Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1A) A local authority shall publish a notice under subsection (1) in circumstances where 35 per cent or more of school places are in schools that are underperforming.'.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 179, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1A) A local education authority must publish such a notice if they receive representations from 50 or more parents of qualifying children in connection with the establishment of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school or an academy.

(1B) In subsection (1A) “qualifying child”, in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.

No. 193, in clause 7, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(1B) In subsection (1A) a maintained school is “underperforming” if, in the previous academic year, it was in the fourth quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.'.

No. 25, in clause 7, page 7, line 1, after second ‘a', insert ‘reasonable'.

No. 65, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, at end insert—

‘(ca) specify appropriate qualifications for persons other than local education authorities wishing to establish the new school,'.

No. 27, in clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert

‘, such time not to be less than a period of two months,'.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

Clause 7 is probably the key provision of the Bill; it is certainly the major factor in persuading the Opposition to support it. During his speech on 24 October last year—the day before the publication of the White Paper—the Prime Minister said:

“In our schools, as I shall go on to describe, the system will finally be opened up to real parent power. All schools will be able to have Academy style freedoms. All schools will be able to take on external partners. No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in, simply on the basis that there are local surplus places. The role of the LEA will change fundamentally.”

In the White Paper itself, the Prime Minister stated:

“While parents can express a choice of school, there are not yet enough good schools in urban areas; such restrictions are greatest for poor and middle class families who cannot afford to opt for private education or to live next to a good school, if they are dissatisfied with what the state offers.”

Many parents are dissatisfied with what the state offers; the recent National Audit Office report into improving schools stated:

“As at July 2005, there were 1,557 poorly performing schools in England, which represented around 4 per cent of primary schools and 23 per cent of secondary schools...We estimate that these 1,557 schools educate around 980,000 pupils, or 13 per cent of the school population.”

The clause has been important in eliciting support from the Opposition, but it is also a major reasonfor Labour rebels’ opposition to the Bill. In their alternative White Paper, “Shaping the Education Bill:  Reaching for Consensus”—I wonder how they got on trying to reach that consensus—they state:

“We propose that local authorities be empowered to assess and if necessary refuse or restrain the expansion of schools where this would not be in the overall interests of pupils in their area...Local authorities should retain the power to decide whether to function solely as commissioners, and not providers, of education...The Trust concept must be more fully developed and discussed before it could be enshrined in primary legislation.”

Before Easter, I was accused by the Minister of doing her job for her in citing the draft regulations in support of clause 3. In giving this explanation of the reasons for amendment No. 24, I may be in danger of being accused by the hon. Member for Bury, North—although he voted for the Bill—of doing his job for him. The amendment adds strength to the power of parents by triggering a competition for a new school and inviting proposals in circumstances in which 35 per cent. of school places are in schools that can be regarded as underperforming. I cited the concerns given in the alternative White Paper about what the provisions that became clause 7 do. Despite those concerns, the letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee still makes it clear:

“A key part of the vision set out in the White Paper is that the local authority increasingly acts as a commissioner, rather than a provider, of schools.”

Given the huge majority, as the Minister indicated, that the Bill received on Second Reading, I hope that that remains a key part of the vision. The amendment seeks to strengthen that vision by creating an automatic trigger for a notice to be issued under clause 7 inviting proposals for the establishment of a new school when 35 per cent. of school places are in schools that are underperforming. We defined underperforming schools in amendment No. 193 as those schools that appear in the bottom quartile of a value-added league table.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

Why 35 per cent.?

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I shall answer that now. This is a probing amendment, and I have not been able to calculate precisely how many local authorities would be forced to issue notices as a result of such a provision. If the figure were 25 per cent. then presumably, given that the definition of underperforming schools in amendment No. 193 is schools in the bottom quartile, most local authorities would be forced to initiate a competition.

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Would it not be a shame if we were to tolerate a situation in which there were large numbers of pupils in underperforming schools because we are arguing about numbers and where lines should be drawn? Surely the point is that we are not prepared to put up with large numbers of pupils in such schools.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is precisely the purpose of this probing amendment. Later amendments are a bit more specific. It was hoped that the choice of 35 per cent. would result in not all local authorities having an automatic  trigger, but fewer. I am willing to accept from the hon. Member for Bury, North or from the Minister a different figure—higher or lower—that would achieve the objective of triggering an invitation to propose a new school should too many school places in a local authority area underperform. If that figure is different from 35 per cent., I am sure that the Committee can come to a compromise.

Clause 7 is similar to section 66 of the Education Act 2005, except that this clause applies to all schools, not just secondary schools. However, section 66 has not yet, so far as I know, been implemented. Can the Minister confirm that, and explain why it has not? Can she also reassure the Committee that clause 7 will not languish for years on the statute book without being implemented? Clause 164, the commencement clause, does not seem to include clause 7, which means that it will come into force by order. Can the Minister say when that order will be made?

Amendment No. 24 seeks to strengthen clause 7, assuming that it is implemented, making it more likely that the Bill will achieve the objective set out at page 25 of the White Paper, which says:

“We will encourage all primary schools and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust.”

That quotation leads me neatly on to amendment No. 179, which seeks to make it even easier for parents to trigger a competition under clause 7. The current position is that parents need to make representations to the local authority under clause 3, and then the local authority has a duty to consider those representations. Despite all the safeguards set out in the illustrative guidance, at the end of the day, the local authority can turn down the request to publish a notice for a competition based on those representations.

The Prime Minister said in the foreword to the White Paper that

“the local authority must move from being a provider of education to being its local commissioner and the champion of parent choice.”

The amendment will make the publication of a notice under clause 7 by a local authority obligatory if the local authority receives representations from 50 or more parents. It therefore gives force to the Prime Minister’s aspiration by requiring local authorities to set up a new school when large numbers of parents demand it.

The White Paper stated:

“We will ensure that...parents are able to set up new schools supported by a dedicated capital pot.”

On capital funding, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified what capital will be made available to parents or other bodies who want to propose a new school. Schedule 1 to the draft regulations states at paragraph 10 that the notice published by the local authority under clause 7 must contain a

“statement that the local education authority will meet the capital costs of implementing the proposals to the extent required by any enactment.”

The Minister’s explanation of that paragraph would be extremely helpful and would clarify the position for many groups who might want to set up a school under the proposals.

The press release when the Bill was published stated:

“Parents will be able to ask for new schools to be set up to reflect local need and demand.”

If 50 parents independently make such representations that is clearly evidence of an enormous groundswell of concern in an area. It is very difficult to achieve 50 representations that are co-ordinated, and that will happen only if there is widespread concern in a community about the quality of education provision in the area. That is a large number of parents to garner, I assure the Committee.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I challenge the idea that 50 is a large number of parents. Fifty parents could be 25 families, who could live on the same street. When a school might, typically, have 1,200 children and 2,500 or more parents, how can the hon. Gentleman seriously argue that 25 families could have the power completely to destabilise the education system throughout the local authority?

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I think that 50 is a large number to garner. Only once has a group of that number of parents come to me with concerns about anything specific in a school. Once 25 parents did come to me about one school, which was put into special measures two years later, but generally I have not found groups of that size approaching me as the Member of Parliament on an education issue. I do not think that people will sign up to such representation as easily as they would, say, sign a petition. People take those issues seriously and getting that number of parents sufficiently concerned to make such representations would reflect a community concern much wider than that of the 50 parents taking part.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

In deprived areas with many families from lower socio-economic groups, getting 50 parents to come forward is an even greater achievement than it is for other kinds of schools.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes another important point.

The hon. Member for Bury, North said in an earlier sitting that giving parents the power in question would give them greater democratic power in their area than other people who must rely on the ballot box every four years. I do not accept that argument. Exercising rights under the clause as I would want it to be amended would be the equivalent of exercising any other right to which the law entitles a person—using a complaints procedure, for example, or any of the services provided by a local authority in exchange for money. Indeed, making any representation to a local authority—particularly if it is to be acted on—could be regarded as a similar right. The new right would simply be a service provided by the local authority to which 50 parents acting together or individually could gain access. It would have no effect on the composition of the council or on what party or group ran the local authority.

Amendment No. 180, in the next group of amendments, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, states:

“The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 5(b) (ii)”

in circumstances where the proposal for a community school is

“supported by parents in such numbers...as may be prescribed”.

Is that provision not exactly the same as amendment No. 179, although it relates to the establishment of a community school? Amendment No. 179 will, however, introduce a much more responsive approach to local parents’ needs and eliminate the insouciance and inertia that affect some local authorities. It will also go a long way towards achieving the Government’s stated objective of ensuring that all secondary and primary schools are self-governing and have acquired a trust. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government do not have an electoral mandate to deliver their objectives, because they certainly do.

Amendment No. 25 would insert the word “reasonable” in subsection (3)(c), which relates to the content of the notice that a local authority will publish under the clause. Subsection (3) states:

“A notice...must

(a) identify a possible site for the school,

(b) specify whether or not the proposed school is to be a special school,

(c) specify a date...by which the proposals must be submitted”.

The amendment states that that specified date must be reasonable to give potential proposers of a new school sufficient time to put together their proposals.

The Minister kindly circulated to the Committee the draft School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. Regulation 4 states:

“For the purposes of section 7(3)(c), the prescribed interval is an interval of 4 months from the date of the publication of the notice inviting proposals.”

Four months appears to be a reasonable period in which to put together such proposals, although their complexity might make the time scale far from generous. However, there is a balance to be struck: we must not only allow sufficient time for proposals to be put together, but remember that insufficient good schools will be available during that time. Every month that we give to reply to a notice is another month in which a school will continue to underperform. I would be grateful if the Minister said how she decided on four months and what consultation she had with potential proposers of new schools on how long it might take to put a proposal together.

Amendment No. 27 also relates to time periods. Under subsection (5), the local authority must publish proposals for a new school that are submitted to it as a result of the notice to invite proposals. Subsection (6) says that regulations should prescribe such a period. I hate to say this, but as with other amendments on time periods that we submitted before the publication of the draft regulations and before the Government made their policy clear, we have been far too easy-going with local authorities. The amendment specifies two  months, but regulation 7 of the draft regulations specifies three weeks. I applaud the Government’s determination to press ahead at full speed with proposals to establish new schools. It would have been better to have the time periods in the Bill, but that is a small grumble compared with our delight at the tight time scale under which local authorities will have to publish proposals—a time scale that we support.

Liberal amendment No. 65 would enable the local authority to specify the qualification that it requires from those who propose a school. It seems to be designed to frustrate the establishment of new schools, because the requirement could be drawn up in a very restrictive manner. The schedules to the draft regulations set out detailed requirements as to the information that should be included in any proposals, including the type of school that is proposed and the school’s proposed ethos or ethoi. Paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the draft regulations refers to

“Evidence of any relevant experience in education held by the proposer, or proposers.”

Precisely what experience the proposers have in relation to education will therefore be perfectly transparent to those who make decisions about proposals and those who might want to submit comments or objections to them, and those involved will be able to form their own judgment based on that information.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on what is a comprehensive and typically well researched appraisal of the amendments and the Government’s position. Will he invite the Liberals to make it absolutely clear what additional information they think a local authority could usefully expect? The Government have made it clear that they want a great deal of information; what do the Liberals want that goes further than what the Government want in terms of information from those who wish to establish a new school?

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. My concern is that a local authority could have a very restrictive requirement in respect of the qualifications that it seeks from a proposer of a school—a requirement that is designed, in effect, to rule out any realistic chance of a group of people setting up a school. I am slightly baffled by the Liberals’ amendment because of their professed support for localism and opposition to centralised prescription. It is odd that their amendment is so prescriptive.

Clause 7 is important. It will enable, and make it easy, for parents and non-profit groups to establish a new school in an area that is underprovided with good schools. The Conservative party is committed to ensuring that we have more good schools and more places at good schools. It is unacceptable that any child should have to attend an underperforming or coasting school. Today, almost 1 million children attend poorly performing schools, and it is likely that a similar number attend coasting schools. We will support any measure the Government propose that we believe will raise standards or increase the number of good schools.

The clause helps to achieve that, and amendments Nos. 24, 179, 193, 25 and 27 would help to make it even more effective, and make the reforms even swifter.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I shall first speak to amendment No. 65, then turn my attention to the Conservative amendments.

Amendment No. 65 is a probing amendment that is intended to test what the Government would regard as appropriate qualifications—or, more specifically, what they would regard as inappropriate qualifications and backgrounds of those who wish to provide a trust. We have been trying to probe the Government on these matters for some time. I was pleased when the new draft regulations arrived today, and I eagerly scanned them to see whether they give any more information on who the Government consider to be unsuitable for providing trusts. They do not; they shed little light, saying only that the details of foundations’ charitable objectives should be published.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) is a member of the Education and Skills Committee, and he asked the Secretary of State if she would rule out McDonald’s, for example, running schools through this model of trust schools. She did not.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

Can we put this one to rest? No private company could form a trust. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, they will be charitable organisations.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that point, but that does not mean that McDonald’s could not set up a trust—that the company could not set up a charitable organisation and then run schools. That is the point we are making.

In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) tabled a parliamentary question about whether a range of companies might be involved in setting up such trusts, such as tobacco companies, fast-food companies or supermarkets. Again, the Government declined to answer. Instead, the Minister replied:

“We welcome the involvement of partners from all sectors of the community and across the economy”.—[Official Report,31 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. Column Number 349W.]

In March 2006, my hon. Friend asked the question again, and related it more specifically to fast-food companies. The answer came back from the Government that it was not open to any organisation to set up school trusts, but they did not say specifically whether they had a particular problem in respect of this point. As I said, we are simply trying to probe the Government on what they consider to be suitable qualifications in that regard.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Lady seems excessively—I was about to say cautious, but that is the kindest word I can use; one might say paranoid. The organisations in question would have to establish trusts. Those trusts would have to be charities and be established under the normal criteria for any charity. We are not talking  about a supermarket—and I am a doughty opponent of supermarkets, by the way—setting up a body that does not fit any of the perfectly proper terms in the legislation, so what is the hon. Lady really getting at?

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I would be delighted to watch the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that he would be happy for a fast-food company to be involved in forming a trust, because I suspect that his constituents would feel rather differently on the matter. As I have said, the amendment is probing. These are questions for the Government to answer, not us.

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

So that we can understand the background to the hon. Lady’s point, if a person came forward whom she regarded as being of a suitable character to run a trust, would she allow them to form a trust and set up a school under the provisions ofthe Bill?

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

Those are questions for the Minister to answer, not me. I shall quote the National Union of Teachers, because I know that that always gets Conservative Members excited. The NUT said today that it was particularly concerned about fast-food companies being involved in forming trusts. The Department for Education and Skills is on record as describing that as “codswallop”, but there does not appear to be anything in the Bill that would prevent it from happening. I merely wish to probe the Government on what exactly they feel are the boundaries, or indeed on whether they have any boundaries or any specific concerns at all.

Let me turn to the Conservative amendments. In relation to amendment No. 24, we will need to address exactly why schools are underperforming. There is not, as yet, any evidence to suggest that if a new school is set up under a trust model, that will raise standards. It is not a question of simply having that kind of trigger and setting up schools on the back of that automatic presumption. There is no adequate evidence base. If the evidence base showed something different, I could see some reason to support the proposals, but it does not.

Although I have considerable concerns about the way in which amendment No. 179 is drafted, I do not wish there to be a knee-jerk rejection of it; there is the germ of something interesting in the idea of allowing parents, through a petition, to trigger some kind of response. The question is what that response should be. Should it be the automatic publication of a notice and a competition to set up a new school, or would a review or inquiry, which could take any number of forms, be more appropriate? That might be something done by officers in the council, or a review process undertaken by the oversight or scrutiny committees. Any of those might be another option.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, that 50 parents is really a very small number indeed; I have no problem getting 50 individuals to sign a petition in my neighbourhood on many issues. There is something interesting in the idea of making sure that petitions trigger some kind of response beyond a mere press release in the local paper and leaflets on the back of that. That is an interesting point  that needs exploring, although I would not be prepared to support the amendment in its current form.

On amendment No. 25, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the regulations define what is considered to be reasonable. I have no problem with the term set out in the regulations, so I would not support amendment No. 27. I feel that my concerns as regards supporting amendment No. 25 have been adequately addressed.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for quoting so generously from a document that I had a hand in writing. When he read the extracts, it seemed even more balanced and reasonable than when I contributed to it.

I rise to speak against amendments Nos. 24, 179 and 193. In doing so, I am conscious that my criticisms might ultimately help the hon. Gentleman, because he might come back on Report with slightly improved amendments that are more acceptable.

In amendment No. 24, the arbitrary figure of 35 per cent. of school places being in schools that are underperforming completely invalidates the concept for which the hon. Gentleman argues, because he has presented no evidence as to why 35 per cent. is the magic figure. Nor has he done the research—perhaps he should take tea at the Savoy—to tell us how many local authorities would fall into the relevant category. I accept that it would not be the first time that an arbitrary figure has appeared in legislation, but the hon. Gentleman does not do his argument much credit by simply plucking that figure out of the air. If he could tell us that at 25 per cent., x number of local authorities would be brought into the threshold, and that at 35 per cent., y number of local authorities would be brought into it—if he could give us some reasons for the figure—his argument might be more valid.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The point is surely the principle. My hon. Friend made it clear that there is no magic number, but the principle of that sort of popular engagement in the process is one that we could usefully debate. Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle of the community playing a role in that way? Does he think that there should be a popular element triggering the process?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I support the principle underlying the basis of our democracy: local decisions should be made through the ballot box, not through an arbitrary proportion of individuals triggering actions that could have untold consequences.

That leads me to amendment No. 179 and the figure of 50 parents. As I said earlier, 50 parents could represent 25 families. Indeed, in some parts of the country, with some minority ethnic groups in which the extended family is still dominant, it could mean one family. I can think of one or two large extended families in my constituency that could summon up 50 parents, all of whose children could, theoretically, go to the same school, and they could trigger the process. Clearly, that is a nonsense. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members would realise  that it is a nonsense if they thought about it a little more. If they were to propose a higher figure, there might be the germ of an idea there, but I reiterate my point that if we are to set in motion a process of change to deal with underperformance, it is better to do that through normal democratic procedures and the ballot box than through the action of a small number of people.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to draw an analogy with other services that local authorities provide or a complaints procedures—saying that x number of people can trigger a formal complaints procedure—but those are utterly different processes. The consequences of closing schools and opening new schools, and of changing the ownership and management of schools, will go far wider and impact on far more people. The effect is not limited simply to the number of people signing the petition calling for the change.

Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)

It is a noble concept that people can use the ballot box to change things, but when people in Bury, for example, go to vote in a few weeks’ time—if they are going to do so—and there are Labour, Liberal and Conservative candidates, does the hon. Gentleman really think that the particular problems of a particular school will make any difference to their vote in that huge election? The matter is far more local than that is it not?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because it touches on an issue in my constituency involving a school closure. I am confident that the issue will be resolved through the ballot box on Thursday 4 May. In my constituency and in the constituency of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), two school closures have been passionately opposed by a small number of parents. Those two high-profile campaigns generated a lot of noise and much passion and anger. The question is to what extent campaigns by comparatively small number of parents are representative of the parent body as a whole. It seems that the only way to get an answer to that question is through the collective voice of the people of Bury, North and of Bury, South in the municipal elections on 4 May. I am confident that the people will endorse the local authority’s proposal, which will settle the matter—if not once and for all, at least for the immediate future. It is important to support the normal procedures of democracy rather than invent devious ways to subvert them.

Amendment No. 103 deals with the definition of underperforming. It is important that the Bill should define it. We—I mean the Government, Ofsted and we as Members of Parliament—use the term “underperforming” rather loosely, as we do the concept of a “good” school. It is important to have criteria. The question is whether the criterion of a school appearing in the

“fourth quartile of value added measures”

for the previous academic year is in itself an adequate definition of underperformance. I do not think that it is, and I mention two points in support of my contention.

First, there are all sorts of reasons why a school that has been in the first, second or third quartile for several years might slip into the fourth quartile for one year. Those reasons could range from a change of management and leadership at the school to problems with a particular cohort in one year, and all kinds of external circumstances. Choosing the year immediately previous before as the single reference point is not adequate. Secondly, there is the nature of a quartile. It is in the nature of quartiles that one group of schools will always be in the fourth quartile. It does not necessarily mean that, by being in the fourth quartile, a school is underperforming.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has said he does not think 50 is a representative number of parents in a school and that he does not agree with the criteria to determine which schools are underperforming. What number would be a good number of parents; and if he does not agree with Ofsted, what would he class as an underperforming school?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

My point is that there is a needfor a serious debate about what constitutes underperformance in schools. This is the moment for it, but it is not necessarily for the Committee to  determine today. It should appear in legislation at some point, but to pluck an arbitrary criterion out of the air and try to insert it into primary legislation is not the way forward.

My next comments apply as much to amendment No. 193 as to amendment No. 24. The difficult with such arbitrary thresholds is that they are easily manipulated. For example, for a director of children’s services or the chief executive of a local authority faced with the prospect of 35 per cent. of its school places being in underperforming schools, the easiest way to avoid the action that the Opposition want to trigger would be to manipulate and increase the number of school places, thereby bringing the local authority below the threshold. That is a simple example of how such things can be done. Although the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton focused on the value added measure rather than the raw scores of league tables as his criterion for underperformance, I am absolutely confident that, as the value added methodology becomes established, it will be subject to the same kind of subtle manipulation as the raw scores in leagues tables are now. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]