I am delighted that you are here for the afternoon.

I am slightly puzzled by our discussion of the amendment, because looking through the clauses, the word ''innovation'' appears only in the title of chapter 1. The word ''innovative'' appears once, but the lengthy contribution about the word ''innovation'' may be somewhat superfluous. My hon. Friend the

Member for Don Valley made an important point, which I shall develop. Amendment No. 3 would exclude proposals that are already being implemented but which have, if I can express this tactfully, a less than certain statutory basis. In other words, some things are happening that have an unclear statutory basis, but we want to encourage them with these measures. Under the amendment, they would not be defined as a ''change from existing practice'', and no hon. Members would wish to block them. I am also advised that the amendment would rule out several proposals that might not be directly related to classroom practice, as the word ''practice'' causes some problems. I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

We have had a good debate on the amendments, with contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will deal with them specifically so that we can make some progress.

I thought that amendment No. 74 was not contentious and that the Government would welcome it. The Opposition were talking about trying to promote as well as facilitate, and we thought that promotion was at the heart of the Government's aims. It is worth investigating what the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions had to say this afternoon in his statement on local government. He said:

''I want to tackle the trend towards excessive central prescription and interference, which dominated central local relations in the 1980s and 90s. We are reversing that approach. The White Paper marks a pronounced step away from centralisation. It is about increased freedoms, better incentives, and a significant reduction in the number of controls, consent requirements, plans and over-elaborate guidance which have been all too characteristic of the top-down approach to local government.''

He went on to say that that was

''based on a belief that we don't need to control everything, and a recognition that local authorities are often in the best position to respond to local needs and aspirations.''

That is in direct contradiction with what is in the Bill, and represents what we are trying to do with the amendments. Amendment No. 74 is at the heart of that. If we cannot reach an agreement with the Government to include proposals to promote innovation by schools and local authorities, we have little hope of achieving anything in the Committee and the quicker we are out of here, the better. We shall ask for a separate vote on amendment No. 74.

The hon. Member for Don Valley was right to say that amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78 are probing amendments and I apologise for not making that clear. We are trying to discover the scope for innovation. I am happy with the Minister's response and with the way in which other members of the Committee interpreted the proposals, and I shall not push the amendments to a vote.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are also probing amendments about the principle of equality of opportunity. Many Liberal Democrat Members feel that it is most important to establish the principle of equality of opportunity in social legislation. However, sometimes that principle has to be moved aside in order to move pupils towards a particular status. Earlier, when we discussed grant-maintained schools, we talked about the fact that there was not equality of opportunity because some had more resources and opportunities than others. There is a feeling that the same principle is being established by this Government in respect of specialist schools. However, we shall not press those amendments to a Division.

Amendment No. 40 is the central principle of our proposals and we shall ask the Committee to divide on it. The Minister did not even attempt to clarify what the Government meant by successful schools. I hope that he will do so later because we shall return to this important principle again and again. The Secretary of State wants to control the process and act as a gatekeeper to innovations throughout the country and no hon. Member, in their heart of hearts, can accept such a situation.

The principle that all schools other than those with special measures or with serious weaknesses should have access to whatever powers are available should be enshrined in the Bill, as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members agree. If the Secretary of State and the Minister want to encourage innovation, they should start from the principle that all can do so unless there is due cause.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who was right to say that innovation does not have to take place simply by removing legislation; that point was well made. There is much innovation in schools, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that since 1988, innovation in many areas has been limited because of legislation. Successive Governments have seen education legislation as a top priority in changing or driving up standards, or whatever is the mantra of the day. It is important to consider other areas of legislation that could be disapplied in order to free up schools and make them more innovative. I give one example that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions mentioned in his statement this afternoon of being able to borrow capital, which is often crucial if a particular school is actually to achieve something. The grant-maintained schools have that freedom because they have access to capital, although I accept that they cannot borrow it. That is what we wanted to consider in amendment No. 40.

Over the years, some amazingly innovative projects have been initiated in schools and between schools, local authorities and private sector organisations. If we really want to innovate, I hope that the amendment will be enshrined in the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

I was hoping that clause stand part would be taken formally, but the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has

repeated a couple of misunderstandings with which I thought we dealt earlier, so let me correct them on the record again.

I have not explained in detail what we mean by successful schools because there is no reference to successful schools in chapter 1 of the Bill. There is a reference to the performance of schools in chapter 2, which starts with clause 5, so we shall discuss performance under that clause. In case there is any confusion, I want to make it clear that any school, successful or not, will be able to apply for the power to innovate under the clause. I thought that the hon. Gentleman implied that that was not the case.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)

I note the Minister's comment that any school will be able to apply under clause 1 and therefore his suggestion that innovation will be favoured. However, we must consider his words in the context of the unfortunate attitude that the Government chose to take a moment ago toward constructive amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—amendments that would have shifted the balance in the clause to ensure that there was a presumption in favour of an innovative proposal and that would have removed the provision for the Secretary of State's wide discretion.

Most Members and most people outside the House would prefer a stronger reassurance from the Minister that there will be a presumption in favour of innovation. Even though he resisted the relevant amendment and the massed ranks of Government Members narrowly won the vote on it, he can use the Committee to stress on the record that the Government will exercise their discretion in favour of innovation whenever possible and unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. I should welcome his taking the opportunity to do so.

The Minister may feel on reflection that the wide-open approach under clause 1, with criteria yet to be fixed, is thoroughly inadequate. Again, I ask him to place on the record some meaningful indication of the criteria the Secretary of State will use when deciding whether an application should be granted. At the moment, members of the Committee and those who take an interest in our proceedings are completely in the dark as to the Government's intentions, and the Minister has done nothing to dispel that. I hope that he will take advantage of the opportunity to do so.

I have a couple of other points. My reading of the Bill is that clause 1 is not self-embracing and that it does not include provisions of the Education Bill because the aspects of education legislation that are covered by the clause are already listed in the Education Act 1996. An interested organisation outside the House would like the Minister to clarify and confirm that point. It would be a concern if the all-embracing power were to embrace the legislation that we are debating.

On the role of local education authorities, the Minister said that intervention would take place in inverse proportion to success, which implies that there will be a degree of choice. He went on to say that there would be different relationships between LEAs and different schools and types of schools. Again, he leaves a contradiction hanging in the air: apparently the LEA will have the option to intervene in proportion to the success or otherwise of the school, but he has not made it clear that that will apply to all schools. I should welcome his doing so.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stressed that the Government were seeking to achieve national consistency. There is an inherent contradiction between that aim and clause 1, which seeks to establish innovative solutions. How can those two aims be reconciled? The Minister was shameless in his defence of the Government's approach of taking power centrally and shifting from primary to delegated legislation. Surprisingly, he did not defend that course of action using the experience of the past four years, when there has been an annual education Act and therefore an opportunity for Ministers to ensure that the legislative provisions were up to date. Instead, he tried to justify the Government's determination to use more delegated legislation with express reference to events prior to 1997. That seems an absurd position for him to adopt.

The hon. Member for South Shields pointed out, rightly, that innovation covers a multitude of sins. That is precisely why the Committee, if it were taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should, should have agreed to put more detail on the face of the Bill and deal with some of the central contradictions. I will not divide the Committee on clause stand part, but I am disappointed. I think I speak for all Opposition Members in saying that we are disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to clarify their position or put in the Bill some of the more important issues that have been debated. I am particularly disappointed that the Minister was so keen to resist the inclusion in the Bill of a presumption in favour of innovation, which leaves all hon. Members with grounds to doubt the seriousness of the Government's claim that they want to promote innovative solutions in education.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has tried to reopen debates that we have effectively concluded. On his point about the Government's willingness to grant innovation, I simply refer him to the clear statements that I made this morning: the record will show that I dealt with that matter fully. His other point, which was new, was what he described as the self-referential issue in the Bill. I refer him to clause 2(1)(a), which states that the applicant would have conferred exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation including, of course, those elements of education legislation that are in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the debate.