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

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (1).

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out

‘with the consent of the Secretary of State'.

No. 28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line 37.

No. 77, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the publication of proposals under subsection (1) for the establishment of a community or community special school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that the establishment of such a school would lead to substantially better academic results than would be the case for a foundation or foundation special school.'.

No. 181, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 1(a) in any case in which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to be supported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may be prescribed by regulations.'.

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

Subsection (1) of the clause provides that:

“A local education authority in England may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish...proposals to establish”

a new school otherwise than under clause 7—that is, without a competition or having regard to the other clause 7 provisions that apply to competitions.

Clause 9 is a repetition of section 65 of the Education Act 2005, which is more of a safety valve than a section of real substance or importance. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the objective of section 65 is:

“To promote diversity by extending the requirement for secondary school competitions so that competitions are held whenever a new school is proposed unless the Secretary of State decides that a competition is not required in an individual case.”

The section therefore dealt with individual cases and was intended to cover unforeseen exceptions.

The Bill repeals section 65 of the 2005 Act and replaces it with clause 9, which is simply an updated version of section 65, but which relates to primary schools as well as secondary schools. The regulatory  impact assessment relating to the Bill confirms that point in paragraph 5.20, stating that:

“The requirement on local authorities to seek the prior consent of the”

Secretary of State

“to propose new community schools is therefore intended to apply only in exceptional circumstances. Similar provisions already exist where the Secretary of State gives consent for the publication of proposals for new schools outside competitions. The purpose of requiring local authorities and others to seek consent is to ensure that there is greater contestability and that local people have the opportunity to consider a range of proposals from different providers when new schools are to be established.”

That paragraph refers to clause 7 as well as clause 9, but it is clear that clause 9 is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances because the aim of the Bill is to ensure greater contestability when new schools are being proposed.

We agree with that aim, and the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to promote that purpose further. If subsection (1) were removed, local authorities would lose the right to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to establish a new school without going through a competition; clause 9 would apply only to non-local authority proposers of new schools. The amendment would thus make the Bill even stronger and move it further in the direction set out by the Government.

In fact, paragraph 5.17 of the regulatory impact assessment states:

“Under the extensions proposed in the WP, there might be around 100 competitions a year”

under clause 7, but

“This would depend on the frequency with which the Secretary of State exercised her powers to allow proposals for new schools outside a competition.”

I am not necessarily against the Secretary of State using such powers, but it would be helpful if the Minister set out the circumstances in which she envisages those powers being exercised.

Amendment No. 28 is a variation on the theme of amendment No. 29, but instead of removing the whole of subsection (1), it would remove only paragraph (a), which refers to local authorities that wish to establish a new community school. The right of a local authority to establish a new foundation school outside of a competition, with the permission of the Secretary of State, would remain. Again, the amendment would help to achieve the Government’s objective of achieving more diversity of provision.

Amendment No. 77 essentially is the same as the amendment that we tabled in relation to clause 7. It sets out the fall-back position that if the Secretary of State decides not to exercise her veto, the criteria for permitting a local authority to establish another community school will be confined strictly to cases in which there is clear evidence that such a school would achieve better academic results than a foundation school.

I turn to amendment No. 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her colleagues, and amendment No. 181, tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Amendment No. 67 is superficially similar to the amendment that the Liberals tabled to clause 7, in that it would remove the need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if  a local authority wishes to establish a new community school. I say “superficially” because, although the amendment is worded similarly to the previous amendment, when applied to clause 9 it would provide local authorities with much greater powers than they have now. It would allow a local authority to set up any type of school without going through the competition process set out in clause 7. I am not sure whether that is what the Liberals intended, but it would take us back to the position before the Education Act 2002. We will therefore oppose the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Amendment No. 181 would require the Secretary of State to consent to proposals to establish a new community school if there was parental support. In their response to the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the White Paper, the Government said:

“Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school that will command the support of parents, the Secretary of State will not normally intervene.”

The purpose of the amendment is presumably to put that commitment into the Bill, but it would do so without the important caveat that the local authority must have a good track record in education. I guess that the hon. Member for Bury, North does not care about that point and is happy for local authorities with a poor track record to continue to establish new schools on the same basis.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

That remark is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He argued last week that the essence of amendments that I had tabled was little different from the spirit of his amendment that provided for new schools of a particular kind to be established on the vote of a specified number of parents. I assert the importance of the parental voice for one purpose and he asserts it in a different way for a similar purpose, so I do not think that he can argue that he is concerned about standards and I am not.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but his amendment, No. 181, relates to local authorities, not to the wider range of proposers to which our amendments referred, and he has specifically omitted from the amendment any reference to the track record of a local authority, which is important in relation to allowing authorities to establish schools outside a competition.

It is important to remind the Committee of another comment in the Government’s response to the Select Committee. The Government stated:

“It is important that local authorities seriously consider all alternatives to secure the best education for their community, however, and do not just promote local authority community schools as the default option.”

In their application to clause 9, amendments Nos. 181 and 67 would create the same problem: they would allow local authorities to bypass a competition under clause 7, which would undermine the principle that local authorities should consider all alternatives to secure the best possible education for their community, not just promote local authority community schools. As such, if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment, we will oppose it.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

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

We accept that the clause is intended only to apply in special circumstances, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister what those circumstances will be.

Amendment No. 67 is not intended to allow local authorities to get around the need for a competition. However, clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to get around that need. Our argument is that even in those special circumstances, the local authority is best placed to decide what is most appropriate for its area. We made that argument on clause 7 and I do not intend to rehearse at great length points that I have already made in Committee, except to say that we believe that the proper place for strategic planning of education is within the local authority. It is the elected tier of government that is closest to the decisions that have to be made and closest to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions.

Localism depends on a willingness to let go. It is true that the implications of our policy are that in certain areas a Labour council or a Conservative council might make decisions with which we disagree. We accept that. That is the nature of localism. If we disagree, we will campaign on a local level to remove that local council. That is what democracy is all about. We believe that even in special circumstances—I hope that the Minister will elucidate those—it is still for the local authority to make the decisions on what schools best fit the local area.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 181. In one sense we are repeating the arguments that we went through on an earlier clause. It is important that parents have a voice in the decision, but that voice should not be used in a systematic way to allow a small and unrepresentative group of parents to undermine the broader democratic processes. That is why my amendment does not specify a minimum number of parents, but allows for the numbers of parents and the categories of parents to be specified in regulations.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that there was no reference to the quality of the local education authority, but there is not always a direct relationship between the quality and the performance of the local education authority and the quality and the performance of individual schools within that authority. If there were such a direct relationship life would be much simpler, but there are many schools of outstanding quality within local education authorities with poor performance ratings, and vice versa.

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

To pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman made just before he came on to that point, he stated proudly that his amendment does not specify the number of parents that would be required to demonstrate support and that that would be specified in regulations. Does he not feel that as an elected Member of Parliament he should have a say in what the Government would propose in those regulations, and does he have a view that he can express now?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

No, I honestly do not feel qualified to decide whether 20, 30 or 40 per cent. or 50, 70 or 90 parents is the right threshold. The matter needs more consideration, which is why it is more appropriate for secondary legislation.

On the question of the quality threshold of the local authority, my amendment has the advantage that by allowing for further consideration to be given to the exact number and category of parents who would be able to exercise their voice in this way, we can reasonably and safely assume that if a large group of parents were overwhelmingly in favour of a new community school, it would reflect very effectively the quality of that LEA. If parents had no confidence in the performance of their LEA, presumably they would not sign up to the cause of a new community school. That is an important point. We have to trust the judgment of parents. In one sense it is rather patronising to assume that parents would sign up for the cause of new community school without any knowledge of the quality of their local education authority. Parents have a better gut instinct of the quality of what is going on locally than the hon. Gentleman perhaps gives them credit for.

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

We have had a short but good discussion on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton ably spelt out the intentions behind clause 9, so I will not go over that again.

Amendment No. 29 would prevent a local authority from proposing to establish any new schools outside a competition. As we discussed in relation to clause 7, we have introduced competitions to create and promote diversity and choice within the education system, and in particular to provide an environment within which new promoters will be able to propose the establishment of new schools. However, there are circumstances—exceptional circumstances; the hon. Gentleman is right about that—in which a competition might not be appropriate. In effect, clause 7 is the default position for proposals for new and reorganised schools, but clause 9 provides some flexibility to allow a local authority or promoter to propose the establishment of a new school without the need for a competition.

Hon. Members have asked me to outline some of the limited circumstances in which that might be appropriate. If a school was failing, the local partners, in concert with expert advisers, might decide that the best way forward would be a collaborative restart of the school with a particular character and ethos; that would need to happen quickly and there would have to be a consensus on how to deal with that example of failure. As for primary schools, a junior and an infant school sharing a single site might want to amalgamate to form an all-through primary; we do not think that a competition would necessarily make sense in those circumstances. I shall give other examples when I discuss some of the other amendments.

Of course, in deciding whether to consent to proposals outside a competition, the Secretary of State will take into account the local authority’s track record on educational performance, the existing degree of  diversity in the school system and parental preference and the views expressed by parents in the area. Also, any proposals by the local authority, whether for a foundation school or a new community school, would be decided in such circumstances by the schools adjudicator. There would be another stage to complete following the Secretary of State’s consent to the publication of proposals outside a competition: that stage would consist of consultation, the publication of proposals and the making of a decision, similar to the process that have already discussed.

In those circumstances it is appropriate for the schools adjudicator to be the decision maker, because it is important to avoid any question of the authority’s being judge and jury in its own case. If the Secretary of State agrees, however, we think it right that a local authority should be able to publish proposals for a new community or foundation school. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise the sense of that in certain circumstances, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 67 would enable local authorities to make proposals outside competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State. As we have heard, the arguments are very similar to those that we rehearsed at length under clause 7 about allowing proposals for new community schools to be made within competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State.

To reiterate some of the points that I made then, the argument is not about centralisation or localisation, but about the direction in which we want to move the local authority’s role and the nature of the dynamic that we want to create in the school system. We are not opposed to local education authorities. We are strengthening their role as the champions of parents and in assuring the quality of provision in an area. However, that is a modernised role as commissioners of services, rather than as direct providers.

As I suggested earlier, it is important that we do not, as the amendment would, allow local authorities to sidetrack competitions. We made it clear in the White Paper that we think that competitions will normally be the best way to encourage diversity in the system. If the system is to be open to new ideas and to innovation by new providers, potential providers should have the necessary information about opportunities for new schools and should be encouraged to make proposals for local people to consider. That is how we are most likely to get a diverse range of schools, which will increase not only the choice for parents and pupils, but the chance that schools will learn from each other. Clause 9, like clause 7, represents the right balance between encouraging a diverse and dynamic system and allowing proposals outside a competition when that makes sense.

Amendment No. 28 would remove the ability of a local authority to propose a community school outside a competition. We had a lengthy discussion last week about what we said in the White Paper and the fact that we considered that there might be circumstances in which it would make sense for a local authority to promote a community school either under the clause 7 arrangements or, in certain circumstances, outside a competition.

In circumstances in which the Secretary of State agrees that a community school might be the right option, a local authority should be able to publish proposals for that community school or a community special school. As I have said, the normal route would be to hold a competition under clause 7 and the local authority would propose a new community school as part of that competition. The decision will be made according to criteria that, as I have said, wewill produce on Report. However, in exceptional circumstances, a local authority should be able to make the case for proposing a community school without a competition. I gave the example of the collaborative restart idea in the case of failure. It seems to be appropriate for that option to be available, with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 77 would limit the Secretary of State’s power to agree to allow a local authority to publish proposals for a new community school outside a competition unless the authority can provide evidence that the establishment of such a school would lead to better results. Without going over old ground, I have made it clear that we think that the circumstances in which we agree to a school being established without competition will be limited. I have already given the example of a failing school that is to be replaced by an agreed collaborative restart.

Another example, which would not directly meet the criteria outlined by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton but which I think he might think would be appropriate, would be if denominational schools in an area were being reorganised and it was proposed that the replacement school or schools be of the same denomination. In such a case, we would not be talking directly about a standards test. However,if, say, two Roman Catholic schools were being reorganised because of falling rolls, it would be appropriate to propose one Roman Catholic school to replace them. That would seem to be an appropriate circumstance in which to make a proposal outside a competition.

It was our intention in the White Paper to say that new community schools should not be able to be established in any circumstances, but we listened to representations from hon. Members, local authorities and others, and agreed that there are circumstances in which a community school might be the right option. Also, as I have suggested, it might be appropriate to allow proposals outside a competition even in circumstances in which there is not, as the amendment suggests, a clear standards case. It is important to allow freedom to consider all the factors in each case—the process should not be purely mechanistic.

The amendment is narrow and could lead to arguments and counter-arguments about the respective merits of different categories of schools, whereas what we want is the best school for each area—one that meets the specific needs of local parents and of the community. Of course, as I said, even if the Secretary of State agrees that proposals can be published, the final decision will be for the schools adjudicator, who will naturally consider the impact on local standards and circumstances. If the proposals do not provide hard evidence that a school will make a positive contribution to local standards, to community needs, and to parental choice, I expect that the proposals  would be rejected. Consideration of standards is therefore included in the process for publication of proposals, so I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton agrees that there may well be circumstances that would not fit into his proposals. Our priority is to secure high standards, but we also need to be free to judge each case on its own merits.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, we had a similar discussion on the role of parents in relation to clause 7 as we have had on amendmentNo. 181, so I shall not rehearse the arguments in detail, because our position is well known. We strongly support the role of parents and we have made specific provision in the Bill to strengthen it. My hon. Friend is right to argue that that role should be developed in a systematic way that recognises the variety of different ways in which parents may make representations or express concerns. That is why, when we discussed clauses 2 and 3,which place new duties on local authorities to promote diversity and parental choice and to respond to specific representations from parents, we discussed the ways in which we would expect local authorities to respond and examined in detail the guidance published alongside those clauses—guidance that explained the action that we expect from local authorities.

If parents wanted a community or a foundation school that was being proposed by the authority, that would add weight to the arguments in favour, but it would not be the only or the decisive factor. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured about how seriously we take the need to consider parents’ requirements and by our recognition of the complexity involved in doing so. I hope that he will be willing not to press his amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of her resistance to the amendments. She cited a suitably narrow range of examples of when the provisions of clause 9 would be needed by a local authority to establish a school outside of the competition arrangements of clause 7. That confirmed my understanding of the clause, that it is only to be used by local authorities in exceptional circumstances. She convinced me that the wording of amendment No. 29 may be unnecessarily wide, in that it would remove any possibility of a local authority establishing a school outside of the competition arrangements. The examples that she cited of when a local authority may wish to do that were valid.

However, I was unconvinced by her justification for not removing the ability of local authorities to establish a community school outside the competition arrangements. As with clause 7, I believe that that provision was inserted into clause 9 as a concession to Labour party rebels. Therefore, although I shall withdraw amendment No. 29, I shall move amendment No. 28 formally at the appropriate point.

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

The Minister argues that that the presence of the Secretary of State’s veto in the clause and elsewhere is not about centralisation, but that is precisely what it is about and I do not understand how she can conclude otherwise. The definition of centralisation is taking power away from local authorities and putting it  in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can come to no other conclusion. It is like arguing that the world is flat when we know it is round, or that the sun is shining when it is raining. It is no good arguing that something is the case when it blatantly is not. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the clause is about the role of local authorities and what we consider it to be. We believe that their role should be to make decisions about their local area.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to sidetrack competition. If that is not what the right hon. Lady wanted, the clause should have been drafted differently. Our amendment provides that in the special circumstances when we do not want the competition rules to apply, the decision-making body would be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. That is a point of principle and we shall divide the Committee on amendment No. 67.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I will not press my amendment.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, after ‘7)', insert ‘an academy,'.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 41, leave out ‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘local education authority'.

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

The reason for tabling the amendment is based on arguments similar to those that I advanced earlier and in a previous sitting: even in the special circumstances in which an external body may come forward to publish proposals outside the remit of a competition, the body whose agreement must be sought should be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. The local authority is best placed to decide about the circumstances in an area, what criteria should be used to set up a school, and what kind of school it should be. The local authority should take that strategic role, as the Minister argued elsewhere.

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

Before I speak to amendment No. 30, I welcome you again to the Chair, Mr. Cook, as ever. Indeed, why not do so on a regular basis?

As the hon. Member for Brent, East rightly said, the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats reprises the argument that has run throughout the Committee between the different parties about the nature of the role of LEAs and the balance between that and the role of local communities and the Secretary of State.

Different views on the matter have emerged and I want to make it clear that we perceive a role for LEAs in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said at our last sitting. Had we not believed that, we could not reasonably have supported the Bill, because it perceives an ongoing role for LEAs. However, the Bill makes important changes to that role, and the hon. Lady’s amendment and her comments on it reflect earlier comments that show a difference between the Liberal Democrats’ perspective on the subject and that of the Opposition and the Government. Our views on education are not identical to those of the Government, but we are close to their position on the corresponding roles of LEAs and the Secretary of State because we appreciate that although local government is more than an agency of central Government, it is the creation of Parliament.

We do not have a federal system; we have a unitary constitution in which the power of local government is defined both by its legitimacy drawn from the people whom it represents and by the statutory powers vested in it by Parliament. The nature of central and local relations reflects that; there is always a balance to be  struck between the proper considerations of Government—and, in this case, the educational considerations of the Secretary of State, who has a responsibility to ensure that schools are established properly and that they are fit for purpose—and the role of local authorities in determining the provision in their locale. Thus, I have doubts about the Liberal Democrats’ amendment.

Amendment No. 30 would insert the words “an academy” into the clause. The omission of the phrase is surprising, given that the White Paper states that the Government will

“continue to promote Academies as a key part of our system...tackling the acute challenges in areas of real and historical underperformance”.

We had a short debate about academies last week and the Minister waxed lyrical about their virtues. Of course it is true that the performance of academies has been patchy. Some have done well and some less well, but it would be wrong to exclude academies from this part of the Bill, as though they were no longer the pivotal element of the policy the Minister reaffirmed a few days ago in Committee.

Our amendment is consistent with the Government’s intention and our perspective. We do not, of course, make a blind judgment that all academies are working as well as they might, but we are anxious to give them a fair wind and to support the good work that is being done. They are founded on a proper consideration of the need to engage in educational renewal in areas of disadvantage. That deserves support—and, by the way, we should not let the other current debate, about the way they are resourced, colour our views on the relevant aspect of the Bill.

I resist the overtures that are being made once again by the Liberal Democrats to frustrate the intention of the Bill, by undermining the balance that I have described. It should not be for local authorities to grant consent for proposals to establish new schools. The best local authorities work for the people they serve, rather than dictating what is to be provided. The White Paper states:

“The best local authorities are strategic leaders of their communities, listening to, and then speaking for their citizens, demanding the very best for those who elected them and building cultural and civic identity. They work with neighbourhoods and local communities to help them articulate their needs, and ensure that the pattern of local services matches up to their vision and aspirations. They act as the commissioners of services and the champions of users.”

That is not a role to be underestimated. It is notan understatement of the significance of local government, but a reaffirmation of our belief in local government of a kind that can deliver the best by understanding when it should step forward and when it should step back so that others can step forward.

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

With these amendments we are considering the circumstances set out in clause 9 in which promoters other than local authorities can make proposals for schools outside the competition provisions. In discussing the previous group of amendments we focused, on the whole, on the circumstances in which local authorities could make proposals outside those provisions. In that context, the impact of amendment No. 153 would be to enable  local authorities to decide whether proposers other than local authorities could make proposals for new schools.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East, that our proposals would ensure that the Government could take powers to control the publication of proposals outside competitions. As I have said, that is precisely to ensure that competitions will be effective and will remain the default mechanism for presenting new proposals. I do not think that the hon. Lady’s motive in tabling the amendment is to help to promote competitions and diversity in the system.

Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister comment on the duty on a local authority, which arose in an earlier clause, to provide diversity and choice? Does not that set a framework in which local decision making can take place?

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

It certainly does, and I hope and expect that local authorities will take that duty seriously. However, it is also appropriate for us to reinforce the structure that was put in place by the 2005 Act—that is effectively what the provisions do—to ensure, through competition proposals, that there is a process and a statutory framework that enables new providers to come forward.

Groups other than local authorities have always been able to make proposals for new schools; the large number of voluntary schools bears witness to that. Such providers have made a valuable contribution to education and will continue to do so. That is why we are introducing the trust school model and encouraging foundation schools of all kinds.

As we have made clear, we support competitions because they will encourage openness to innovation. A range of providers will be able to consider how they might make a contribution to education, and that will potentially increase the number of proposers. The danger in amendment No. 153 is that if proposals could be made without the consent of the Secretary of State, a local authority could avoid a competition by entering into a private arrangement to support the proposals of a particular provider, denying others the opportunity to have their proposals considered. That would not be in line with the intention behind the proposed programme: to open up and diversify the education system and give new providers opportunities to make a contribution. On that basis, we oppose amendment No. 153.

Robert Wilson (Reading East, Conservative)

As I understand it, no competitions to find alternative providers have been held by local authorities since the 2002 Act. What does the Minister think will change after this Bill to encourage new providers to come forward and local authorities to hold competitions?

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

As I have outlined, the competition proposals in the 2002 Act related only to completely new schools. In the Education Act 2005 we broadened those provisions to include reorganised schools, to widen opportunities. As I said to the hon. Member for  Bognor Regis and Littlehampton last week, those are the provisions on which we are consulting. Such a broadening of competition proposals will provide the opportunity for more new providers to come forward.

I hope that I can provide reassurance to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings(Mr. Hayes) on the point that he made on amendment No. 30 about the position of academies. Clause 9 will replace section 28A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which was inserted by section 65 of the 2005 Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman is intimately aware of those sections. Members of the Committee will have noticed when we discussed clause 7 that academies are included in that clause, which will replace section 66 of the 2005 Act. That will ensure that where a local authority holds a competition for a new school, the possibility of opening an academy is not overlooked.

As we have discussed, clause 9 deals with cases in which the Secretary of State gives consent for proposals to go ahead without a competition. We do not need specifically to include academies in the clause because there is already a clear legal process for establishing a new academy without a competition, under section 482 of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by the 2002 Act. The amendment would therefore not add to the power to propose new academies.

Of course I welcome the suggestion that the success of academies means that we should promote the establishment of more of them, but we do not need the amendment to do so. The legal process already in place includes clear requirements for the establishment of academies and for appropriate checks on the probity of potential sponsors. It spells out a solid basis for setting up academies and allowing them to improve pupils’ educational opportunities, and ensures that the route outlined by the hon. Gentleman exists outwith the competition proposals in clause 7. I hope that with that reassurance he will not press amendment No. 30.

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

As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), the duties at the start of the Bill already place a duty on local authorities to increase diversity of provision. Presumably, when the Government drafted the clause, they expected local authorities to implement it. So I cannot see what the Government have to lose by leaving them to get on with it.

If the Minister is implying that I have an ulterior motive for tabling this or any other amendment, she misunderstands how seriously the Liberal Democrats take local decision making. That runs throughout all of our philosophy—we take it very seriously. We believe that the local authority should make the decisions about service provision in its area, regardless of how special the circumstances—end of story.

We could probably have an interesting debate about the historical nature of government, and where it began, with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I suspect that in the feudal system, power began at a much lower level than central Parliament. Perhaps we could debate that and come to  a decision on another occasion—it is probably not appropriate in our deliberations on the Bill before us. Regardless of historical understanding, localism should not be about a benign gift of power, from the centre to the local authorities, when the centre so chooses.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

No, I am about to finish.

We believe that the process should be bottom-up, not centre-down. With that in mind, I shall press amendment No. 153 to a vote.

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

Amendment No. 30 was a probing amendment, and the Minister has satisfied me that her attachment to, and enthusiasm for, academies is undimmed. She reminded me of the 1996 Act, amended by the 2002 Act, which in respect of academies effectively does what we want to do. That renders our amendment unnecessary and ensures that the process of setting up academies is not adversely affected by the provisions in the Bill.

I am satisfied with the response to my amendment, but I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Brent, East and the case that she made for her amendment. If she chooses to press her amendment, I will advise my colleagues to oppose her. For my own part, I shall not press amendment No. 30.