Clause 6 - Exemptions available to qualifying schools
Education Bill
9:00 pm
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 25, leave out ''may'', and insert ''shall''.
Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 68, in page 4, line 26, leave out ''any curriculum provision'' and insert—
''any of such curriculum provisions as shall be prescribed by order approved under the affirmative resolution procedure''.
No. 44, in page 4, line 26, after second ''provision'', insert—
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
No. 12, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsections (1)(b) and (c) and insert—
''(b) designate the modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available as of right, and
may—
(c) designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provisions as attracting discretionary exemption''.
No. 45, in page 4, line 28, after second ''provision'', insert—
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
No. 46, in page 4, line 31, after ''provision'', insert—
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
No. 47, in page 4, line 33, after ''provision'', insert—
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
No. 35, in page 4, line 33, at end insert—
''except insofar as every school must demonstrate that the curriculum it offers remains consistent with the objectives of the national curriculum.''
No. 66, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
''(f) provide for the manner in which statutory provisions in relation to the inspection of schools, and the publication of information relating to school performance shall be applied in relation to a school in respect of which an order under subsection 2 is made''.
No. 13, in page 5, line 13, leave out ''(1)(c)'', and insert ''(1)(b)''.
No. 14, in page 5, line 24, leave out ''(1)(b)'', and insert ''(1)(c)''.
No. 81, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
''(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school.''
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
If the Minister were a charitable man, he would have spoken at length on clause stand part. However, I cannot expect quarter to be given if none is asked for.
The amendments would advance our key concern with the earned autonomy provisions: the exemptions related to school performance. In many respects, the phrase ''earned autonomy'' is not borne out by the Bill. We have rehearsed questions of ministerial discretion and the extent to which Ministers' opinions may be considered valid criteria. In clause 6, we see again that more discretion lies with Ministers than is appropriate or can readily be explained or justified, given their claims that they want an open and transparent process through which autonomy can genuinely be earned.
Amendment No. 11 deals with a specific aspect of ministerial discretion. In line 25 on page 4 of the Bill is the wonderfully open-ended word ''may''. The Minister says that autonomy will be earned through the fulfilment of appropriate, objective and transparent criteria. This evening, he has kindly undertaken to give the House before we complete our consideration of the Bill at least an inkling of what those criteria will be, for which I have thanked him.
However, even when we cross the initial threshold and achieve the criteria, and a school has seen whether it qualifies and whether its achievements will earn it autonomy, we reach another gateway in clause 6(1). It states:
''Regulations may for the purposes of this section...designate any curriculum provision''
and so on. Through the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14, my hon. Friends and I seek to restructure the clause. They would rearrange subsection (1) to differentiate the two paragraphs that set out exemptions as of right and the two that set out discretionary exemptions.
If something is exempted as of right, there should not be ministerial discretion as to whether regulations are produced to allow that exemption to take place. Being a fair-minded man, I am prepared to accept that Ministers should have the discretion that exists in the Bill if they are openly saying that something should be available on a discretionary basis. That makes perfect sense. If something is available as of right, however, it does not make sense that the Minister can choose not to make regulations to allow that to happen.
In wishing to re-order subsections (1)(a) to (d), I am seeking to change the burden on Ministers accordingly in order to ensure that current subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) are covered by a requirement that regulations shall designate as of right. For the two paragraphs (b) and (d), which provide for discretionary exemption,
the amendments leave the current wording that regulations may designate, which seems entirely sensible and appropriate.
The aim is to create a process that brings into play a dynamic that will impose certain obligations on Ministers, if the criteria that they have set out are met, instead of the stop-start process whereby Ministers examine individual applications to determine whether someone qualifies or whether a school has genuinely earned autonomy. It would increase the degree of certainty for schools, so that they can know what will happen as they move through the process. The amendments are particularly relevant.
Amendment No. 68 deals with the question of parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister raised the issue—perhaps with a degree of irony—and said that it was important. The amendment would require that regulations are introduced under an affirmative resolution procedure, rather than moved by Ministers under a negative procedure. While it is my intention to make life easier for schools, when possible and appropriate, I do not have a similar concern for Members of Parliament, who should do their job of scrutinising legislation. My amendment would increase the burden on Members of the House, who would be expected to earn their living by scrutinising the regulations under clause 6(1).
By accepting the amendments, we would improve the transparency of the Bill and the dynamism of the process. We would make life easier for schools, as they claim what they rightly regard, in many cases, as their entitlement to greater autonomy based on their performance and achievements.
Amendment No. 66 would create a power under clause 6(2) to provide for inspection of schools and publication of performance information. It is entirely consistent with the Official Opposition's approach to raising standards in schools. I was pleased that the Secretary of State, when challenged by one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading, confirmed her admiration of and gratitude for the actions of the previous Conservative Government in setting out the agenda for publication of performance data and ensuring rigorous inspection of schools. It would be a retrograde step if, under the earned autonomy provisions, we were to lose some of the levers and tools that are available for assessing schools' performance, particularly given that, as the Minister has said, some of the performance indicators might at least in part be the basis on which autonomy would be earned. If schools with earned autonomy did not have to continue to submit performance data, we would have no way of finding out about the effectiveness of the earned autonomy. We would not know whether the school continued to qualify for it, or whether a problem had arisen, making it appropriate to review the situation.
I should be interested in the Minister's comments. My hon. Friends and I would want the matter of earned autonomy to be dealt with by way of an open, predictable process in which schools would know where they stood. However, we would want a quid pro
quo; the public, Parliament and Ministers should have a right to know what was going on in the school that had been granted autonomy and how it was working. My amendment would provide for a power to prescribe measures for inspection and publication of performance data. As far as I can see, there are no such measures in the Bill.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
I want to make some comments, with respect to amendment No. 35, about the future of the national curriculum. I have not been completely reassured by the Minister's comments.
Two possible scenarios seem possible. If the Bill is intended to allow a school the flexibility to modify its curriculum to reflect its desire to be innovative and specialised and to offer an additional dimension to its teaching while retaining the fundamental principles of the national curriculum, that is logical. However, if the Government want to bestow complete freedom to move away from the national curriculum, we need to understand that. If the former possibility is what is intended, clearer signposts should be provided to show that there will be limits on a school's ability to make radical changes to its curriculum that would override the basic provisions of the national curriculum.
If the Government intend the first of the two scenarios that I have suggested, the amendment does not amount to a radical change; it would draw the line between sensible curriculum modification and a move towards curriculum anarchy. If it is not intended that schools should be allowed to depart entirely from the national curriculum, the Minister should be able to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. I seek substantial clarification of the safeguards in the legislation that would stop a school from heading down a path so radically different from that of the national curriculum that it would fundamentally change the nature of the education that pupils received.
I strongly believe that the national curriculum has made a significant contribution to education. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has mentioned the limitations of the scope and nature of the curriculum. Nevertheless, it is essential for schools to have a fundamental platform on which to base their teaching if standards are to improve. I would feel deeply uncomfortable if the Bill did not close loopholes that might allow that platform to be removed.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I am listening with care, but I am not clear what my hon. Friend understands the objectives of the national curriculum to be.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
I see the objectives as providing a basic set of signposts for schools about the teaching that they are expected to provide in basic subjects such as maths, English and so forth. It is a framework to enable schools to deliver the fundamentals of teaching, and we should ensure that that remains so. We do not expect many schools to move off at such a tangent that they radically change what they are doing. However, the legislation would allow a school to re-engineer its
curriculum entirely away from the standards set by the Government. A line should be drawn between freedom to innovate and freedom to make wholesale change in a way that changes the nature of teaching. That is the line that I hope we will not cross.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and me.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 are probing amendments. They build on what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was trying to deal with in his amendments. I am trying to find out from the Minister whether the total limit of earned autonomy is simply the national curriculum and pay and conditions, or whether it will touch on other areas. In each of the amendments, I have sought to insert a phrase that broadens its scope. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, is he saying that earned autonomy extends purely into those two areas and nowhere else, and that the Government do not envisage any extension to it? Last weekend, head teachers spoke to me about issues including selection, admissions policies and religious education, particularly for children from single-faith schools who come into the maintained sector. I should like an assurance on the record that the Minister does not propose any extension in terms of earned autonomy. That is the purpose of the amendments.
Amendment No. 81 picks up the issues raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I understand his concerns. While I had grave reservations about what was done to us in 1988, we now, particularly after Lord Deering's review of the national curriculum and what has happened since, have a workable national framework. That has a number of advantages. My party and I still believe that it is too prescriptive and that schools need more flexibility within a broader framework. I think particularly of what constitutes a modern foreign language. It is quite insulting that we cannot use many eastern European or Arabic languages, which would be appropriate in certain areas. We seem to think of foreign languages as being only European—basically, French, German and Spanish.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
Schools in my constituency tell me that it is no longer possible to recruit teachers of French, Spanish or any of the other modern European languages. The avenue that the hon. Gentleman is exploring might help solve some of the teacher recruitment problems.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I shall not rise to that.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell makes a valid point about what has been achieved. One achievement has been the recognition that today's society is much more mobile than previous ones. My family—and perhaps the families of those hon. Members who are 20 years younger than me—lived most of their lives in the same place. We grew up, went to school and went to work in the same areas, but that does not happen now. In some inner London
constituencies, one family in three moves each year. That is massive mobility. For that reason, stability in the curriculum is important.
The Minister has not yet made clear what parts of the national curriculum schools can disapply under part 1. I am sorry, Mrs. Adams, to have to speak about clause 80, which helpfully brings the Education Act 1996 up to date. Is the Minister saying that no school will be able to disapply the core subjects of mathematics, English and science in key stage 3, but that schools will have the opportunity to vary the foundation subjects, from technology to a modern foreign language, under the powers given in part 1, if not in parts 5 and 6? If they are not allowed to vary those subjects, what is the use of having that power?
I am trying to be objective and to accommodate the legitimate points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but we need to allow experiment. I must tell the Minister—this will take only an hour—that I visited Stockholm recently to look at secondary education provisions there. I visited a school with a significant number of Turkish immigrant children. It also had a fairly large population of Kurdish children and Finns and other nationalities that lived in the area.
Although Swedish, English and mathematics were the core national curriculum subjects, the head teacher decided that everyone would be taught in English, not Swedish. The whole curriculum was taught in a foreign language. In the playground, children spoke Swedish. At home, they spoke their mother tongue. At school, they were taught in English. I found that environment incredibly exciting and vibrant. If the Bill is applied literally, as the Minister suggests, we would not be able to do such things here. That would be a great sadness, because innovation can be enormously exciting. With amendment No. 81, I am trying to get clarity from the Minister on that important area.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, although he did not make this specific point, on the need to maintain a broad balanced curriculum for youngsters through to the age of 14 and the end of key stage 3. I have no objection to a subject framework, but we should not believe that a collection of subjects equates to a curriculum. A curriculum is far more than that, and I want schools to be able to approach those subjects in many different ways and deliver an exciting and vibrant curriculum to young people. They need to turn them on, particularly in those areas where they are not turned on and are opting out of school earlier and earlier.
Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)
On modern languages and flexibility, I applaud what the hon. Gentleman said about considering other forms of languages and mother tongues in communities. However, I would like to address a situation that certainly exists in schools in my constituency, where children have huge problems with their mother tongue of English. No matter how much I might, in my heart, like all children to learn a second language, it concerns me greatly that some children who do not feel confident with their own language are placed under enormous stress by being expected to start on a foreign language as well.
Special needs children come in 1,001 varieties, but some have very difficult communication problems, particularly with their own language of English, verbal or written. I hope that that would be considered. Such consideration should not be absolute, but until children reach a certain level of competence in their own language, we should be mindful about pressuring them with a second one.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. A full debate is required to do justice to it. I agree with a significant amount of what she said. My personal view is that 11 is too late an age at which a child should start to learn a modern foreign language. If we genuinely want to engage young people in a foreign language, it must be done much earlier. I would like children to do something exciting with languages at the end of key stage 1.
I have reservations about some of the things that the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) have said about immigrants and language. Although I accept that the issue is important for young people, if we are going to integrate people whose first language is not English into our society, we must first recognise them as individuals, and recognise their culture, faith and language.
One of the exciting things that one finds in Scandinavia is a statutory right for children from other countries to be taught in their own language for a minimum time each week. That immediately says, ''We value where you've come from, your language and your heritage, and we will build on your skills.'' If we can combine both those ideas, we can start to do some exciting things.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
I should like to finish, because time is short and I have strayed off piste.
In conclusion, the point before us is important and worth spending some time on.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
We have had an interesting and valuable debate. The Bill provides for schools that have earned their autonomy to be trusted to take responsible decisions in partnership with their stakeholders over pay and conditions and the national curriculum, and our discussion has focused on the national curriculum. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to legislate for areas beyond those two. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked me a direct question about that. It may well be that, in due course, as a result of people taking up the power to innovate, we will come up with examples of successful innovations that we might want to apply more widely through the earned autonomy powers. If that were the case, we should want to look at the possibility of legislating further to include those freedoms within earned autonomy. The reassurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted from me was that if we were to do that we would have to come back with fresh primary legislation. I can give him that
assurance. Without any more primary legislation, the ability to exercise earned autonomy will be just in the two areas set out in the Bill.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
Could I ask the Minister to revisit the point that he made in responding to an earlier amendment that, on the expiry of exemptions under part 1, one of the mechanisms that might be employed to extend innovation for a further period would be to extend the earned autonomy regulations? Before he concludes, will he elaborate on which aspects of the earned autonomy provisions could be extended in that way in order to fulfil that objective?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
It would involve expanding the list in clause 6(1)(a) to (d) and saying that we could designate some other provisions as well. Those would be available for exercise either as of right or on a discretionary basis under the terms of that part of clause 6.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I remind the Minister that he said to me in response to an earlier amendment that there were three different approaches that could be taken. The first was to use primary legislation, the second was an extension of the earned autonomy provisions and the third was a deregulatory order. Is he now saying that it could only be done through primary legislation extending the earned autonomy provisions, or could earned autonomy standing in its own right fulfil the objective that he described?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I am not sure whether it is ''no'' or ''yes'', but the position is that to extend earned autonomy—the second of the options that the hon. Gentleman identifies—would require primary legislation. The regulatory reform order route would not, but extending earned autonomy would.
We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as simple and as unbureaucratic as possible. Wherever possible we should like to make those flexibilities available automatically. However, we have retained in clause 6 the ability to make both automatic and discretionary areas of exemption in the regulations, and the ability to respond to experience. We currently expect to make proposals for regulations under clause 6(1)(a), that is, exemptions as of right, not under clause 6(1)(b), the discretionary exemptions, nor under clause 6(1)(c), and to consult as to whether we want discretionary exemptions under clause 6(1)(d). I hope that that explains why it is appropriate to leave the word ''may'' in the first line of clause 6, rather than replacing it by ''shall''—that allows some flexibility about which of the four is implemented.
As far as possible, we would like the exemptions to be available as of right to schools that meet the criteria and therefore to minimise the discretionary elements of the list.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
It would appear that the earned autonomy is a reward for performance, whereas the unearned autonomy is meant to raise standards. I say that because clause 1(1) mentions the objective of
raising standards, but only with reference to chapter 1. Does the Minister agree that the raising of standards is not one of the objectives of clause 6?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
No, I do not agree. Raising standards is an objective of the entire Bill, but because the discretionary aspect does not apply to earned autonomy, it is not necessary to specify that as a criterion. Schools that meet the criteria will be able to take advantage of the exemptions, but the purpose of their doing so will be the raising of standards. That theme runs through the Bill.
We had an interesting discussion of the national curriculum. That has been a feature of the landscape since 1988 and we heard something about its genesis in an interesting contribution. It is well understood by parents and pupils, and everyone associated with schools lives in the climate of entitlement that it has led to, and the common understanding that children need, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, a broad and balanced curriculum if they are to rise to the opportunities of the 21st century.
Earlier I read the aims of the national curriculum—about which an exchange took place on the Opposition Benches—as we set them out in curriculum 2000. We remain committed to the two broad aims that we set out there. We would not want to return to the days when pupils and parents had no idea what would be taught in schools. The hon. Gentleman's point about mobility is important in connection with that. However, we want to give successful schools greater freedom to provide a broad, balanced curriculum that suits them and their pupils.
We firmly believe in the place of the core subjects as set out later in the Bill: English, maths and science. They should remain the core curriculum. However, we need serious debate about what else might be considered part of the core curriculum for pupils in successful schools. We propose to consult on that issue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I envisaged that the core as set out later for key stages 1 to 3 would continue to be the core. The answer is yes. However, we think that there is scope for variation in the other, foundation, subjects.
I should have responded earlier to the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between key stages 1 to 3 and key stage 4. He will see that a distinction is made in the Bill; clause 80 deals with key stages 1 to 3 and clause 81 deals with key stage 4. That reflects the distinction that he has drawn and the need for us to be open to the idea of further flexibility with respect to key stage 4—for just the reasons that he and other hon. Members have given.
We heard an interesting debate between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I found the point of view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the more persuasive of the two. We are interested in the debate on freedoms in the present context, and will be consulting on it in coming weeks. I can give an assurance that we shall produce a
document setting out the options, as a basis for consultation, before the Bill leaves the House. I hope that that will help members of the Committee.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
I welcome some of the reassurances that the Minister has given, but in many ways he has highlighted my greatest concern about the Bill—the extent to which the Government's word has to be taken on trust. So many of the provisions are indeterminate. They relate to matters on which the Government will consult, publish papers and create new guidelines. The legislation seems terribly imperfect, so I should welcome the Minister's comments on why it is necessary to leave so many important issues open. Why can such important legislation not to be more detailed and less of a wish list?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. As he takes part in more proceedings such as ours in the years ahead, he will find that what he describes is a common characteristic of them. Members of the Committee need to take a view on whether they think it right for the provisions to be in primary legislation. Beyond that, I am suggesting how we intend to use the powers set out. We will be able to spell out how we will do so in more detail before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I hope that what I have said is enough to show hon. Members that the measures will help to bring about the needed changes, on which there is wide agreement across the Committee.
My final point returns to some of the flexibility for which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough expressed an aspiration. I agreed with much of what he said, especially about the need to engage a large number of young people who cannot see the point of what they are asked to do in school. It might be possible to do so by disapplying programmes of study rather than subjects themselves. That is one option on which we shall want to consult in coming weeks.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
The Minister has not dealt with amendment No. 66, which relates to inspection and publication of performance information. I should be grateful if he would do so.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
Amendment No. 66 was on the tip of my tongue. We do not want to dilute accountability through our inspection arrangements or performance tables. We do not believe that any exemptions given under earned autonomy will require statutory changes to the inspection system or to performance tables. When account needs to be taken of developments under earned autonomy, Ofsted can do so by issuing guidance to inspectors. We continually review the operation of performance tables to ensure that they accurately reflect the wide range of high-quality qualifications available. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr David Miliband (South Shields, Labour)
One thing that has troubled me about the last hour or so of debate is that the concept of earned autonomy has been treated as though schools either have it or do not. My understanding is that
schools will progressively achieve greater freedom across a range of issues as they become more successful. The Minister mentioned inspection. Am I wrong to think that the more successful a school is, the less regular the inspection cycle and the less intrusive the inspection regime will be? Should we not think of earned autonomy as a gradient rather than a switch that is turned on and off?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
Yes and no. On some matters, schools that qualify for earned autonomy will be natural candidates for greater freedoms, and those will not depend on legislation. Light-touch inspections are certainly one successful example of that. However, that is outside the legislation. In terms of the legislation, the question is whether schools meet performance criteria. If the answer is yes, they can take up all the exemptions and modifications set out.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West, Conservative)
I shall not attempt to deal with all the long and diverse group of amendments. We have had a useful debate, and the Minister has genuinely done his best to answer the questions and points raised by hon. Members, especially in his response to amendment No. 66, which he was burning to give to the Committee. We are all grateful for his reassurances.
I want to comment briefly on the Minister's remarks about the amendments that I tabled to clause 6(1)(a) to (d). He helpfully enlightened the Committee about those aspects, which, even at this early stage, when the enabling legislation is still wet on the page, the Government either do or do not intend to use, or intend to discuss before making a decision.
During the course of the day, I have frequently amazed myself at how helpful I have been to Ministers—I have fallen over backwards to help them. My amendments would break down paragraphs (a) to (d) in a helpful way, in that the application of the word ''shall'' under my amendments would apply to paragraphs (a) and (c), of which the Government intend to make use and which deal with exemptions as of right. The word ''may'' would continue to apply to what are now paragraphs (b) and (d).
I do not intend to press the amendments to a Division, but I am slightly disappointed. We sought to add real context to the way in which decisions were taken and to reassure schools that they would proceed when they met the criteria and would not have to wait for Ministers to decide whether to allow them to proceed.
Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 66 has taken on enormous importance? The Minister accepted that, in terms of the foundation subjects of the national curriculum, the Government intend to be able to disapply programmes of study. That is an important breakthrough, because they would also, therefore, have to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in all those subjects.
That is a fundamental change, and it is a pity that the Press Gallery is not packed because it is the most important matter to arise today. If 50 per cent. of schools can have earned autonomy as a result of
achieving their five plus A to Cs and meeting the standards, and 80 per cent. are not operating under special measures or with serious weaknesses, 80 per cent. of schools can aspire, under earned autonomy, to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in terms of programmes of study. In relation to amendment No. 66, the inspection arrangements that exist would have to be changed dramatically to meet the new circumstances.
That is a major breakthrough, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. Brady: Indeed.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)
I leap to my feet in the dying minute. I urge the Committee to take careful note of the points that I made and the words in which I expressed them. I said that we would consult on options that would embrace the changes that I indicated. That is different from the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock till Thursday 13 December at five minutes to Ten o'clock.
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Chairman)
Bailey, Mr.
Brady, Mr.
Coaker, Mr.
Flint, Caroline
Francis, Dr.
Grayling, Chris
Heppell, Mr.
Kumar, Dr.
Laing, Mrs.
Laws, Mr.
Miliband, Mr.
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Purnell, James
Timms, Mr.
Touhig, Mr.
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Willis, Mr.