[Continuation from column 76]
Education Bill
8:00 pm
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
They now have to earn autonomy. To refresh hon. Members' minds, I was saying that schools have delivered on what the Government have asked. They have produced outstanding responses to a whole host of initiatives, some of which they were not keen to participate in. The idea that they now have to earn autonomy is rather sad.
However, if that is to be the case, the amendment suggests that objective criteria should be applied. The Minister has made it clear, throughout the day, that he is prepared to set some objective criteria, and the Committee wants to hear them. I also have problems with the criteria. When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke earlier, and cut to the chase, he started to talk about specific objective criteria. Earlier, I had raised the issue of how to judge whether a school is failing or successful. If one does that simply by narrow, national objective criteria, one can quickly fall foul of it. The comments that I made earlier about five A to Cs are an example of that. If the judgment is made on the basis of exclusions, levels of improvement, or any of those simple objective measures, one will not get to the heart of what the Government want from innovation, and what I hope Opposition parties also want. We must therefore be careful about what criteria we use.
I emphasise, however, that it is important that we have a chance to see what criteria the Government have in mind with regard to earned autonomy. If we do not have that opportunity, schools will be thrashing about in the dark, trying to find out what is in the Government's mind before they make the relevant applications. Although the amendments are slightly flawed, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West makes a good a point, and I trust that the Minister will respond accordingly.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
We now reach the much anticipated part of the Bill that deals with earned autonomy, or, as the parliamentary draftsman has expressed it, exemptions related to school performance. It would be helpful to begin by clarifying the distinctions between the exemptions available here, and the innovation available under the part of the Bill that we have just finished discussing.
First, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, is available on application to any school, the exemptions are only available to schools meeting specified performance criteria. Secondly, when the power to
innovate can be used to relax any regulatory requirements in education law, the exemptions can only be applied to curriculum provisions or pay and conditions provisions. Thirdly, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, will entail a judgment being made by the Secretary of State on whether the proposal will raise educational standards, the exemptions will usually apply, in effect, as of right, without the need for such a judgment to be made, although there may be exceptions to that, to which I shall come in a moment. Fourthly, when the power to innovate is being piloted, as we discussed previously, the exemptions can be of indefinite duration—although they can be removed under clause 8, they are not of fixed duration.
We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as clear as possible, as both hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned. Over time, we want to provide all schools with the opportunity to aim towards it, as standards continue to rise, and leadership continues to improve further. The criteria that are used to award autonomy to schools will be clear and consistent, and we will ensure—as far as is possible—that they are objective. However, with regard to amendment No. 9, the criteria will need to involve an element of judgment—it will be impossible for us entirely to dispense with that.
I offer an example to illustrate that point. The two key areas that I would expect the criteria to address are the school's performance and its Ofsted report. It is important to note that the performance data will be published, and that we will increasingly be able to refer to value added performance data. A school might meet the performance criteria, and its latest Ofsted report might suggest that it has strong leadership, in which case, on the objective criteria, it would qualify for the exemptions. However, I hope that Committee members will agree with me that, if the school's entire leadership team had changed since the Ofsted report was produced, the Secretary of State would need to exercise judgment with regard to deciding whether exemptions should be made available.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
Does the Minister have in mind specific performance criteria, such as the five A to Cs criteria, which has been used—by the Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State—to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful schools?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I would expect the performance data to include several types of information: absolute performance information, such as GCSE results, and key stage 3 results that take account of free school meal bands; improvement in performance; and value added data, which is increasingly becoming available. Those would constitute the parameters of our proposals, but we will consult on the precise criteria.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I hope that it will not sound churlish if I say that, for the first time today, the Minister is beginning to answer some of the concerns of Committee members who do not represent the Labour party. We want to be told of the details of the Government's intentions.
Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put a little more flesh on the bones by agreeing to set out, at least in draft form, what those criteria will be, before the House concludes its consideration of the Bill?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of appreciation. However, the reason I am answering questions about earned autonomy for the first time, is because this is the first time that we have addressed the subject.
The hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable request, and I hope that it will be possible to comply with it, although I cannot guarantee that at present. We would expect the criteria to include an assessment of the leadership of the school—which will probably be based on Ofsted's assessment—as well as performance data. We would also expect a consultation to take place with regard to those ideas.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
One obvious circumstance in which a school could look to the Department for consent to take steps under the provisions would be if it were a failing school in which a new head teacher had been employed with a mandate to turn the school round. That should be reflected in the criteria that the Government set out.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
If the school is failing, it is highly unlikely to meet the performance criteria. However, if such a school wished, it could apply under chapter 1 to use the powers to innovate. It would not qualify for the automatic exemptions under chapter 2.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
Will the Minister extend that a little further? Are the prescribed criteria in subsection (1) a single set that relates to both curriculum provisions and pay and conditions provisions, or is the Secretary of State permitted to set two sets of criteria that relate to two different provisions? The latter may seem more appropriate because if a school was near to failing, it would be evident that that was the point at which one should encourage the recruitment of more and better teachers by, perhaps, offering better terms and conditions of service.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
No, we envisage that the criteria will be the same for both. When performance criteria were met, the school would be entitled to take on the exemptions that are listed in clause 6.
I return to the issue raised by amendment No. 9 concerning the Secretary of State exercising his judgment. I hope that my examples have made it clear that there will be cases in which judgment must be applied. However, that would not usually be the case, and would be the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of cases, there would be no doubt about whether schools meet the criteria.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister explained that, under chapter 1, all schools may apply to innovate. However, under clause 5, only schools that have earned autonomy may disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions. Have I followed the Minister so
far? Does that assume, under chapter 1, that a school cannot innovate about the curriculum unless it has satisfied earned autonomy under clause 5?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 2, which states:
''On the application of one or more qualifying bodies...the Secretary of State may . . . make provision . . . conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation''.
A school may apply for an exemption from any requirement of education legislation under the powers to facilitate innovation. Those requirements include curriculum legislation.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
The point that I make is that unless a school has earned autonomy, it cannot disapply the two key areas of the curriculum and pay and conditions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Isle of Wight answers for the Minister, but I would prefer the Minister's response.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I did not hear the answer.
The difference is that when a school meets the performance criteria, it will—as of right, in most instances—be entitled to take advantage of the exemptions that are outlined in clause 6. However, it would be possible for another school to apply to take on similar flexibilities under the powers to innovate in chapter 1. It would not be barred from doing so because of the exemptions in chapter 2.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
The specific difference is that earned autonomy gives someone the automatic right to do those things without asking anyone else. In Part 1, one has to go begging to the Secretary of State.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
Those are not the words that I would use, but the hon. Gentleman is on the right lines. I make one caveat. As the example that I gave illustrates, in some instances there will be a requirement for the Secretary of State to express an opinion. That might be when there has been a change such as that that I outlined—perhaps Ofsted said that everything was fine and that the performance data was fine, but the management team of the school has now gone. There could be such exceptional circumstances in which the Secretary of State would have to express an opinion, as clause 5(2) allows for.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
I am trying to understand the Minister's point. What would happen if there were a change in the leadership of the school, resulting in a different character of leadership? Although the school might previously have met the criteria, in the intervening period before Ofsted could come back and say that it was no longer happy with the leadership, would not that leadership have pretty swingeing powers? It could make changes to the whole way in which the school operated, without the system offering any restraints to prevent that. Would that be possible?
Mr. Timms: I am not sure that I entirely follow the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is outlining. I think that he is talking about a school that has met the criteria and earned autonomy, but in which the leadership group then changes.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
Let me give a practical example. Without wishing to pick any particular group, let us suppose that a newly appointed head took a personal decision to change radically the character of the school to make it a strongly faith-based school, in a way that was not in the interests of the school community. Although Ofsted might come back later and say that that was not appropriate, none the less, on day one of his job the head would have the freedom to make swingeing changes to the school and its curriculum and culture without restriction.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 6, which sets out that the exemptions available for a school that has earned autonomy relate to the curriculum and pay and conditions. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there could be wide scope to change all kinds of other things, but that would not be available under earned autonomy. The powers automatically available under earned autonomy are quite circumscribed.
I turn to amendment No. 67. We aim that the criteria for earned autonomy should be clear, concise and fair to all schools, whatever their circumstances. I can give the Committee a commitment that we will consult on those criteria and take all views into account before laying regulations before the House. I will go a little further, which might help the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West some more. We will make available a clear statement of our policy on the criteria under clause 5(1) as a draft for the consultation exercise before the Bill leaves the Commons. That is earlier than he was asking for, and I hope that it is helpful to him.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for that last point, to which I shall return.
On amendment No. 67, I am grateful for the commitment that the Minister has given to consult and take account of views before producing the criteria. It would fall into the category of a ministerial commitment that would be of little value, if it were not for the later commitment, for which I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful. If nothing else proves the value of today's Committee proceedings, that certainly does. It will be of enormous benefit to hon. Members and others who are interested in our proceedings to be able to see that there is consultation, and feed in their views, before the House completes its consideration of the Bill.
I take issue with some points that the Minister raised in opposing amendment No. 9. To illustrate that an element of judgment may be required, he gave the example of where the leadership of a school has been good but the head leaves. Such cases could be dealt with by objective criteria. If pressed, I might accept that there may be grounds for a reserve power that is stated as such, but that is not the way in which
subsection (2) currently states the situation. It simply sets out that for the purposes of subsection (1) the criteria may include the Secretary of State's opinion or that of the National Assembly.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend agree that once again the difficulty arises not with the Secretary of State, who one can assume is likely to have a rational reason for reaching a particular decision, but with the National Assembly? The reasons people may have had for voting for or against a particular proposal would be many, diverse and impossible to catalogue in the judicial review proceedings that would occur if a school felt that an opinion had been reached in an unreasonable manner. To quote the Minister, we are once more into the territory of a ''lawyers' charter''.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. How the courts will interpret the opinions of the National Assembly for Wales is uncharted water. We all look forward with intense anticipation to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales giving us greater knowledge of how these matters will proceed.
The Minister clearly stated that we could expect objective criteria by which schools would be in a position to judge whether they would qualify for earned autonomy, which is something that I and other hon. Members welcome. What those objective criteria may be will be another matter, but he has given us an insight for which we are grateful. We are especially grateful for his undertaking to set out the criteria in greater detail.
I had been minded to press amendment No. 9 to a Division, but I shall not do so in the light of the good will that the Minister has shown. Instead, I shall invite my hon. Friends to hold their fire and reserve their judgment until we see the detailed proposals that he has promised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert
'except those contained in sections 74 and 75 below'.
Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)
With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 69, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert
'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.
No. 30, in page 4, line 18, after 'Wales', insert
'except those contained in sections 95 and 96 below'.
No. 70, in page 4, line 17, after 'Wales', insert
'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 apply respectively to England and Wales as do amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which seek to circumscribe the powers to suspend the curriculum for schools under these earned autonomy proposals in the important respect of accepting the requirement to maintain the provisions in clauses 74 and 75, which amount to a guarantee that schools should continue to offer a balanced and broadly based curriculum.
I would expect the amendments to be regarded as non-contentious. I should be surprised if the Minister, in responding to them, were to say that relaxation or suspension of curriculum requirements for maintained schools that earn their autonomy will result in their offering anything other than a balanced and broadly based curriculum, regardless of what specialisms they may wish to pursue, and regardless of a possible wish to concentrate effort—as specialist schools already do—in particular areas of the curriculum. It seems highly improbable that it is the will of Ministers or the House to allow schools to suspend national curriculum requirements to such an extent that they can concentrate solely on a sports-based, technology-based or language-based curriculum. Perhaps the Minister will argue otherwise, and we should be interested to hear his arguments, but such a provision would seem to go far beyond the curriculum innovations introduced by the previous Conservative Government, or by those elements of the Labour Government's education legislation that built on specialist schools, city technology colleges, city academies and the like. All such institutions offer broad curricula that do not permit them to specialise only in their chosen area of interest.
I look forward to the Minister's comments on amendments Nos. 69 and 70, one of which I can probably anticipate. I fear that they might deal with the wrong part of the Bill, and no doubt he, with the benefit of his advisers, will say whether that is so. Even if they should have been slotted in elsewhere, they have been selected for debate, so I beg your forgiveness, Mrs. Adams, as I air the issues that they raise.
The concern at the heart of amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which relate to England and Wales respectively, is the incredible breadth of potential exemptions from education legislation. The Government's decision to concertina the timetable for the Bill's consideration has created time pressure, which may have caused an estimable outside body to ask me to raise the matter at slightly the wrong point in the Bill. In obliging sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996 to remain part of the requirements of education legislation, the amendments' import is to restrain Ministers present or future from going so far in the application of the discretion under the Bill that they end the current guarantee in the 1996 Act to provide free education. The fact that that is possible illustrates the breadth of powers that Ministers have under the Bill.
Given my remarks about the appropriate point at which to table amendments Nos. 69 and 70, the Minister would not expect me to press them. However, I would welcome his comments on them, as well as any assurance that he can give that the Government might look favourably on a later amendment that would similarly constrain Ministers' freedom to manoeuvre. That would give some comfort to those who fear that charging may spread beyond the strictly circumscribed areas of education provision in the maintained sector.
If the Minister's comments and assurances are insufficient, we may seek to press the matter at a later stage.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are very important. They will be of great interest to the many people who follow the debate and want to know what Ministers truly intend in releasing constraints on the national curriculum. Do they intend that there should be any constraint, or that it should be an entirely unfettered power? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I do not wish to speak to amendments Nos. 69 and 70, because I suspect that they have been tabled to the wrong part of the Bill. However, amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are extremely important and require detailed analysis and response by the Secretary of State.
I believe, both as an individual and as a representative of the Liberal Democrats, that if we are to liberate the requirements of the national curriculum it must be done with a semblance of order to ensure that young people continue to have a broad and balanced curriculum. It continues to worry me that some aspects of specialist schools could distort that provision.
I hope that when the Minister responds he will concentrate on key stages 3 and 4, or the extended key stage 4 for the 14 to 19 curriculum. There is a fundamental difference in the disapplication of the national curriculum at key stage 4 and above. As I said on Second Reading, the Government are right to have a major review of the 14 to 19 curriculum and the organisation that goes with it. We are at one with the Government on that, as is the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.
It is necessary to consider separately the criteria for key stage 4, or 14 to 19, and for key stage 3. Especially at key stage 3, the need to retain the breadth of curriculum that is offered to all young people is incredibly important. I mean that not only in respect of a group of youngsters of a certain ability at key stage 3. We should not cut off areas of the curriculum to children with special needs or particular difficulties. In statements made by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), it is worrying to note that when examining the primary curriculum he decided to remove music and art as compulsory requirements for key stages 1 and 2. That sent out all sorts of wrong signals.
At one extreme, set curricula have been prescribed in the past, as happened in 1988—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will agree that we learnt lessons from the mistake of saying what every child should do. However, nor should we go the other way and say that during their formative years we should deny our young people opportunities to have a broad and balanced curriculum that includes the arts, particularly art and music. Such a curriculum should also include humanities, social sciences and religious education because they are all important areas.
I should like the Minister to reply to the point about key stage 3. On the subject of issuing guidance about what can be disapplied, or what the framework for disapplication might be, he must remain mindful that key stage 3 is important. Key stage 3 guidance should be separate from that for key stage 4, and he should withhold guidance for the latter until we have been able to address the issue of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I am with the hon. Gentleman on at least 90 per cent. of his argument. However, I should like to press him a little on a worry that I have. Welcome as a relaxation of the curriculum for the 14-to-19 cohort may be because it provides for a more vocational or work-based aspect to their education, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should be an aspect of education, not its totality? I would be rather concerned if that group of young people were taken out of school and out of a broad curriculum, however defined, and put in a solely vocational and workplace-based training situation.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
If I have given the hon. Gentleman that impression, I apologise profusely. That is certainly not the case. We will be lost if my party, or any other party, goes back to the bad old days of a division between vocational and academic education, as if the two can be separated like sheep and goats—one lot going off on an academic path, the other on a vocational one. If that is the vision, I want nothing to do with it. [Interruption.] I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) who is saying from a sedentary position that that is not the case. I was simply trying to respond to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and ensure that he did not go home tonight and toss and turn in his bed agonising over what I may have meant.
I urge the Minister to give us clear parameters for key stage 3 and to leave key stage 4, in terms of advice and disapplication, until we have had an opportunity to consider where we are going with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.. Although innovation is important and we support it, the framework in which it takes place is also important. Increasingly, there are national considerations for key stage 4 and beyond, and I think that a desired objective of the Government—certainly, one of ours—is to increase participation beyond the age of 16. That must be a fundamental premise for whatever we do with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds and it requires careful guidance. We do not want to go back to a situation where only the privileged continue in school to key stage 4.
In respect of disapplying the curriculum, will the Minister give me his thoughts on what will happen to religious education and say whether it will become something that could be disapplied? Will the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which looks at religious education syllabuses throughout local authorities, be disbanded? That would allow individual schools either not to teach religious education and to be disapplied from the agreed
syllabus of a local authority, or to pursue fairly fundamentalist religious teaching. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on those issues.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
I want to make a few points. I have great concerns—they are reflected in an amendment that I have tabled to the next clause, but clearly relate directly to this debate—about the nature of the national curriculum once the proposed provisions are implemented, if indeed they are.
There is no doubt in my mind—I think that this is now widely accepted—that the national curriculum, albeit following some teething problems, has made a major contribution to raising educational standards. It was no coincidence that the generation covered by last week's Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of the standards in British schools tallied almost exactly with the lifespan of the national curriculum. It worries me that this legislation risks significantly undermining the national curriculum.
If all we are talking about is some limited ability to change the curriculum—to add some diversity or an extra dimension to what a school is doing—then I have no problem. However, the sweeping provisions proposed would in theory allow a school to go far beyond simply adjusting its curriculum to increase the diversity of teaching offered to its pupils. I would like some clear caveats in the Bill.
I echo the view of many head teachers—and some of the aspirations that lie behind the provisions—that we can be too prescriptive in our schools. Many heads say that they do not have the freedom and flexibility that they would like to offer additional dimensions to the education in their schools to reflect the needs, desires, wishes and culture of pupils. That is without doubt desirable. My concern is that there are no proposed limitations to such flexibility, and that a school that meets the criteria under this legislation could make wholesale changes, with no clear benchmarks, framework or guidelines as provided by the national curriculum. Essentially, they could do what they want.
After the positive contribution to our education system that the national curriculum has made, it would be a retrograde step to allow curriculum anarchy. That, at its most extreme, is the potential consequence of this legislation. There must be enough flexibility to allow schools to reflect their desire for diversity, but not such great flexibility that their curricula can go in significantly different directions.
Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had much discussion about safeguards relating to the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—authorising such measures, and that the bottom line is that schools will be able to apply for the ability to implement them only if they are connected to raising educational standards? That will be the basis on which any such freedom can be agreed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anarchy will reign in our schools. He cannot have it both ways: he cannot talk about free schools and then say that there will be anarchy as soon as they try to apply such freedoms.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady misses the point that the provision allows not simply limited changes, but wholesale restructuring of the curriculum. I support the principle of free schools and allowing heads freedom to take decisions in the interests of their schools, but I do not believe that that should be taken so far that we scrap the national curriculum. I do not see any clear safeguards in the Bill to protect the national curriculum.
We are talking about rights to amend curricula and conditions that are earned through performance. They are not earned through application. They are almost automatic rights for certain schools. Those schools could take radical decisions on their curricula without reference to the Secretary of State. If I am wrong on that point, I hope that the Minister will correct me.
Up to a certain point, that is desirable, but the question is where to draw the line between heads having sensible freedoms to operate enlightened management policies in their schools and the national curriculum going out of the window. I am concerned that the legislation does not define that line. It leaves to schools' individual judgment which direction they want to go in. That is foolhardy, given the degree of success that the national curriculum has engendered in many of our schools.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
It is important to remember that the national curriculum was made for pupils, not pupils for the national curriculum. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West would set a reasonable boundary on any amendments to the national curriculum that a head might seek. There are certainly schools that at present could not move into the maintained sector because of the national curriculum requirements currently in place, which are, none the less, highly effective schools, such as the Rudolph Steiner schools. I believe that consideration is currently being given to the Rudolph Steiner schools being admitted to the maintained sector.
It is important to realise that the idea of the national curriculum started as a basic entitlement. It was quickly translated by those implementing the law—not those who made the law—into an all-embracing, highly prescriptive and dangerous document that attempted to cram into a limited number of hours in a child's life a huge number of detailed requirements that neither schools, teachers, parents, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher felt were appropriate when the provisions were enacted in the Education Reform Act 1988. It happened because of the way in which the national curriculum was constructed.
The curriculum was constructed by a range of different subject committees, each with many specialists all wanting to grab their own specialism within the subject and to ensure that that was properly laid out in the curriculum's requirements. Each of those committees, having worked not to the lowest common denominator but the other thing—I forget what it is called—then put everything into its bid for
what should go into the national curriculum. Every subject was then allowed as much as possible of what it was seeking.
That was a highly damaging process. I declare a little history here because I was involved in the policy group that led to the 1987 Conservative election manifesto, and I have to say that there was no idea at the time that the national curriculum was anything but a basic entitlement. My considered belief is that the officials in the Minister's Department had a national curriculum document tucked away in their drawers which they then hauled out as the quid pro quo for what they saw as some rather dangerous proposals to allow freedom to schools, which they would never have considered in a hundred years if they were not to get something in return. The national curriculum was the balance for the freedom that we wanted to give schools through local management of schools and grant-maintained status. You may feel that I am veering too far into history, Mrs. Adams, but it is sometimes important to put such matters on the record.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
Yes, we know who was to blame. If I may say so, it was neither my noble Friend Lord Baker, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, nor I.
The amendment brings the objectives of the national curriculum back to basics. It requires schools to observe those basics without being constrained by the highly artificial and dangerous superstructure that was erected on those few words. I confess that I would like schools to experiment just as widely with the curriculum that they offer as they do with teachers' pay and conditions and other aspects of legislation, in the interests of innovation and raising standards. They do not need to deliver the American west in year seven. They do not need to deliver the curriculum through IT, as long as they deliver a basic entitlement. At the moment, I understand that Rudolph Steiner schools are prevented from being absorbed into the maintained sector because they do not wish to deliver through IT at an early age, and they do not recognise that as necessary. The amendment sets out exactly the kind of provision to which pupils should be entitled, without restraining schools as they are currently restrained.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
We have had an interesting debate on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has been especially informative, and one of the things that we discovered from his remarks was that whoever was in charge of the Department of Education and Science in 1987—as the Department for Education and Skills was called at the time—it certainly was not the Ministers. Of course, nobody would say that now.
May I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to clause 6, as he was suggesting that once a school has met the performance criteria it will have untrammelled freedom to do whatever it likes? That is not the case. As I said at the outset, the freedom that is available is tightly circumscribed—schools will be able to take advantage of designated exemptions and modifications under clause 6.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 propose that schools cannot earn autonomy in respect of the general requirements of the curriculum. They refer, respectively, to clauses 74 and 75 for England, and clauses 95 and 96 for Wales. I am grateful to Opposition Members of both parties for tabling those two amendments, as they raise important points, and provide an opportunity for me to put some important responses on the record. I hope that I can persuade Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary. If Committee members turn to the relevant clauses, they will see that that part of the Bill—in part 6—comes under the heading
''General duties in respect of the curriculum''.
Clauses 74 and 75, to which the amendment refers, come under that heading. Only when we reach clause 77 does the heading
''The National Curriculum for England''
appear. The Welsh clauses are structured in the same way. Clause (5)(3) states:
''In this Chapter—
''curriculum provision'' means—
(a) in relation to a maintained school maintained by a local education authority in England, any provision of the National Curriculum for England''.
In other words, subsection (3) relates to clause 77 and subsequent clauses in the case of England, and to clause 93 and subsequent clauses in the case of Wales.
Subsection (3) does not relate to clauses 74 and 75, which relate to England and are referred to in clause 29. Nor does the subsection relate to clauses 95 and 96, which relate to Wales and are referred to in amendment No. 30. Under the Bill, schools can earn autonomy only in respect of the national curriculum. The clauses referred to in this group of amendments do not deal with the national curriculum but are restricted to the general requirements of the curriculum.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the question of religious education. Clause 76(1)(a) mentions
''provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school...as apply in relation to the school''.
That is also outside the scope of the variations identified in clause 5, so I reassure him on that point.
The two broad aims of the school curriculum are set out clearly in ''Curriculum 2000''. First, it should provide all pupils with the opportunity to learn and achieve. Secondly, the curriculum should promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and prepare all pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. We remain committed to those aims.
I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised in amendments Nos. 29 and 30, but our discussions have ranged over more than just those amendments. When we discuss the amendments tabled to clause 6, we shall have a wide-ranging debate on the nature of the exemptions available under the provision. I shall be interested to hear the views expressed in that debate. We shall consult on those points in the coming weeks.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would ensure that no school that earned autonomy under the Bill's provisions could earn autonomy from the provisions for charging for school activities, which are set out in
sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996. I reassure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that no maintained school will be able to operate outside those charging provisions.
Sections 449 to 462 will remain in force for schools that have earned autonomy as well as those that have not. That is because ''curriculum provision'' is defined in subsection (3) as
''any provision of the National Curriculum''
for either England and Wales. That definition is contained in sections 353 to 369 of the 1996 Act, which will be replaced by clauses 77 to 92 for England and clauses 93 to 114 for Wales, and by orders and regulations made under those clauses. The Bill does not provide the power for the regulations to extend to sections 449 to 462 of the 1996 Act. I hope that that is clear.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister. The best that I can say is that the matter is as clear as it can be. Will he give an assurance that schools would not have the leeway to apply for exemption from education legislation under part 1? Would it be possible for schools that benefit from exemptions in connection with innovation to suspend the requirements of the Education Act 1996?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting and important question. As I have repeatedly said, chapter 1 clearly enables the Secretary of State to make provision that would confer on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid, but I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education. That would not be raising standards as required under that part of the Bill.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been adequately reassured about the amendments. We now know that amendments Nos. 69 and 70 will not be pressed to a Division, but I hope that he is reassured about amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister, not least for resisting the temptation to highlight drafting irregularities under amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I appreciate the openness with which he has dealt with the broad points that have been raised.
I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clear assurances that Ministers would not, in his words, ''ever seek to relax the relevant aspects of education legislation in order to allow charging''. However, he said earlier that he could speak only for the present Secretary of State. The Minister confirmed that, under part 1, the scope and breadth of the powers allowed for exemptions from education legislation in respect of innovation could be interpreted so broadly that it would be possible to end the principle of free education in the maintained sector. While that does not apply to clause 5 as it stands, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a cause for some concern. Members of the
Committee must reflect on agreeing to primary legislation that could remain on the statute book for a considerable time.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I say categorically, on behalf of my party, that under no circumstances would we do that. I hope that the h G would give the same reassurance on behalf of his party. Any future Government could repeal sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996, and that would have that effect, but I think that we would both wish to give the assurances that our parties would not do that.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
The Minister is almost repealing the relevant section of the Education Act 1996. The Bill provides the power to repeal its clauses. Should I occupy his seat in the future, I would have no intention of charging for places in maintained schools. Given the outbreak of consensus and unanimity on that matter, which might extend to the Liberal Democrat spokesman at the end of this Bench, would now be a good moment to restate the commitment of all political parties to the principle of free education?
Before moving to the other amendments to which I shall allude briefly, I want to ask the Minister to reflect on whether it may be possible for the Government to table their own amendment at a later stage and put into the Bill a restriction that members of the Committee have agreed would be welcome. It would prevent any future Secretary of State, without recourse to primary legislation, from moving in a direction that we would all want to avoid.
I come now to amendments Nos. 20 and 30. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight speculated about the policy-making process in the then Department of Education and Science. The Bill may have dropped off a cliff with many open-ended powers and little detail on how they will be used because of its origins in the Downing street policy unit before the architects moved on to other things in June. We may never know, but perhaps we will be enlightened as to how the policy-making process works in the Department for Education and Skills.
We had a useful debate on the question of a balanced and broad curriculum. I was not seeking to ascribe views to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am grateful to him for clarifying one point. In considering the relaxation of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, we do not intend to depart from a broadly-based curriculum. We want genuine flexibility that could lead to a more appropriate form of education to interest 14 to 19-year olds who are not adequately engaged in the education process.
It may be appropriate to cite an example from my constituency. An excellent sports college, the Ashton-on-Mersey school, has a close relationship with Manchester United football club. I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is forming a crucifix with his fingers, and I am sure that he would want that on the record for the benefit of constituents who do not share his views. However, the benefit to the
school's prestige, the development of the sporting faculty and other curriculum areas is considerable. It also works effectively for the club to continue the broader education of some of its apprentices at the school. That is an interesting model of how the process can progress. I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's position on that and I endorse it.
The Minister pointed out the later clauses that protect a broad and balanced curriculum. Although I have reservations that protection does not remain for schools under part 1, I was satisfied by the Minister's helpful explanation of how it would remain for earned autonomy schools under clause 5. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.