|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will not be tempted to pursue that line. We should come back to the terms of the new clause that we are debating.
Mr. Brady: I am most grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, some more experienced Members of the House may on occasion take advantage of the relative inexperience of others. I am grateful to you for protecting me from my right hon. Friend
Mr. Lansley: My intervention relates to a point that my hon. Friend was making about the extent of the powers that the Government propose to take in clause 2. They are immensely wide-ranging powers to disapply or modify existing education legislation
Mr. Lansley: Absolutely, and, in this respect, I am following the point that my hon. Friend was making: that new clause 5 seeks to extend to local authoritiesas new clause 6 extends to qualifying schoolssome of the powers in relation to innovation and earned autonomy that
Chris Grayling: Under new clauses 5 and 6, the qualifying body would not have to make an application. It would be able to take the decision in its own right, and the Secretary of State would then have to stop it.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. This is where the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresboroughin new clauses 5 and 6and our own new clause 10, to which I shall return shortly, seek to shift the balance of this legislation in an important way. A thread runs through the Billwhether in regard to clauses on exemptions for innovation or on earned autonomywhich suggests that it is up to Ministers to decide when it is appropriate or possible to take such action. The new clauses would make the legislation more permissive by freeing up the whole process and, without suggestions being solicited, schools or other qualifying bodies could make precisely those moves, which is a positive step.
Mr. Cameron: Will my hon. Friend clear up a worrying point that I put to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough? The hon. Gentleman is lending his support to new clauses 5 and 6, but in both, subsection (3) would give autonomy to governing bodies and LEAs while subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take it away in many circumstances. For the benefit of Conservative Members, will my hon. Friend describe the areas in which the Secretary of State would want to curtail the freedom of schools and governing bodies in such a way?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent pointthe Liberal Democrat new clauses would have that effect, but I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I do not necessarily support the new clauses, I have enormous sympathy with their thrust. My hon. Friend might sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt had he been with us as we sat through the debates in Committee, during which we were ground down by the Government's relentless attempts to regulate and control so that we might occasionally fall into the trap of believing that that ought to be allowed.
Before I move on to new clause 10 and the earned autonomy provisions, I must focus briefly on the extent of the exemptions available for innovation. For the convenience of hon. Members, I shall consider amendment No. 79. The origin of the thinking behind it lies in a debate in Committee about the extent to which Ministers are taking unqualified, untrammelled powers to suspend legislation without exemption.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) may be interested to know that we probed the extent of that freedom by raising with the Minister the hypothetical question whether it would be possible to disapply certain aspects of the Education Act 1996 by removing sections 449 to 462, which prevent maintained schools from charging for places. The Minister was good enough to give confirmation:
No matter what Members of the House believe about the principle of free, universal education, they will no longer able to rely on it being provided by statute if the Bill becomes law. It will be provided at the whim and discretion of Ministers, which is a matter of grave concern.
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point about those pillars of the Bill and I would be interested to hear the views of Liberal Democrat and Labour Back-Bench members of the Committee, but none are present. Does he agree that the specific situation that he has identified effectively shows that the Bill would give this Labour Government and the Secretary of State the power to do certain thingsthose which would give the hon. Member for Bury, North nightmaresalthough one might accept that they do not intend to do them?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can only imagine that Labour and Liberal Democrat Back-Bench members of the Committee expected to debate the red herring amendments on faith schools and were surprised by the change to the programme motion. They must have been lulled into a false sense of security, or perhaps they expected to debate these more central matters another time. They have been confused by what the Government Whips chose to do without giving notice to Members on either side of the House.
Moving on from the point that we established in Committeethe exemption from any provision of education legislation might run as far as allowing maintained schools to introduce fees or chargeswe come to amendment No. 79, which raises another concern. I freely admit that we could have tabled a raft of similar amendments, as Ministers seek the power to suspend any provision of education legislation, but amendment No. 79 simply picks on a particularly important aspect of those powers.
I say again that I accept that Ministers may have no immediate desire to allow charging, but unless we accept amendment No. 79 it will be possible for a maintained school to make such an application to a Minister.
I see that we shall now gain the enormous benefit of the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We look forward to being enlightened, and hearing his views on the powers the Government are taking to obtain exemptions from legislation that potentially allows maintained schools in his constituencies to charge for places.
More relevant to amendment No. 79 is the possibility that the Government may accept an application from a qualifying body for that body to be exempted from section 317 of the Education Act 1996. That section deals with the duties imposed on a governing body or local education authority in relation to pupils with special educational needs. As Members on both sides of the House accept, such pupils need special protection and education that meets whatever their needs may be. They may have autistic spectrum disorders, or physical disabilities. In any event, the 1996 Act currently provides a guaranteea degree of certaintythat the special needs of a pupil in a maintained school will, as far as is reasonable, be met by the governing body and the local education authority.
I hope that Ministers will give a warm welcome to the amendment, which would give them an opportunity to guarantee the protection of children with special educational needsnot just in the generality of schools or in the specialist colleges whose expansion the Government are announcing, but in schools granted exemptions for purposes of innovation.
It is not beyond the realms of credibility that a school might make a bid for exemption from some requirements relating to special educational needs. It might avoid considerable costs by doing so. It is not far-fetched to imagine that at some point a school, while not saying that it did not want to make any SEN provision, might say that an aspect of such provision placed too heavy a burden on it. At present, Ministers are insisting on retaining the power to disapply that obligation. Amendment No. 79 would have the important effect of presenting such disapplications.
I hope Ministers will not just accept the specific terms of the amendment, and the fact that its aim is right, proper and important, but understand from the two examples given by the Oppositionthe first, in Committee, relating to the introduction of charges and the second, on Report, relating to protection for those with special educational needsthat there is real concern about the limitless scope of the powers that they seek.
New clause 10 is particularly important. The theme was established by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled new clauses 5 and 6. New clause 5 seeks to allow a local education authority to innovate without the Secretary of State's permissionalthough, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State some power to control that freedom. New clause 6 would allow a school to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission, with a similar caveat in subsection (4). I know that the Secretary of State is keen to have powers to control the
New clause 10 takes the whole issue by the scruff of the neck. It attempts to change the balance. Opposition Members strongly support the move to give schools more autonomy. We believe that they are generally better able than Ministers to run their affairs, raise educational standards and give children the best possible education. In almost all circumstances, schools, heads, teachers and governing bodies should be left to get on with their work with the maximum freedom that is reasonable.