Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—

'with particular reference to the needs of children at the school with special needs'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—

'and where a proposed change involves more than 15 per cent. of the total curriculum offered at the school, as measured by time allocated to lessons, secure a minimum response level of 33 per cent. of parents, with the majority supporting the changes.'.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

The amendment relates to children with special needs. We have submitted it mostly as a probing amendment. As I said in our debate on an earlier clause, the Bill has not yet dealt with the matter of special needs and does not mention it up front at the beginning. My main reason for moving the amendment is to give the Minister an opportunity to assure the Committee that he is giving special needs the priority that it deserves. We have considered before the fact that special needs children who are integrated into mainstream schools must be treated differently and with extra care and consideration. The amendment relates to clause 7(2)(a), which details how the governing body can apply to make changes to curriculum provision. The clause states, rightly, that any application should be made only after consulting the parents of registered pupils at the school. We thoroughly support that, but suggest that schools should consult particularly the parents of special needs children.

Dealing with those children within the general school system can be problematic because of the huge variety of special needs. It is not possible to categorise everyone who has a statement as being statistically a special needs pupil. The details must be broken down so that the school is aware, in drawing up the budget and curriculum, of the particular needs of particular children. As I said earlier, those with mild special needs, such as the need for extra tuition for mild dyslexia, can be taught in the mainstream system with few amendments to the curriculum. However, children with, for example, Asperger syndrome and other such extreme autistic conditions must have special tuition, which should be considered when changes to the curriculum are being debated.

When making such consideration, schools should always consult the parents, although this is not just a question of consulting parents. It is also a question of bringing in experts on the problems that special needs children have so that those who are responsible for designing the curriculum, or changes to it, can be properly advised. I shall not delay the Committee any further on the issue, because this is a probing amendment. We want to ensure that the Minister and his colleagues have considered special needs in relation to this particular aspect of potential school autonomy.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I want to return to a theme that I have touched on before. As the Committee is aware, I am a strong supporter of the principle of autonomy for schools and giving schools the ability to take decisions about many of their activities. However, I also believe that that freedom should be counterbalanced by a minimum curriculum framework that provides consistency to our education system. Most particularly, we need an identifiable framework so that parents can make informed judgments on the nature of their children's education.

The purpose behind the amendment is to give parents a check against a decision by a governing body that involves wholesale changes to the curriculum in the school. In particular circumstances, there may be good reason for making such decisions, but it is not right and proper that those changes should be sufficiently substantial that they divert completely from the framework provided by the national curriculum.

Parents should have a detailed right of reply to proposals from a governing body. Under the clause, the right of consultation enjoyed by parents is too vague. There is no clear statement about the rights of parents, or about the responsibilities of governing bodies to consult and to secure the backing of parents before they pursue a path that will have a radical effect on the education of the children in that school. The amendment would ensure that there was a bottom line for that consultation process. The governing body would need to demonstrate that it had reached out to a reasonable proportion of parents.

I recognise the difficulties faced by governing bodies when trying to engage parents in consultation exercises. Anyone who has ever managed a consultation exercise in the public sector knows how difficult it can be to generate responses. I attempted to be realistic when setting the figures in the amendment. There should be a minimum number of parents with which the governing body discusses proposals. It should be able to demonstrate that it has the support of parents when pursuing significant changes to the curriculum. Clearly, that does not apply to small changes, such as the introduction of an additional subject or minor modifications in the school's activities. However, if a school has a radical plan for change under the terms of the Bill, it should be able to demonstrate that it has the support of parents. The amendment would give parents the minimum guarantee that they will be consulted and that their views will be taken into account.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I am glad, Mr. Griffiths, that you have allowed me to speak to this small amendment. It was kind of you. I withdraw some of the comments that I made this morning.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

We can have too much of a good thing.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

That is what my wife says.

There is a good principle behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The idea of change that involves the parent body is important. The Education Reform Act 1988 through to the Education Act 1996 placed a duty on schools to involve parents in annual meetings, for example. If members of the Committee have ever attended an annual parents' meeting at which 10 parents attended—if that—they will know how difficult it is for schools to involve parents. Although the principle of the amendment is worth considering, the proposal is unrealistic.

Secondly, when we prescribe levels for ballots—basically, the amendment refers to a ballot on a process—we run into major problems. The population of a school changes constantly. In some London boroughs, one in three secondary school children will move during the year, and that makes it almost impossible for a consensus to be reached, let alone meet the terms of the condition. In 11 to 16 or 11 to 18 schools, 20 per cent. of the school population of mandatory school age will leave during the year. To use those parents to vote on something that their children would never been involved in seems inherently wrong within the system.

My third point is that the Minister, for whom I have much respect, talked about work load. As a practising head, my greatest work load was the documentation and arrangements to fulfil the requirements for the annual parents' meeting. The proposal would heap a huge amount of bureaucracy on head teachers and school governors, who would give it to the head teacher to deal with, and work involved would be out of all proportion to anything that might be gained.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

The last thing I want is to impose an undue work load. The point about the 15 per cent. threshold is that it is unlikely that many heads or governing bodies will want to make a change that represents more than 15 per cent., except in unusual circumstances. The figure was chosen to add the caveat that if wholesale changes are to be made, there is a duty to consult. In the case of minor changes, the responsibility of a head or a governing body is to take decisions on behalf of the school.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my arguments remain valid. I shall not return to our debate on clause 6, as I should be ruled out of order if I did so. However, on the subject of disapplication of the national curriculum, the Minister said that most of it would not be disapplied; therefore, having a wholesale change, which I would like to see in many schools, is unrealistic. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a vote.

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

I am glad to give the hon. Member for Epping Forest the assurance that she seeks about the seriousness with which we take the need for adequate provision for children with special educational needs. That was shown by the launch this week of the new code of practice, circulated on two occasions in the House, which focuses on meeting individual needs. Raising standards for children with special educational needs is an integral and central part of the task of raising the standards of education more broadly. We want to make the process through which schools earn their autonomy as simple and as unbureaucratic as possible. The clause makes it clear that the governing body must consult the parents or pupils in respect of any curriculum provision. I confirm that that will include reference to provision for children at the school with special needs. Parents have a voice through that arrangement and through parental representation on the governing body; we should not lose sight of that in this discussion. I think that the governing body of a successful school would not press ahead disregarding the views of parents.

Ofsted will continue to inspect schools that exercise earned autonomy and to be involved especially with the education that a school provides for children with special needs. That is a further safeguard.

As to the amendment, to prescribe in the Bill the exact proportion of the curriculum and of the parents who support a proposed change would add disproportionately to the bureaucracy, without comparable benefits. I took exception to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), but I agree with him on that matter. Schools are required to consult. It would be an onerous exercise to set up the ballot envisaged and difficult to work out what the 15 per cent. figure referred to and how to calculate 15 per cent. of a curriculum. Safeguards are built into the process and I hope that the Committee, which is right to be concerned about the matter, will accept that they are adequate to protect the interests of parents.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I accept his assurance that attention will be paid to special educational needs in this context. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Is it the wish—

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

I had hoped to speak to the amendment.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

May I give way to the hon. Lady?

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Order. I had started to put the Question. I am keen to get Mr. Willis back on his feet. Is it the wish of the Committee that the amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 5, line 38, at end insert

'the head teacher and'.

You have redeemed yourself, Mr. Griffiths, and you are back on my Christmas card list.

The Minister may say that the amendment's purpose is covered in the Bill, but clause 7(2) specifies that there will be consultations with the teaching staff, not with the head teacher. I hope that the Minister will simply accept my non-contentious amendment. The head teacher has a role in the school that is different from that of the rest of the teaching staff. He or she oversees performance, recommends performance-related pay awards and implements key policy aspects such as pay and conditions provisions, whatever they eventually will be. Therefore, we must include the head teacher, as well as the staff, to ensure that they have a prima facie role in the consultation process.

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

The sentiment behind the amendment is not contentious, but I hope to persuade the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary. The requirement to consult each teacher includes the head teacher. I am happy to put that on the record to allay any doubts.

In addition, the head teacher will have a full opportunity at governing body discussions to put his or her views. The majority of head teachers are governors, but all head teachers, whether governors or not, can attend all governing body meetings and receive all papers.

I agree that it is essential to take the head teacher's views into account in making proposals about changes to pay and conditions. Governing bodies will have to take careful note of their recommendations, but in many instances the proposals will come from the head teacher. Governing bodies recognise the key role of the head teacher in implementing proposed changes and in ensuring the motivation of staff through times of change. No governing body would take that route without the involvement of the head teacher.

I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. His point has already been taken into account.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I am disappointed by the Minister's response, because I thought that my request was reasonable. There is a clear difference between a school teacher and a head teacher. The Government's descriptions of the two posts demonstrate how separate the roles are.

Head teachers have a prima facie role. If there are major changes, particularly as a result of earned autonomy, the head teacher will play a pivotal role. By refusing to include both, the Minister is just digging his heels in; he does not want to change the Bill in any way. That is disappointing. Having aired the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

I have a brief point. Will the Minister clarify what role pupils at the school will have in the consultation process? Subsection 7(2)(c) says:

''in any case, consult such other persons as appear to them to be appropriate''.

Where there are changes to the curriculum it is useful to engage the pupils, if appropriate and according to their age, in some of the discussion. Where does my hon. Friend see young people fitting into that consultation process?

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

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She is right to draw attention to subsection (2)(c), which gives the opportunity to consult young people, among others. An amendment has been tabled on this matter, and we will debate it at a later stage. The Government agree with her about the importance and value of consulting with young people. We recently funded Schools Council UK, an education charity to produce a secondary schools toolkit to support exactly that kind of student participation in the decisions that affect them. Schools Council UK has already produced a successful version for the primary level. That is just one example of ways in which we are encouraging the involvement of young people in these decisions. I agree that this is important and I hope that it will be adopted more widely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.