SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES

HC Deb 15 July 1998 vol 316 cc440-55

Lords amendment: No. 34, to leave out clause 23

Ms Estelle Morris

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 35 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40 and 41, Lords amendment No. 198 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (c) to words so restored, Lords amendment No. 199 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment to words so restored, Lords amendments Nos. 200 to 207, 213 to 232 and 235.

Ms Morris

The whole issue of school organisation committees and adjudicators is one with which all hon. Members currently present in the Chamber are thoroughly familiar, as we have discussed it previously. Let me start by saying that there is general agreement that decisions on those important issues should be taken at local level wherever possible. We reached that agreement during our many discussions, so let us start from that point.

Nobody pretends that the present system, which we want to replace, is the best way in which to deal with the business in question, as many proposals for change to school organisation are currently considered here in Whitehall by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State currently takes decisions on all proposals relating to voluntary and grant-maintained schools, and on all local education authority proposals to which there have been objections; in addition, the Secretary of State may call in any LEA proposal for his own decision.

Local education authorities lose no powers under the arrangements that we want to put in place of existing arrangements. Local authorities will still be responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient school places in their area; and they will draft the important school organisation plan that must underpin all decisions about schools in the area. LEAs will retain their powers to publish proposals for all types of change to community schools and to decide any of their own proposals that do not attract objections. Where our proposals do introduce change is in the making of decisions on those proposals that local education authorities have never had the power to determine: proposals of their own that attract objections, and proposals made by voluntary schools and by foundation schools. Under our proposed arrangements, those decisions will be made jointly by all the partners in the local education service, with each having a direct voice in the decisions that are taken.

5.15 pm

We have to recognise that, even under the best of arrangements, there are bound to be occasions when the essential partners in the local education service cannot agree. That is why we propose the appointment of independent adjudicators. Adjudicators will consider cases in the light of principles set out in guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, will take into account the information in the school organisation plan. Judgments will be made on the relative merits of each case, and adjudicators will be required to set out reasons for their decisions in formal letters.

The focus of the new arrangements that we propose is that there should be local decision making. I believe that school organisation committees will reach decisions on the majority of proposals and that our objective will be achieved, but we have to make sure that there is a mechanism for resolution of organisation and admissions cases that cannot be decided locally. We see great strength in establishing an independent means of reaching such decisions. We greatly regret that the Lords did not accept the strength of those arguments, but, having considered what they said, it remains the Government's view that our proposed approach represents the way ahead for local decision making on changes to local organisations.

We have, of course, listened to other points made about the Bill's provisions by members of the House of Lords. The majority of other amendments in the group are a response to suggestions made by Members of the other place and by other organisations, to whose views we have continued to listen. In particular, the provisions for school organisation committees and adjudicators had been amended before they were removed by the Lords amendments, and, in inviting the house to disagree with the Lords amendments, I invite it to agree the changes that we had proposed before they were removed by the Lords amendments.

Those changes respond particularly to discussions with the Churches and suggestions made by the Equal Opportunities Commission. As a result of discussions with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we introduced amendments that make it clear on the face of the Bill that decisions by school organisation committees on school organisation plans and on proposals for change to school organisation must be unanimous. At the same time, we provided for it to be possible for unanimity to be reached within a school organisation committee even when one or more groups chose to abstain or were not present at the meeting.

The group includes amendments that make it clear that, when reaching decisions, school organisation committees and adjudicators must have regard to the duties placed on local authorities and on school governors by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. That is an important safeguard to support equal opportunities and it is one which we had always intended should exist. We are happy to see it on the face of the Bill, so that there cannot be any shadow of doubt about whether it is intended.

During Committee stage in the House of Commons, we introduced amendments that established a clear timetable for consideration of proposals by school organisation committees. Those amendments give a proposer discretion to require the committee to refer a proposal to the adjudicator, if it has not come to a decision within a specified period. Members of both main Opposition parties expressed concern in. Committee that there might be a loophole whereby proposals could be sat on so that when decisions were eventually made, there were no alternatives to choose from because so much time had elapsed.

The length of the specified period that we are introducing will be set out in regulations, but it might help the House if I say that we intend the limit to be about two months from the end of the objection period.

The special educational needs consortium made several suggestions, including some that will be covered in the discussions on other groups of amendments and one on education development plans to which we have already agreed tonight. On our proposals for school organisation, we have always made it clear that a school organisation committee will need to have access to appropriate SEN expertise, covering provision in special and mainstream schools. There are several ways of achieving that, so we propose to cover that in regulations. This group includes an amendment to make it clear that school organisation plans must refer explicitly to provision for pupils with special educational needs. There is no new intent, but there are new words that confirm that intention beyond any doubt.

The group also contains technical drafting amendments, all of which make helpful changes and improve the Bill. We disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35, 198 and 199, but we agree with Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40, 41, 201 to 207, 213 to 232 and 235.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House to disagree with the Minister in her request that we disagree with the House of Lords. Whether or not I am successful, I acknowledge that the Minister was right to say that a number of amendments have been made to the arrangements for school organisation committees and adjudicators which will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I hope that, if I cannot persuade the House to disagree with the Minister about the two key clauses, 23 and 24, hon. Members will nevertheless accept the amendments relating to the way in which adjudicators and school organisation committees should work.

The Minister was right to say that this issue has been aired at great length in the House and in another place. On 10 February, the Under-Secretary first uttered the immortal words that the current system is unacceptable. It does not work well and there is room for improvement…our underlying principle is that it is better if such decisions are taken at local level."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998; c. 367.] She was right to say that there is total unanimity in the House on those words. The current system of school organisation arrangements having to be decided by the Secretary of State is simply unacceptable and does not work well. There is certainly room for improvement.

The Minister is right to say also that it is far better for decisions to be made at a local level. However, that does not mean that we have to accept the Government's proposals for making those decisions at a local level. I make my argument against those proposals on two key fronts: first, the bureaucracy that underlies them and, secondly, their democratic accountability.

On bureaucracy, the two clauses that the Lords want to delete propose an extremely lengthy and bureaucratic procedure. The local education authority would be required, in developing its school organisation plan, to hold a review on the issue and produce a consultation paper containing not one but several proposals. It would then have to hold public meetings and involve staff, parents, governors and other interested parties. It would then produce a report not only on its findings, but on the consultation process itself. It must consider the representations that it has received and decide on the appropriate action to take.

The LEA must then go through the whole process again and, having done all that, it must pass its final considerations to the school organisation committee, which will have to go through the whole procedure again. A unanimous decision must be made. If it is not, the issue will be taken on to the adjudicator, who will have to go through the whole process all over again. There is a potential for four tiers to come to a conclusion on the issue. That takes a great deal of time and involves a great deal of bureaucracy.

Will those decisions be made by people who are democratically accountable? They will not. Two days ago, in the debate in another place, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, who waxed lyrical on this issue, was critical of local government and the way in which it sometimes makes decisions. He went on to point out that at least you can chuck the rascals out".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 17.] The point about decision making at local level is that decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable and who can, if the decisions do not please the local community, be chucked out of office.

I should have thought that on the crucial issues of school organisation arrangements, the Government would have thought it important that the decisions were made by a democratically accountable body. In the House, only 48 hours ago, the Secretary of State enunciated that principle when we were discussing Scottish tuition fees. His main argument against Opposition parties' proposals was that it was totally wrong for the decision to be made by an unelected Chamber—the House of Lords. He stated his principle in terms of the supremacy of the elected body over the unelected body.

If we do not accept the judgment made in the Lords, we shall allow to remain in the Bill a set of arrangements in which an unelected body will be allowed to make decisions that are vital to the education arrangements in a particular area. There will be nothing that people in the local community can do about those decisions, which will be final. They will have no redress—not even the ability to ensure that the adjudicator or the members of the school organisation committee are never allowed to make such decisions again.

For those reasons—our concerns about bureaucracy and the undemocratic nature of the arrangements—we hope that the House will agree with the Lords and delete clauses 23 and 24.

Mrs. May

Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I sincerely hope that the House will not pass the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendments. The Lords have done a good service to democracy in removing clauses 23 and 24 from the Bill and in proposing that there should be different arrangements in determining the structure of the school organisation within any particular area.

We had a lengthy debate on this issue in Committee, and several amendments were tabled and rejected by the Government. Those amendments aimed to improve the arrangements that the Government are proposing. I shall rehearse our concerns about the proposals for the school organisation committee and, in particular, the role of the adjudicator. Decisions on school organisation are made primarily by the local education authority, which knows the area and its requirements. There are processes for public consultation. Councillors are elected and, in debates on school organisation, they are able to put the views of the electorate whom they represent.

The decision is then taken by another elected person, the Secretary of State. Throughout that process, elected Members of Parliament may make representations to the Secretary of State regarding proposals for school organisation in their areas and lead constituency delegations to meet the Secretary of State in order to make further representations about the proposed structure. Although many people recognise that the present arrangements have some inadequacies, the emphasis is currently on elected representatives taking decisions and making representations about the proposals at every stage of the procedure.

The Government make much of the need for local accountability. In introducing this group of amendments, the Minister referred to local decision making and local accountability. In a note under cover of the Minister that was produced on 18 February during the Standing Committee's deliberations, the Minister referred to the school organisation and admissions adjudicator. She stated: It is the Government's aim that decisions should be taken at local level reflecting agreement between the partners. 5.30 pm

I believe that we should agree with the Lords amendments and disagree with the Government on that issue because they propose taking decision making away from the local level and from those who are accountable to the general public, and placing it ultimately in the hands of an adjudicator who will be appointed by the Secretary of State and who, by definition, will not be local.

On 10 February in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) moved an amendment to allocate an adjudicator to a specific area. In rejecting that amendment, the Minister replied: It would he better not to have locally based adjudicators because consistency will be produced throughout the country if adjudicators operate in several geographical areas."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998: c. 378.] That comment appears to be contrary to the Minister's statement about the importance of local decision making. Adjudicator appointees will not know the local area. They will be appointed to cover several areas and will not have the local knowledge that is held by the local education authority, elected councillors, elected Members of Parliament and by those who live in the district and wish to make representations. The adjudicator will not be expected to take representations from local delegations.

The document issued by the Minister during the Standing Committee states: The Adjudicator will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case…We expect Adjudicators to consider most cases on paper. That is what the Minister said: the adjudicator will look at the proposals that have been put forward.

Ms Estelle Morris

Would the hon. Lady care to refer back to the document from which she has quoted and complete paragraph 23? It states: Adjudicators may wish to receive oral representations.

Mrs. May

I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but she is looking at a different paragraph. The document to which I refer makes no mention of adjudicators receiving oral representations. However, I note the Minister's point in reference to another document. If adjudicators will take oral representations, that is a step forward. However, it does not get past the fact that the adjudicator will not be a local, elected person. The adjudicator will be appointed by the Secretary of State; he or she will not be from the local area and will not be familiar with it. That point was made clear in our discussions in Standing Committee.

Before the decision reaches the adjudicator, it will have passed through the school organisation committee. As the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the structure of the school organisation committee runs counter to the Government's comments about the need for local accountability and democratic accountability. The school organisation committee will comprise one representative from the local education authority, and its other members will be appointed. Unlike the local education authority, its members will not be elected representatives of the people in that area.

The committee's process will duplicate that of the local education authority. Under that process, elected representatives examine the school organisation structure in their area and reach decisions based on what they believe is right for that area, applying their local knowledge. If there are objections, the matter will go to a school organisation committee, which—apart from one member from the local education authority—will not comprise elected representatives. Its members will represent different groupings, some of which are identified in the Bill.

In introducing her objections to the Lords amendments, the Minister referred to differences in the proposed structure of voting within school organisation committees. I listened to the Minister carefully in case her comments changed my understanding of that situation. Judging from those proposals and the Minister's comments about them, decisions must be unanimous, but it does not matter whether groups are absent from the committee meeting when the vote is taken or whether representatives choose to abstain.

Let us say that there are six groupings and each has a single vote within the school organisation committee. If two groupings are not represented, two abstain and two vote in favour of a proposal, the decision is considered to be unanimous. I am sure that most people would contend that two votes out of six is far from a unanimous decision. Rather than improving the situation, I suggest that the Government's proposals generate more concern about the definition of unanimous voting within school organisation committees. According to the nature of the voting structure that will be put in place, some groups may be significantly affected. If they are absent from a meeting for perfectly valid reasons, decisions may be taken that affect them, but they will not be able to make representations and contribute to the debate.

In Standing Committee, we discussed the role of Members of Parliament in school organisation committee decisions. Several hon. Members argued strongly that, under the current system, they are able to lead local delegations to meet the Secretary of State before a final decision is taken if there is considerable disagreement about what is proposed. That opportunity for Members of Parliament to assist and to represent the views of their constituents in that way will be removed.

However, we were led to believe that the process would be different in one area of decision making. At the time of the countryside march, the Minister for School Standards announced that the process for rural schools would be different. Far from suggesting that the Secretary of State would not take the final decision regarding rural schools, the Minister's statement implied that the Secretary of State would remain the final arbiter of such decisions. That was welcomed at the time. Since then, the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards have refused to put that proposal in the Bill and to prove their good intentions.

It appears, from the way in which the Minister and the Government have chosen to handle that issue, that the statement was made with no intention of improving the process for decision taking on the potential closure of rural schools, and with no intention of helping to restore to the process rather more democracy and an opportunity for elected representatives to comment on that proposal, having recognised the genuine needs and concerns of rural communities. Far from that, the Minister was simply trying to make a statement on television before the countryside march, to try to take the sting out of the representations that were being made by the people who were marching through London.

Mr. Byers

I remind the hon. Lady that I have clarified the Government's position numerous times— most recently, in an Adjournment debate last week. The position is that, until the new framework is in place, there is a presumption against closure of rural schools, which applies at this moment—as a result, some schools have been saved that would not have been saved under the Conservative Government—and that, when the new framework is adopted, the adjudicator will need to comply with guidance set by the Secretary of State.

That code of guidance will include the crystal clear presumption against closure of rural schools serving their communities. If an adjudicator fails to follow that code of guidance, remedies will be available to the aggrieved rural community.

Mrs. May

That was not what the Minister implied when he made his statement before the countryside march. The assumption by the people who took part in that countryside march and others, which was raised in the House, was that, far from it being a case of having "due regard"—a phrase which the Government love to use on numerous occasions as a way of getting out of agreeing to do something—to the issue of rural schools and an assumption against school closure, the decisions would still be taken by the Secretary of State, not by the adjudicator.

Decisions will be taken by an unelected person, in the shape and form of an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State—an adjudicator who does not know the local area, but whose decision will be final. That is what causes people concern. They are worried about the fact that, by these proposals, far from encouraging local decision taking, as the Under-Secretary straightforwardly said when she opened the debate, far from giving precedence to local decision taking, the Government are taking powers from local decision takers in the local education authority, removing from constituency Members of Parliament any role or ability to make representations to the Secretary of State, and placing the power in the hands of the unelected official called the adjudicator.

When the Lords debated the issue, they were especially concerned about the adjudicator's role. As a result, and because of their anxieties about the structure of the school organisation committee, they agreed that clauses 23 and 24 and schedules 4 and 5 should be removed from the Bill. The Government should listen more carefully to the message that the Lords have given them on that issue, because it shows genuine concern about the proposals.

The Minister mentioned discussions that the Government had held with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on the way in which the decisions would be taken. However, as I understand it, it is possible that the final decision on, for example, whether a Church school should remain open will now rest with the adjudicator. The Churches will not have a final say; the final decision as to whether a Church school will remain open or will close will remain in the hands of an unelected official, appointed by the Secretary of State, who is not from the local area and knows less about the local area than those who serve on the local education authority do.

The Lords got it right. I sincerely hope that the House will get it right tonight and support the Lords amendments. The Under-Secretary is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the House when she talks constantly about local decision taking. The Government make constant references to local decision taking. Their proposals in the Bill remove power from local decision takers and place them in the hands of people who are not from the local area and are not aware of local issues.

For those reasons, I trust that the House will see the importance of retaining accountability by involving elected representatives in the process of determining school organisation, and of making it possible for local interests to be well served by retaining the essential powers of decision taking on those issues within the local education authority, and then within the democratically elected processes of reference up to the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will realise how important it is that decisions are taken, not by placemen on a school organisation committee, and not by the Secretary of State's placeman in the form of the adjudicator, but by those who know the local area, know the interests of the local area and wish decisions to be taken in the interests of that local area.

5.45 pm

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

I am pleased to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in support of the House of Lords and the decisions that it has taken. It is not the only time during the Bill's passage that the Government have sought to remove powers from the local decision-taking process. The most worrying aspect of that is not the increased aggregation of powers to the Secretary of State, but the loss of accountability. Not only may an unelected placeman take critical decisions of importance for local education, but that person is not answerable through the electoral process to the local population, and will not be accountable for the decisions taken.

I can well understand why Ministers may lack confidence in some Labour-controlled local education authorities taking reasonable decisions on those matters, and I suspect that that is among the things that have driven their thinking in formulating the Bill's wording. However, they are effectively removing the opportunity for local people to judge those very LEAs for the bad decisions that they may take. It is vital that the local democratic process should be able to operate in that area, and it should operate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, in co-ordination with the activities and views of the local Member of Parliament.

Mr. Don Foster

So that it is clearly on the record, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is of the opinion that the decision-taking body regarding school organisational arrangements should be the democratically elected local education authority?

Mr. Brady

I think the important thing is that local communities should run their schools and their schools' affairs. I have long supported that principle. Of course there are instances when it can be effective for decisions to be taken at an even more local level—one instance being in the case of the successful grant-maintained schools, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he asked the question. A critical point is that local parents—local people in their communities—should decide how their schools are run, for the benefit of their children. They should have the critical say in how local schooling is organised.

Mr. Foster

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting twice, but he is now somewhat losing me in his argument. I was totally with him because he was arguing that the people who take those decisions should be democratically accountable bodies and organisations. The only such organisation that I know of that could take the decision is the LEA. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that parents should take the decision. I was not aware that it was possible to chuck parents out.

Mr. Brady

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that parents should be removed from their position on governing bodies of schools; perhaps he is now losing me in his argument. I am sure that it is a good one, but he may not be making it as well as he is accustomed to do.

We are witnessing a shift away from parents, away from local communities and away from elected politicians—local councillors and local Members of Parliament. The latter will lose the ability to represent the interests of the communities that they represent, and to represent the importance of those schools to them. That thread runs through the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State vastly increased powers over local schools and local education authorities. It will certainly have the effect of reducing the amount of local decision taking—the local input into the way in which schools and education are run.

The shift also has implications for the Church schools. The Bill has prompted the headmaster of a Roman Catholic school in my constituency to remark that the Bill would give the Secretary of State more powers over Roman Catholic schools than the trustees, the governors, the local diocese, the cardinal or even the Pope. The Roman Catholic community in my constituency is distinctly unhappy about that prospect, and is worried that the powers taken by the Secretary of State will result in a loss of choice to local communities.

Particular regard must be paid to the denominational schools and the rights of people representing those groups locally to have an input into the decision-making process. That is not to say that the Pope should not have an input, but the critical point is that the local Roman Catholic community feels that it is losing its say in the running of its schools, and fears that those schools will be less responsive to the community's needs.

The measure takes power away from local councils, the local Member of Parliament, local people and interested local groups. The adjudicator may have considerable powers and be answerable to no one except the Secretary of State. We are told that he will have powers in rural schools, but we hear little about how he will exercise his powers in relation to good, popular schools in suburban and urban areas.

In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what consideration would be given in the school reorganisation and class sizes measures to the travel distance between schools. We await further details about what might be considered an unreasonable distance for a child to travel from one popular school to another in a suburban or urban area, and what travelling time would be considered reasonable, given that many of us represent congested areas where people may experience problems getting their children to and from school.

There is a related issue that will no doubt arise this evening in relation to amendments concerning grammar school ballots. If there is a ballot on the future of grammar schools and an area votes to end selection, considerable reorganisation of its education system will follow. There will not be same number of schools in an area that is currently selective and decides to go comprehensive.

In my constituency, I have eight secondary schools. It is a small area, and I find it hard to believe that, if it went comprehensive, we would still have eight secondary schools. Important decisions about school reorganisation would have to be taken, should that happen. It is a distressing prospect for the communities concerned that power would not be exercised through the local decision-making process or vested in those who are accountable to local people.

Ms Estelle Morris

The world seems to be turning upside down when Conservative spokespeople defend local authorities' right to make decisions on everything that comes before them, and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats quotes the Lords in defence of democracy. If those are the best arguments that can be advanced, they have confirmed in my mind, if ever I needed confirmation, that the Government are right on the matter.

I took seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about bureaucracy. Inevitably, when any Government seek to build in checks, balances and procedures, and to ensure that the rights of the weak and of minorities are protected, one can make that sound like bureaucracy. I expect that I could make the existing system sound like a bureaucracy. When I advise the Secretary of State on school closures, there is a lengthy procedure involving objections, responses to local authority objections, local authority reflections on objections and so on. Similar comments could be made about that, but bureaucracy is not always bad. Sometimes structure and procedures exist to defend decisions.

I would never claim that what we are putting in place is not a bureaucracy. Whether it is more bureaucratic or less bureaucratic, and whether we agree or disagree about it, we shall not know until we see the system in practice.

The hon. Gentleman quoted my words at me. If we want local decision making, we must make some changes. If the Opposition do not support our motion to disagree with the Lords amendment, we shall be left with what we have, which every party is unhappy about. We cannot set up a new structure and a new system for schools and for decision making, and leave local authorities and others with the status quo. No proposal or amendment would result in a different outcome.

The choice before hon. Members tonight is to go along with the school organisation committee and the adjudicator, or to stay with what we have. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that what we have is not good enough. We have sought to put in place a form of local decision making. It contains layers to ensure that we get the balance right and that the partners are protected.

The second point made by the hon. Member for Bath, which was also referred to by the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is about who has the right to take decisions. We are trying to create true partnership in the education service. People other than locally elected members of councils have a right to be part of our education system and have a vested interest in it. They are governors, they run schools, they are teachers or head teachers, they are members of diocesan boards or they are parents. They have a right to express an opinion and take part in decisions about what happens to their schools.

It is not good enough to leave such important decisions to members of local councils, although they have a large part to play. By drawing up the school organisation plan against which all recommendations will be made, they will firmly entrench their role in the process. I repeat that they will retain the power to decide on their own proposals where there are no objections.

Our proposals for school organisation committees reflect what we have tried to do over the past 18 months—that is, to anchor into the committees the partnership we need to make our schools good. They will make decisions based on proper guidelines, plans and accurate statistics. Decisions will be made in the interests of local people, not sidestepped to Whitehall through the Secretary of State. The quality of decisions will be better, because they will reflect the wishes of local people and local circumstances. Partners in the education service will know that they have had their say.

The hon. Lady spoke about the position of the Churches and referred to a letter to The Times on 24 June from Mr. John Hall, the general secretary of the board of education of the Church of England. He stated: Such decisions will be taken by school organisation committees, on which the Churches will have a veto. Assurances were given by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone in another place that there will be guidelines from the Secretary of State to the adjudicators, which will make it clear that, where the relevant Church group on a school organisation committee has voted against closure of a denominational school, an adjudicator taking the final decision shall not reduce the proportion of denominational places within the authority. Such assurances in the House and in another place led the Bishop of Ripon to say on Third Reading: I believe that the structure and character of Church schools has been both preserved and enhanced."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 73.] Not only the Churches, but the other partners in the education service are now taking their proper place as parties to decisions about the organisation of schools in their locality.

Mrs. May

This is an important issue. The Churches have expressed concern. I acknowledge that a statement was made about the existence of a Church veto, but perhaps the Minister could explain something to me. Will she confirm that, in the voting circumstances that I described, when the Church has a veto and the matter has gone to the adjudicator, that Church will have no veto over the closure of a particular school?

Ms Morris

As I have already made clear, if the Church section on the SOC votes against the proposal, it will go to the adjudicator, and the adjudicator will not be able to make a decision that reduces the proportion of denominational places. If the hon. Lady is not happy with that, I assure her that representatives of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are entirely happy.

6 pm

Mr. Brady

As the Minister will recall, I mentioned in Committee that St. Bede' s college in the borough of Trafford—an independent Roman Catholic grammar school—draws pupils who are funded by the local education authority, and has done so since the war. Would the power of veto prevent the local authority from removing such funded denominational places, in an independent school?

Ms Morris

We are talking about decisions relating to the framework for maintained schools, not independent schools. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the whole issue of whether local authorities can buy places in the independent sector has been dealt with on numerous occasions. It appears in other parts of the Bill, and I will not go into it at this stage.

We have made it clear that our commitment to local decision making is backed up by a structure that will deliver exactly that. I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 184.

Division No. 336]	[6.1 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Buck, Ms Karen
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Burden, Richard
Alexander, Douglas	Burgon, Colin
Allen, Graham	Butler, Mrs Christine
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Byers, Stephen
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Atherton, Ms Candy	Canavan, Dennis
Atkins, Charlotte	Cann, Jamie
Banks, Tony	Caplin, Ivor
Barron, Kevin	Casale, Roger
Battle, John	Caton, Martin
Bayley, Hugh	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Beard, Nigel	Chaytor, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Chisholm, Malcolm
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Church, Ms Judith
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clapham, Michael
Bennett, Andrew F	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Benton, Joe	Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bermingham, Gerald
Best, Harold	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Betts, Clive	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Blackman, Liz	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Clelland, David
Borrow, David	Clwyd, Ann
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Coaker, Vernon
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Coffey, Ms Ann
Bradshaw, Ben	Coleman, Iain
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Colman, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Connarty, Michael
	Cooper, Yvette
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Corston, Ms Jean
Browne, Desmond	Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cranston, Ross	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Crausby, David	Humble, Mrs Joan
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hurst, Alan
Cummings, John	Hutton, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)	Iddon, Dr Brian
	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Darvill, Keith	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dawson, Hilton	Jowell, Ms Tessa
Dean, Mrs Janet	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Denham, John	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dismore, Andrew	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dobbin, Jim	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Kemp, Fraser
Donohoe, Brian H	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Doran, Frank	Khabra, Piara S
Drew, David	Kilfoyle, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Efford, Clive	Kingham, Ms Tess
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Etherington, Bill	Laxton, Bob
Fisher, Mark	Leslie, Christopher
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Levitt, Tom
Flynn, Paul	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara	Linton, Martin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Livingstone, Ken
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lock, David
Foulkes, George	Love, Andrew
Fyfe, Maria	McAllion, John
Galbraith, Sam	McAvoy, Thomas
Gapes, Mike	McCabe, Steve
Gardiner, Barry	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Macdonald, Calum
Gerrard, Neil	McDonnell, John
Gibson, Dr Ian	McFall, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	McIsaac, Shona
Godsiff, Roger	McLeish, Henry
Goggins, Paul	McNulty, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin	MacShane, Denis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mallaber, Judy
Grocott, Bruce	Mandelson, Peter
Grogan, John	Marek, Dr John
Gunnell, John	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hain, Peter	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hanson, David	Martlew, Eric
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Meale, Alan
Healey, John	Michael, Alun
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Milburn, Alan
Heppell, John	Miller, Andrew
Hesford, Stephen	Moffatt, Laura
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hinchliffe, David	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hoey, Kate	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Home Robertson, John	Morley, Elliot
Hood, Jimmy	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hoon, Geoffrey	Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Hope, Phil	Mudie, George
Hopkins, Kelvin	Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Soley, Clive
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Spellar, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Squire, Ms Rachel
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Hara, Eddie	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Olner, Bill	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pearson, Ian	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Pickthall, Colin	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Pike, Peter L	Stringer, Graham
Pollard, Kerry	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pope, Greg	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prosser, Gwyn	Timms, Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie	Tipping, Paddy
Radice, Giles	Touhig, Don
Rammell, Bill	Truswell, Paul
Raynsford, Nick	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Rogers, Allan	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Rooker, Jeff	Vaz, Keith
Rooney, Terry	Vis, Dr Rudi
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wareing, Robert N
Rowlands, Ted	Watts, David
Ruane, Chris	White, Brian
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Wicks, Malcolm
Salter, Martin	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Sarwar, Mohammad
Savidge, Malcolm	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Sawford, Phil	Winnick, David
Sedgemore, Brian	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Sheerman, Barry	Wise, Audrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Worthington, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Wray, James
Skinner, Dennis	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Snape, Peter	Mr. Jim Dowd and
	Mr. David Jamieson.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Burnett, John
Allan, Richard	Burstow, Paul
Arbuthnot, James	Butterfill, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cable, Dr Vincent
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony	Chidgey, David
Ballard, Jackie	Chope, Christopher
Beggs, Roy	Clappison, James
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Bercow, John	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Beresford, Sir Paul	Collins, Tim
Body, Sir Richard	Colvin, Michael
Boswell, Tim	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Cotter, Brian
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Cran, James
Brady, Graham	Curry, Rt Hon David
Brake, Tom	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Brand, Dr Peter	Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Brazier, Julian	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Breed, Colin	Day, Stephen
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Donaldson, Jeffrey
Browning, Mrs Angela	Duncan Smith, Iain
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Evans, Nigel

Faber, David	Moss, Malcolm
Fabricant, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Fallon, Michael	Norman, Archie
Fearn, Ronnie	Oaten, Mark
Flight, Howard	Öpik, Lembit
Forsythe, Clifford	Paice, James
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Paterson, Owen
Foster, Don (Bath)	Pickles, Eric
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Prior, David
Fox, Dr Liam	Randall, John
Fraser, Christopher	Redwood, Rt Hon John
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Rendel, David
Gibb, Nick	Robathan, Andrew
Gill, Christopher	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Gray, James	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Green, Damian	Ruffley, David
Greenway, John	St Aubyn, Nick
Grieve, Dominic	Sanders, Adrian
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Sayeed, Jonathan
Hague, Rt Hon William	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Shepherd, Richard
Hammond, Philip	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Harris, Dr Evan	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Harvey, Nick	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Hawkins, Nick	Soames, Nicholas
Heald, Oliver	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Spicer, Sir Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Spring, Richard
Horam, John	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Steen, Anthony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Streeter, Gary
Hunter, Andrew	Stunell, Andrew
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Syms, Robert
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Jenkin, Bernard	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Key, Robert	Townend, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Tredinnick, David
Kirkwood, Archy	Trend, Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Tyler, Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Tyrie, Andrew
Leigh, Edward	Viggers, Peter
Letwin, Oliver	Wallace, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Walter, Robert
Lidington, David	Wardle, Charles
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Waterson, Nigel
Livsey, Richard	Webb, Steve
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Wells, Bowen
Loughton, Tim	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Luff, Peter	Whittingdale, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Wilkinson, John
MacKay, Andrew	Willetts, David
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert	Willis, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick	Wilshire, David
Madel, Sir David	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Malins, Humfrey	Woodward, Shaun
Maples, John	Yeo, Tim
Mates, Michael	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Maude, Rt Hon Francis
May, Mrs Theresa	Tellers for the Noes:
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Mr. Donald Gorrie and
Moore, Michael	Mr. Paul Keetch.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 35 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41 agreed to.