Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 6, line 9, after 'body', insert

'but after consultation with that body'.

This is a small but important amendment. This Government and previous Governments have rightly stressed the importance of the governing body in the implementation of school policy. Since 1998, increased powers have been given to the governing body. Under existing legislation, the governing body has most of the powers regarding schools, not the head teacher, as is often thought.

The amendment seeks an explanation of why the governing body should not be consulted about the removal of exemptions. The clause basically says that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly can make an order to revoke without any application by the governing body. We understand that there may be a need to do that. However, we should like to insert the phrase

'but after consultation with that body'.

Although we recognise that the governing body might not make the request, if the Secretary of State is to act in a relatively unilateral way, it should have a right to be consulted on the matter. The amendment would simply enshrine in the Bill the importance of the governing body where changes are being made to any element of school status.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has identified an important issue. The clause does not allow for unexpected developments in the history of a school that can affect its results or its performance. The Bill provides for schools to form a federation and, de facto, to become a single school with a single governing body. There could be linkages between less successful schools and more successful schools.

We all hope that best practice in education can be spread to schools with problems. A less successful school might seek the guidance of a better performing school and to share some of its culture, facilities, expertise and so on. In such an environment, as two schools get closer together there may well be fluctuations in the performance of a school. If they truly merge into one school and become a single unit, it is conceivable that there may be ups and downs in its performance that reflect particular arrangements rather than the academic performance of pupils. That is a possible example.

Equally, demographics change, and every school has its ups and downs and good years and bad years. A school may move down the league table before returning up a year or two later for reasons that are probably beyond the control of the governing body, head teacher or the staff. This is not an exact science. There is a danger that if the Secretary of State has absolute powers to intervene and remove qualifying status, and may do that without referring to those on the ground who know the school's detailed situation, the removal of the exemption would be unfair and would bear no relation to the long-term trends, skills and competences in the school.

I ask the Minister to address the important issues raised by the amendment.

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

I expect that schools that earn their autonomy will use that wisely and continue to push up standards and improve the quality of leadership. If they do not do that and standards fall significantly, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales must retain the right to act quickly and decisively.

The withdrawal would not occur automatically simply because the performance criteria were no longer met. A judgment would be made. In practice, any intervention would be a result of dialogue with the applicant body and, perhaps, other relevant bodies that were originally consulted. I am happy to confirm that we would expect to consult. However, there may be circumstances in which the need for speed would outweigh that. For example, there may be a school that no longer meets the conditions for earned autonomy and has serious problems, and its governing body could make a bizarre curriculum change. In that case, we would wish to step in quickly to protect the interests of the children at the school. However, that process will not be common.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I find it slightly strange that the Minister argued against parents being allowed to vote on a bizarre curriculum change, but he wants the Secretary of State to have that power.

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

I am simply suggesting that one can imagine circumstances in which it would be important to act quickly to protect the interests of children at the school. The clause allows that. Consultation would normally unfold within the process, but we must ensure that the legislation allows for rapid intervention if unusual circumstances require that.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

That is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. The Minister is desperately trying to cover his back. The idea that action must be taken with great speed to overturn a bizarre curriculum decision, and that a school could implement that arrangement in 24 hours for all the kids and parents involved, is bizarre in itself. On reflection, the Minister may accept that.

I cannot envisage a situation that would require such speed that the governing body could not be consulted. After giving the governing body powers to determine many aspects ranging from the curriculum to pay and conditions, does the Minister say that if we reach an extreme situation in which the powers must be revoked for good reason—I am not questioning that—automatic consultation with the governing body, as the body with the school's legal powers, should not be provided for in the Bill? I find that surprising.

I trust that when the Minister returns to his little house, he will reconsider the matter and put it in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is a big house. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.