Grant-Maintained Schools

HC Deb 20 March 1989 vol 149 cc859-84 10.58 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Grants) (Grant-Maintained Schools Limited) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 165), dated 8th February 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be annulled. This debate is about an abuse of powers, and the Government's double standards. It is about the arrogance of power of a Government, who in the words of one of their leading members, Lord Hailsham, have now become an elective dictatorship and effectively accountable to no one but themselves.

This debate is also about a simple question of morality: whether taxpayers should fund a body which is palpably a party political front organisation, but which has sought to hide its true nature by falsely claiming that it was a charitable trust, when at no stage in its existence has it ever had that status.

The regulations empower the Secretary of State to grant-aid Grant-Maintained Schools Limited for a variety of activities. Speaking on the radio this morning, the Secretary of State said that those activities would comprise mainly training for grant-maintained schools already established. However, paragraph 2(1) of the regulations goes very much wider than that, allowing expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision (or proposed provision) of educational services in grant-maintained schools (or proposed grant-maintained schools), which expenditure is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State. Despite questioning by me, the Secretary of State says that he cannot put a figure on the sum that he is likely to grant. However, the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust has applied for the purposes specified by the regulations for £25,000 for the 11 remaining days of the current financial year and for £150,000 for the next financial year.

A Department of Education and Science grant of £150,000 is very large indeed, by comparison with the moneys made available to other organisations. The Pre-School Playgroups Association, which has a worthier function than the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust and provides services for hundreds of thousands of children, receives the princely sum of £153,000. If the trust's application is granted in full, it will receive more in total grant than the Church of England Board of Education, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the National Children's Bureau, the Family Welfare Association and the Girls Brigade combined.

Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)

The hon. Gentleman says that £150,000 is a lot of money. If a Labour-controlled local education authority were to run up £75,000 in legal fees on its own account, and another £75,000 on the account of the governors, over an attempt to frustrate the governors' wishes to turn their school into a grant-maintained school, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a misuse of public money? That is exactly what happened in at least one case.

Mr. Straw

As usual, the hon. Gentleman does not mention which authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "ILEA."] If the school in question is Haberdashers' Aske's, that case concerns an application to become not a grant-maintained school but a city technology college. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that ILEA won in court in the first instance, and that it now has leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Citizens and local authorities have a right to go to court and have their rights established, not have them crushed by Conservative Members. [Interruption.] It is understandable that Conservative Members do not want to debate the matter of the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust being a Conservative front organisation, the abuse of power that there has been in funding it, and why the trust has so falsely misrepresented its position.

The trust is a Conservative front organisation. When the Prime Minister gave an interview to The Independent in September 1987, speaking of opting out, she said—and she used the first person plural— We are very much aware that we have got to form some kind of organisation to help people to do it"— that is, opt out. And we have got to get the people who already run schools and say to them 'Now look! This is the way to go about it'. The trust was established at the Prime Minister's behest. All the main trustees are Conservative party activists. The chairman is the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), and its director is Mr. Andrew Turner, formerly of Conservative Central Office research department and a Conservative city councillor for Oxford. One of the trustees is Judith Chaplin, a former Conservative councillor and head of the Institute of Directors policy unit. Another trustee is Mr. Ronald Baird, group director of Saatchi and Saatchi and a former Conservative party public relations manager. So the trust is a Conservative front.

Secondly, it has acted as such. The organisation's first act—even before the Education Reform Act was passed —was to write not to all councillors, but to all Conservative councillors, asking them whether they could identify schools that might opt out and concluding: Needless to say the Trust would treat any such information in the strictest confidence". That, I suggest, is not the behaviour of an above-board, respectable charitable organisation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one Labour organisation wrote to all Labour councillors in Birmingham before one election —which the hon. Gentleman may well remember—telling them to oppose grammar schools because they taught the children of working-class families to vote Conservative?

Mr. Straw

I was not aware of that. As ever, I am deeply grateful to the Lady, but that is not the subject that we are discussing.

The third point is that, even if training were needed —as the Secretary of State says it is—it would be quite wrong for it to be provided by this organisation. There are resources and skills enough within the Department of Education and Science, and within respectable, established educational charities, to provide training—if it is training, and not indoctrination of those running grant-maintained schools, that is needed.

What of the resources of the DES? We do not have a unit for grant-maintained schools, or even a branch; a whole division of the Department is devoted to nothing but grant-maintained schools, costing £150,000 a year in salaries alone. Are those people not capable of providing the training? Can the inspectorate—whose costs are added to that £150,000—not provide it?

The fourth and last point is this: we should not pay the organisation because it has wilfully misled parents and the public about its true nature. The first major pamphlet sent out by the trust—I understand that it was sent to all eligible schools—was called "A New Choice of Schools". I have a photocopy here. It is very cleverly put together, with pictures of children on beaches and in school libraries, and it talks in tendentious terms about the problems that schools have faced in the past. Turning to page 10, we read as follows—[HON MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, I assumed that Conservative Members could also read— The Grant-Maintained Schools Trust has been set up to promote and assist in the development of Grant-Maintained Schools. As a registered charity it is independent of, but fully briefed by, the Department of Education and Science". That statement—that the trust was and is a registered charity—is a simple, straightforward, bare-faced lie. The Charity Commissioners wrote to me as recently as 28 February this year, saying: As you know, the current activities of the Trust are carried on through a non-charitable company and that a charity has yet to be constituted. Yet the statement that it was a charity was made nine months before that letter was written.

Whoever wrote that, and whoever allowed it to go out, must have known that it was not true. I suspect that someone will stand up tonight and say that it was all a mistake, but to suggest that that was a mistake is to ask us to suspend our judgment and our experience of the wholly unscrupulous operation of the present Government over the past 10 years. I will accuse the trustees—including the hon. Member for Epping Forest—of many things, but incompetence is not one of them. Nor is that an accusation that I bring against Field Fisher and Martineau, one of the country's leading firms of solicitors and the solicitors to the trust.

There was no mistake when that claim was made; just arrogance—an arrogance that led the trust to believe that it was above the law and could get away with making a claim that it probably knew to be untrue. What is more, it was not a mistake. Mr. Andrew Turner, Conservative city councillor and director of the trust, has damned himself out of his own mouth. He was the man who, last summer, issued the document that used the words "As a registered charity". In The Observer yesterday, he said: We never thought that all our activities were charitable. That is interesting. The Secretary of State and Mr. Turner must know that one cannot have a charitable trust if parts of its activities are not charitable. That makes the operation of such a trust wholly impossible and bogus. It means that Mr. Turner was party to wilfully misleading the public and parents about the nature of the trust and that it was done for a purpose: that the trust could be presented as independent—to use its word—of the Department of Education and Science and the Conservative party when it was not.

Further evidence of the wilful intent to mislead is that, once a fuss was made about it, initially in the education press, no apology was sent by the Department of Education and Science to the thousands of schools that had received the document. It did not say, "We have been referring to this as a trust. By the way, it is not a charitable trust; it is a political front organisation." All the Department did was to change the word "charity" for "non-profit". There is still the insinuation, with the use of the word "trust", which is customarily associated in people's minds with charity, that this body is a charity.

I asked the Secretary of State twice on the radio this morning, and twice he refused to answer, this question; perhaps he will do so now: does he approve of a body of this kind wilfully misleading the public and parents about its nature? I asked him whether he was aware that those who make false representations that a body is a charity and who collect funds from the public might find themselves in the criminal courts. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that a body such as this, which has fraudulently misrepresented its position, is a proper recipient of public funds?

Opting out has flopped. Only a handful of schools have balloted to become nationalised, state-controlled institutions. Most of them are threatened with closure and reorganisation. Most of them are not in Labour-controlled areas. Four weeks ago the Secretary of State tried to revive opting out by some cheap and grubby accusations against Labour authorities and against some of my hon. Friends. He has failed, despite repeated requests, to justify them. Tonight he seeks to breathe life into a flagging campaign by involuntarily invoking the taxpayers' assistance.

This is the Secretary of State who is only too ready to lecture others about morality. We remember his lecture to the General Synod of the Church of England on 1 February about the need for the Church to maintain moral values. Before he next examines the mote in the eye of his brother, or in the eye of local authorities, hon. Members, or the Church, let him examine the beam in his own eye. Let him practise what he preaches, for once. The regulations are an abuse of power. We shall oppose them in the Lobby.

11.13 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

He got a bit worked up, didn't he? I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the merits of the Education (Grants) (Grant-Maintained Schools Limited) Regulations 1989. I find it richly comic to be lectured by the Opposition about the proper and prudent use of public money. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) certainly overreached himself this time.

The hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that the grant-maintained schools movement had flopped, but the debate is not just about the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust—it is also about the position of grant-maintained schools. The regulations cannot be discussed without grant-maintained schools also being discussed. Behind the hon. Gentleman's self-righteous pose is the unmistakable sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The debate is about the Opposition's rage and frustration that yet another of the Government's policies has proved both popular and successful. That success leads directly to these regulations and to the Opposition's mingled pain and grief.

The speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn has only illustrated his penchant for what I might describe as the Billy Bunter school of oratory. Hon. Members will recall Bunter's words: I didn't eat your … jam, you rotter; and anyway, it tasted awful". The hon. Gentleman's version is that grant-maintained schools will ruin the state education system, but that no school will want to be grant maintained. He is wrong on both counts. The hon. Gentleman said that the whole system has flopped, but I have already approved four schools for grant-maintained status from September this year. Eighteen more have published formal applications to me, which I shall consider and determine as soon as possible. Parents at 12 more schools have voted yes in secret postal ballots, and will publish proposals in due course. Eleven more schools are committed to holding ballots shortly, and another three have just embarked on the statutory procedures. I should add that a further 12 have held ballots and voted no to pursuing grant-maintained status. I have no trouble with that at all. If parents are given choice, they can choose not to change.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the schools to which he has just referred is in Chesterfield? We can imagine how embarrassing it would be for the Labour party if a school in Chesterfield opted out. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of jiggery-pokery going on and that the county council allocated money to teachers to campaign against opting out? Is my right hon. Friend aware of any other local authorities which have used public money to obstruct parents' democratic choice?

Mr. Baker

My hon. Friend raises a case about which we have documentary evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Publish it."] It has already been published by Derbyshire county council, which voted £500 to be given to teachers to campaign against opting out. That is not fair because it is money for one side only.

Mr. Straw

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker

In a moment. The money that has been used for that campaigning is public money. [HON. MEMBERS: "So is this."] The money that we are debating in the regulations will not be used for campaigning. Not a penny of public money has been spent by the Government on campaigning for grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Straw

That may be so, but £22,700 has been spent on 100,000 pamphlets, copies of which have been sent to every school governor asking them to opt out. Was that not campaigning?

Mr. Baker

It did not ask them to opt out. The leaflets that we sent out were an explanation of the law relating to grant-maintained schools. I am always being asked to explain the law. That is perfectly legitimate. Derbyshire county council produced the leaflet that I am holding up now at ratepayers' expense. I believe that 50,000 copies were produced.

The hon. Member for Blackburn alleges that grant-maintained schools have flopped. More than 60 schools——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has just walked into the Chamber and is now accusing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of being the biggest hypocrite in politics. Will you ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that comment?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. I am listening to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Baker

I was trying to remind the House that the Labour party cannot stomach the order because, so far, 60 schools have opted out. That is a confirmation of the importance of parental choice, which the Labour party does not like and will not have.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's approach tonight has been motivated by their fear of the success of the Government's policy? Does he further agree that within a few months the Opposition will probably reincarnate the policy and claim it as their own? They may even go so far as to claim that they invented it in the first place.

Mr. Baker

I hope that there will be such a conversion, but I am not optimistic. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our policy has proved popular. Last year, during the long proceedings on the Education Reform Bill in Committee and in the Chamber, I was told that there would be a low turnout in the ballots, that parents would take no interest and that small handfuls of parents would take schools away from local education authorities. What actually happened? In the 46 ballots so far, the average turn out has been 71 per cent. of those eligible to vote, some schools have had turnouts of more than 80 per cent., and the average vote in favour has been 68 per cent.

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

The Secretary of State seems to be having some difficulty with his statistics. He told us that 60 schools had opted out, then he said that four had been approved, and now he is saying that 46 schools have held ballots. Which is the correct figure?

Mr. Baker

I said that four schools had completed the process. So far, 46 of the 60 schools have reached the ballot. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who likes these figures, that in the 46 ballots so far, 71 per cent. of those eligible have voted, so the measure is proving very popular with parents.

Mr. Fatchett

Whether by mistake or deliberately, the Secretary of State has misled the House. His original claim was that 60 schools had opted out. The right hon. Gentleman must come clean. Although 60 schools may have approval by resolution of their governors to hold a ballot, they have not opted out. Will the Secretary of State now correct the record?

Mr. Baker

I have no wish to mislead the House, but 61 schools are in the process of opting out—[Interruption.] The number has increased since I have been in the Chamber——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the Secretary of State that the scope of the debate is very narrow. It relates to the desirability of paying grant to the company for the specified purpose. I hope that we shall contain the debate within its scope.

Mr. Baker

May I clear up the point that I was asked to clarify? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I require the Secretary of State to adhere to his responsibilities and to talk within the scope of the debate.

Mr. Baker

I am delighted to do that.

With regard to the purpose of the regulations, the governors and senior staff of a school approved for grant-maintained status will obviously need to prepare for their new and important responsibilities. Particularly in the early days, grant-maintained schools may well wish to have access to sources of expertise and advice in a number of areas—for example, on financial matters, such as proper budgeting and accounting practices, on effective use of computer hardware and software to collect, store, retrieve and use management information on the purchase of goods and services, on the making of contracts with staff and suppliers and on legal, architectural, health and safety and other matters.

The Grant-Maintained Schools Trust has submitted a proposal to my Department to make advice on each of these areas available to schools approved for grant-maintained status. It also intends to provide training for governors and staff. In the longer term, it will seek to build up a group ethos in this new sector of maintained schools and to ensure that they share good practice.

These are all worthwhile objectives, the pursuit of which it is entirely right and proper for my Department to finance. The regulations empower me to do so. The trust has made a good case. It has thought hard about what its potential customers' needs will be and how it can best help to meet them. I have therefore concluded that my Department should make a pump-priming grant of £25,000 to the trust for the remainder of the 1988–89 financial year and a further sum of the order of £150,000 in 1989–90.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker

I must finish this point as it is germane to the issues that have been raised.

Let me make it absolutely clear. I shall make grants to the trust, in the words of regulation 2(1), in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision (or proposed provision) of educational services in grant-maintained schools (or proposed grant-maintained schools)". The hon. Member for Blackburn raised this point.

Mr. Straw

The Secretary of State has talked about the need for good practice. What about the issue that I raised in relation to sharp practice on the part of the trust? It has said that it is a registered charity when it is not. When will the Secretary of State say whether he regards that as acceptable conduct by a public body?

Mr. Baker

I shall come to that.

I shall continue with the point that I was making because the hon. Member for Blackburn asked me about the important phrase, "proposed provision". He suggested that money will be made available by the trust in the future for schools contemplating opting out as opposed to those whose applications have been approved. It is important to realise that only four schools have gone through the process of being approved. The hon. Gentleman found it hard to grasp the fact—he made the same mistake on radio this morning—that my intention is to provide grant only to support the trust's educational services to schools which have gone all the way through the procedures and been approved for grant-maintained status. That is a clear statement. The phrase "proposed provision" applies only to schools which have gone right through the process. I wish to make it clear to the House that no money will be provided by the trust for schools which are applying for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Secretary of State might consider altering the wording of the regulations to prevent that happening. If the Secretary of State is claiming that the justification for the trust is to provide expertise, why is it that it neither employs nor has as trustees people with recognised educational expertise but instead has Tory party nominees and known Tory party activists?

Mr. Baker

I shall deal with the political nature of the trust shortly. I must finish the important point that I was making. As I have said, I wish to make it clear that the money will be provided only for the educational services of schools that have opted out.

The trust will be subject to the same sort of financial controls as other bodies grant-aided by my Department. In particular, it will be required to set up a bank account solely for the handling of grant from my Department, to ensure that grant is used solely for the purposes for which it is payable, and to publish annual, audited accounts and make such other returns as I request demonstrating that all grant has been spent for the purposes for which it was intended. My Department's accounting officer, the permanent secretary, is satisfied that those conditions of grant can be met by the trust and checked by the Department. I shall be accountable to Parliament in the usual way for the public funds expended, which means that the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee will be able to examine the spending of every penny of the money for which I am asking the House.

On charitable status, I have seen the document to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred and I have also seen the amended document. I understand that the trust believed that it would receive charitable status for its activities and advertised itself on that basis. I agree that that was regrettable. However, within one month of the facts being drawn to the trust's attention, the revised document was printed with the amendment. The trust took steps to correct the impression made by its literature. The trust tells me that it is now discussing with the Charity Commission charitable status for the educational services that I have described, which are the only activities for which I shall pay it grant.

Mr. Straw

It is more than regrettable—it is reprehensible. How could the trust have believed that it would receive charitable status when, according to the Charity Commissioners, a charity has yet to be constituted, even at this date, and no charity or charitable trust was in existence at the time when the trust wrote those words?

Mr. Baker

I said that I considered it to be most regrettable. However, the trust corrected the mistake within a month.

The question is whether money for educational services should be passed to a body which does not have charitable status. I have checked carefully the various bodies for which I provide grants for educational services. The majority are charities, but a large minority are not charitable bodies. Money is provided to them for the educational services that they provide, which we consider worth purchasing.

Mr. Straw

The Secretary of State says that the mistake —not to say complete inaccuracy—was corrected. Did the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust send to all recipients of the original document a correction pointing out that the trust was not a charity?

Mr. Baker

I am not aware that a correction was sent out to every recipient. The trust showed the corrected document to schools that approached it. That is the important point. I should make it clear that it is legitimate for my Department to provide money for educational services to bodies which are not charities. I looked carefully through the list and I found that one of the largest grants for educational services given to a body that is not a charity is to the Trades Union Congress, which has received more than £750,000 in the current year. There are many other bodies in that position.

The accusation has been made that the trust will receive public money for campaigning. I emphasise that the trust will not receive money for campaigning in favour of grant-maintained schools. So far, not a penny has been provided to the trust out of public money for any purpose. In future, the trust will not receive money for public campaigning, but only for the substantial provision of educational services.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the regulations say that he may pay grants for the provision (or proposed provision) of educational services in grant-maintained schools". The regulations say, "in grant-maintained schools". When schools are going through the process, they are not grant-maintained schools, so my right hon. Friend cannot pay the money until a school is a grant-maintained school. What the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said is either a red herring or he cannot understand plain English.

Mr. Baker

I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend. He has confirmed the advice that I received from the Clerks of the House this morning. The fact that the hon. Member for Blackburn cannot understand plain English is no surprise to me.

We shall not provide money for campaigning purposes —it will be for educational services. On that basis, I am perfectly entitled to be concerned at the heavy expenditure which some local authorities have apparently used in campaigning, or in enabling others to campaign, against grant-maintained status. That was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). We know that substantial sums have been made available by certain local authorities. An article in The Guardian—the hon. Member for Blackburn must agree that it is true if it has appeared in The Guardian—states: Rochdale Council spent £5,414 on its campaign to persuade parents at Queen Elizabeth High School to vote against opting out. The article also refers to Rochdale spending £6,165 on a similar campaign at Siddal Moore high school". Whether or not that money has been properly spent is not a matter for me, but reference has already been made to the money that Derbyshire county council has approved for campaigning. That is a direct use of public money for campaigning. Tonight the hon. Member for Blackburn has again accused the Government of using such money for party political purposes. Does he not realise that grant-maintained schools are nothing to do with party politics? If he does not agree with that, perhaps he will recognise that 24 schools in Labour areas have asked to opt out, compared with only 21 schools in Conservative areas. That shows clearly that a great many Labour parents and councillors are in favour of opting out.

The hon. Member for Blackburn has referred to political pressure, so I shall remind him of what happened to a Labour councillor in Bolton——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I regret that the Secretary of State is going wide of the debate. I remind the House that this is a short debate and will finish at 12.28 am. Short speeches will be welcome and speeches that go beyond the scope of the debate are out of order.

Mr. Baker

The Government have been accused of using public money for party political purposes, so surely I am allowed to answer that point——

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

rose——

Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East)

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Baker

None of the money that will be provided under these regulations will be used for campaigning purposes, although other money has been used for such purposes by LEAs. Indeed, pressure has been put on Labour councillors. The hon. Member for Blackburn knows of a Labour councillor in Bolton who has had to resign the whip because he is in favour of grant-maintained schools.

In conclusion—I know that other hon. Members wish to speak—we know that the hon. Member for Blackburn is implacably opposed to grant-maintained schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "This week."] If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn will come to the Dispatch Box and tell us what he intends to say in the next Labour manifesto about grant-maintained schools. Will he keep them or abolish them?

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. This debate is not about grant-maintained schools. I ask the Secretary of State to keep to the scope of the debate.

Mr. Baker

I shall, of course, observe your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not press the hon. Member for Blackburn to answer that question tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned that the Secretary of State should keep within the scope of the debate.

Mr. Baker

I conclude by repeating the point that I have already made. The money that we are asking the House to approve today is not for campaigning or for party political purposes—it is to provide educational services to grant-maintained schools, which have proved popular. I am sure that the Opposition are opposing this regulation not because of its terms but because they are fundamentally opposed to the concept of grant-maintained schools. I ask the House to approve the regulations.

11.38 pm

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

We have heard a sordid speech that matches the sordid proposals before the House. It is a disgrace——

Mr. Dunn

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please direct the right hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the regulations before the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker

The debate must remain in order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the scope of the debate. If he does not do so, I shall call him to order.

Mr. Howell

In all my years of refereeing football matches—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard a Labour Member make a disgraceful comment and I suggest that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) be brought to book.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I call Mr. Howell.

Mr. Howell

I shall of course do my best to comply with your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am bound to say that in all my years of refereeing football, this is the first time that I have been told to observe the laws before I have even taken to the field of play.

This is a sordid business. In accordance with your line of thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to illustrate the activities of a trust in Small Heath school in my constituency. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. From day one, the trust, whether or not it has yet received money from the Government, has been involved in a collusion between the head teacher, certain governors and Conservative councillors. Two judicial reviews have now been granted by the courts. It would be wrong for the House to discuss them. All those activities——

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

On a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is not within the terms of the order. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have no intention of naming any hon. Member. I can deal with the matter without naming the right hon. Member. Does the right hon. Member understand that the scope of the debate relates to the desirability of paying grants to the company for specified purposes? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable parliamentarian, will confine himself to the guidelines that I have laid down.

Mr. Howell

I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every word of my speech will deal with the activities of grant-maintained schools and the company. [Interruption.] I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will tell me if I am out of order. She does not need any assistance from the rabble on the Conservative Benches.

I wish to deal with the activities of the trust in that school in my constituency. An unfortunate situation arose. Of the governors who were elected as a result of the Secretary of State's activities in a Labour constituency, only one Conservative governor attended once in 10 years. That is what happened. Suddenly, and in spite of their record——

Mr. Harry Greenway

rose——

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman should keep quiet and not get upset. There is no need to get excessively agitated.

I make it clear that, suddenly, and under the influence of that trust in an area in which, in 10 years, not one Tory governor had ever attended a meeting, because of the Secretary of State's activities, the governors were transformed and a multiplicity of Tories appeared. It would be out of order——

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If the Secretary of State has said that the money under this Bill will be provided to an organisation only for the purpose of helping schools which have already opted out, how can it be in order to deal with schools which are contemplating opting out?

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) should read the order before he raises with me points of order of that nature.

Mr. Howell

I am dealing with proposed grant-maintained schools, which are mentioned in the order. That should be in order. In all my time in this place, any self-respecting Minister who said that he wished not to deal with proposed school trusts but only with those that are already formed, out of courtesy to the House, would have withdrawn his order. That is not what this Secretary of State has done. He is going on hell-fire with his order, which has no relevance to his speech. However, hon. Members must put up with such discourtesies.

As a result of the company—the grant trust—the people on the board of parent governors——

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene because I intend to make my own contribution to the debate. On the assumption that he is making a spurious attempt to raise matters that are not within the scope of the regulations, will he agree that no member of the grant maintained schools trust had any discussion on the composition of any governing body, whether in Birmingham or in any other education authority? To imply otherwise is to lie to the House.

Mr. Howell

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why the secretary of the trust attended the meeting of governors at which co-option was discussed.

Mr. Norris

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify the position. In Birmingham, the trust has discussed with interested parents and governors the concept of grant maintenance. That is what it should do, and that is what it has done. It is the elected Labour councillors of Birmingham who have so far spent over £20,000 of ratepayers' money on spurious legal actions to try to frustrate the wishes of parents and governors in Birmingham.

Mr. Howell

If the trust is behaving as a trust, why has it not had one minute's consultation with the chairman of the governors, who happens to be a distinguished former lord mayor and Labour councillor? Why are representatives of the trust seen going into the Conservative room at the Birmingham city council with Conservative governors? If it is a trust, it has an obligation in law to be evenhanded in all the advice that it gives. It has an obligation in law to speak to the governors as a whole, which it has not yet done. It is conniving in a hole-in-the-corner method by meeting certain governors only. For that reason, the Secretary of State should not give it a penny. It is not behaving properly.

Mr. Norris

As long as the right hon. Gentleman makes statements that are wildly inaccurate and accuses me of involvement, he must expect me to interrupt him. He has said that the trust has an obligation in law to consult every governor. For my edification, will he draw the attention of the House to that specific law? Where does he find it? Where does the obligation arise? I know of no such law.

Mr. Howell

If that obligation does not exist and the trust—[Interruption.] I assert that as the trust is a charity the obligation does exist because a charity cannot be partial in its activities. It cannot be party political. If the obligation does not exist, the Secretary of State is showing a monumental abuse of his powers by allowing the trust to behave as it is. May I add——

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell

If no one else wishes to speak, I shall continue to give way.

Mr. Coombs

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a monumental abuse of power for the Birmingham city council to make available confidential names and addresses of parents so that they can be lobbied and canvassed in their own homes by supporters of the council against the opting-out proposal?

Mr. Howell

I am delighted to deal with that intervention because it echoes an argument that has been advanced by the Secretary of State, as reported in Education. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that it was wrong for members of the city council and others, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and myself, to have access to the names and addresses of parents for the purpose of writing to them. The headmaster of the school in question has used the register to write five, six or seven letters——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying into territory beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Howell

With the greatest respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to my guidelines and stay within the scope of the debate.

Mr. Howell

It is typical of the Tory rabble that I have only to address you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect, which is the phrase that I used, to bring them off their seats. With the greatest respect, I made the error of replying to the question put to me and I should not have done so.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members should not respond to interventions. They should stay within the scope of the debate; it is a narrow one and I intend to keep the House to it.

Mr. Howell

You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker, but nobody interrupted the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), so I thought that it would be in order to reply to him.

To return to the trust, it is advising on the gerrymandering of boards of governors.[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Gerrymandering and boards of governors do not come within the scope of the regulations.

Mr. Howell

With the greatest respect—[Laughter.] I am dealing with the activities of the trust. It is behaving in a disgraceful way. I am perfectly entitled to express that to the House. What has happened in Small Heath is wholly——

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)

How did the parents vote?

Mr. Howell

I will tell the hon. Gentleman how they voted. They voted in a way which has been challenged, rightly, in the courts, therefore—[Interruption.] I will tell the House what happened. The trust was advising the headmaster who called a special school assembly of pupils of 11 to 15, distributed leaflets and told them to go home and vote no. That matter is before the courts.

Mr. Dunn

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case and I understand his difficulties. Can he please tell the House what his opinion is of his constituents who as parents exercised their democratic right and voted to opt out?

Mr. Howell

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not stray down that familiar route. The debate has nothing to do with opting out.

Mr. Howell

Done again. I am sorry that we are put in this position and I shall not follow that route.

The body has been advising the headmaster and governors who now face two judicial reviews, neither of which was acknowledged by the Secretary of State at Question Time, nor in his disgraceful speech to the Young Conservatives when he was dealing with the trust and the legislation. Instead he attacked those who were ensuring that the legality of what was going on was properly reviewed in the courts.

We shall have other opportunities to talk about the sort of literature that has gone out and certainly to defend the charges made against us. It does not equate with the concept of any democratic process that I have ever been brought up in to understand that, on the one hand, parents could be written to six or eight times and, on the other, people are pilloried by the Secretary of State for writing one single letter to parents advising them of the case against opting out.

The regulations are a disgrace to the British democratic process. It is an absolute disgrace to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, if he had an ounce of decency left in him, would take them away and rectify them.

11.54 pm

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest)

I had no idea until tonight just how successful the principle of opting out obviously is with education authorities. I do not believe that I have ever heard such an appalling display of self-righteous humbug in all my years in the House. During my recent sabbatical, when I had the pleasure of reading these debates as one removed, I was just as excited by the concept of grant maintenance—the idea of allowing schools to operate as independent schools free from the sort of political chicanery that we have heard about in the examples that my hon. Friends and even Opposition Members have given. It was a marvellous concept, which we had to follow through as vigorously as possible.

I shall first of all dispel what I see as possibly the only valid point that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made. He is right that on page 10 of one of the early documents published by the trust the words "As a registered charity" appeared. Those words were written in the context of what we expected at that time would be a successful application for charitable status, bearing in mind the trust's three objectives, which I shall later outline.

As it happens, by the time that that publication was issued, charitable status had not been obtained. Any decision——

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norris

When I have finished my sentence, I will give way.

As it happened, at the time that that document was published, charitable status had not been obtained. At that time, it was still being sought for the trust as a whole. We have been advised that, because of the nature of the political debate surrounding grant maintenance—whereas the objectives of the trust were perfectly clear and not concerned with the debate in the House on the Education Reform Bill—charitable status would not follow automatically. It was therefore brought to our attention that the document was in error. Immediately that that document was shown to us to be in error, the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Win Griffiths

rose——

Mr. Norris

I must say that, in a fairly lengthy document of 15 pages, the only correction that was required was to four words.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

rose——

Mr. Win Griffiths

rose——

Mr. Norris

I shall finish my sentence, then the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) or any one of his army of hon. Friends may intervene.

A correction to four words was made in a quite complex document, copies of which I am more than happy to allow my hon. Friends and, indeed, Opposition Members to see. We ensured that the education press, especially The Times Educational Supplement, The Guardian and other interested journals, had full details of the change that we had made. We were very keen that, if there was any suggestion that any of the work of the trust was not charitable—in the sense that it involved the discussion of any principle that might be defined as political—the trust should not seek grant-maintained status in that regard.

An important consideration was the belief of all those associated with the trust that it was reprehensible to use public money to make a political point. The irony is that in that regard the trust accepted——

Mr. Win Griffiths

rose——

Mr. Straw

rose——

Mr. Norris

We have a short time and others want to speak. When I have finished, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bridgend.

In that regard, the trust was clear that it had three main functions. They were first——

Mr. Win Griffiths

rose——

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman must contain himself —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. It is clear that, for the moment, the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. In that case, I must ask hon. Members not to persist in seeking to intervene.

Mr. Norris

If hon. Members will contain themselves, we shall get through much more quickly.

The trust has three objectives. The first is to advise schools that inquire of the trust about what grant-maintained status means. Earlier, figures were tossed around about the popularity of the concept of grant-maintaned status. There are 6,300 schools eligible for grant-maintained status, and the House will be interested to know that of those more than 10 per cent. have now inquired of the trust as to how they might seek grant-maintained status. Therefore, more than 600 schools have expressed interest in the principle.

The second purpose for which the trust was established was to assist those schools that have balloted their parents and have decided that they will make an application for grant-maintained status. Those schools would need two kinds of technical information about the issues to be decided upon while the balloting takes place and about the process for preparing an application to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were the ballot successful. My right hon. Friend acts in a quasi-judicial capacity in determining any application to him for grant-maintained status, but he could not, of course, offer advice on the preparation of an individual application.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bridgend. The hon. Gentleman has not risen and, having given him every opportunity, I see no reason to detain further—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has the Floor.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is well known for his chicanery—[Interruption.] He gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and you should now rule that my hon. Friend has the Floor because the hon. Gentleman gave way.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Norris has the Floor.

Mr. Norris

The third function——

Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norris

As my hon. Friend is kind enough to elevate me to the Privy Council, the least I can do is give way.

Mrs. Hicks

Does my hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained schools are about parental choice? Does it come as any surprise to my colleague that the Opposition, who are totally opposed to choice——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady probably was not present earlier when I insisted that we keep to the scope of the regulations.

Mr. Norris

Perhaps it would assist my hon. Friend and the general debate to make one point clear in answer to a serious allegation by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). At no time has the trust had any discussions with any member of my right hon. Friend's ministerial team or with any local authority about the composition of governing bodies. That is entirely a matter for the appropriate authorities and it is absolutely nothing to do with the trust. I assure the House that the trust has plenty of work on its hands without engaging in matters that are entirely outside its purview.

Mr. Norris

rose——

Mr. Denis Howell

My accusation was crystal clear. It was not that the trust was negotiating with officers or with the city council as a whole, but that at every stage it was advising a Conservative group on Birmingham council's education committee. The trust members attended meetings in Conservative members' rooms and acted in a quasi-party political way.

Mr. Norris

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. The trust had embarked on its work in a spirit of explaining the concept of grant maintenance to interested parents and governors. Perhaps the trust was naive to believe that it could do that without encountering the sheer distortion which the Opposition seem to regard as their everyday stock in trade.

I have a copy of a document which was issued at public expense by Rochdale council during its "Think Twice" campaign. The document is headed: If you are thinking about grant maintained schools, Think Twice: it's your child's future. That document describes in fairly lurid terms a version of grant-maintained status which a reader would find incomprehensible. In those circumstances, the trust was obliged——

Mr. Flannery

Give way. Go on, give way now.

Mr. Norris

It was obliged to explain in the clearest possible terms the true principle of grant-maintained status so that all parents would understand what grant-maintained status actually means when they take that important decision about a school's future. If parents were left to the tender mercies of the Labour party, they would never be able to avail themselves of that information.

Mr. Maples

If a school governing body was deciding whether to opt out, would it be possible for my hon. Friend's organisation to use any of the money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could award under the regulations to finance a lawsuit to attempt to remove two of the governors who were against the school's opting out and therefore run up a legal bill of £75,000 and force the other side to run up a similar bill? That is exactly what the Inner London education authority has done with a school in my constituency.

Mr. Norris

My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well. It would be entirely improper for the trust or any other body charged with a proper discharge of educational responsibility to act in the way that he has described. It saddens me and it must sadden my hon. Friend and all Conservative Members that so often Labour councillors use public funds and ratepayers' money to gerrymander and engineer without any regard for the political consequences. It is becoming clearer through this bad-tempered debate that the Opposition are scared stiff of giving parents the right to control their own schools.

Having in the 1960s and 1970s destroyed so many of our great schools which actually delivered the best education without replacing them, the Opposition now want to get their greasy hands on the rest of the education system. They want to deny parents the right to make their own decisions.

With regard to the matter before the House this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were entirely correct to draw the attention of the House to the limited scope of the measure, although I am sure that you do not need my reassurances about that. This measure enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make grants, under the most stringent conditions, to the trust in the discharge of one of its stated purposes—to research and provide facilities for grant-maintained schools, which the Opposition are the first to point out are not provided by a local education authority once the school becomes grant-maintained. Once it becomes grant-maintained, in addition to its per capita funding it receives an amount in recognition of the LEA's share of the administrative costs of the school. The school must then find its bursar, accounting system, advice on property maintenance, grants maintenance and in-service training for teaching and non-teaching staff.

Many schools may decide that, rather than appoint another racial awareness adviser or send half the staff on sexual orientation courses during teaching time, it might be better to use some of the money available to enhance teaching levels and salaries in the school. That decision is one that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would applaud. In so far as any of the schools need services that the ILEA previously provided, it is clearly necessary that they should continue to be available, and that schools may know where those services can be found.

The purpose of the trust in that regard is specific—to determine where those services can be provided and on what basis, to cost them, to endeavour to determine which of them is appropriate for a particular type of school, and to offer free advice to schools accordingly. In that, the trust will do a job that previously has been done by the Department of Education and Science and by local education authorities, and therefore it is entirely appropriate that my right hon. Friend's Department should fund that work. That work will be accounted for separately and appear in separate bank accounts in the trust's accounts.

Mr. Flannery

The hon. Gentleman departs from the fundamental point made earlier, that the organisation of which he is chairman—he ought to declare that interest —sent out a pamphlet containing a direct lie in claiming that the trust was a charity. Why does not the hon.

Gentleman put that right in a proper manner by sending out a pamphlet correcting that earlier statement? The trust is not a charity, yet the pamphlet claimed that it was.

Mr. Norris

I am sorry that the House was detained by that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to a word I said earlier, when I fully answered that point. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not have observed, I am, I think, the only speaker in this debate —with the exception of my right hon. Friend, I hurriedly add—who has stayed in order. I do so because the motion's purpose is very clear. I reiterate that the trust is in no doubt as to the limitations placed on its powers, or about the heavy responsibility borne by any non-profit-making body such as the trust—a company limited by guarantee—in the discharge of public funds.

I give this unequivocal undertaking to the House. As to the trust, there is no question whatsoever but that any funds received by the trust on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will he used exclusively and totally to provide those services that were previously provided by local education authorities, under the specific terms of the regulations.

I was privileged to attend a great grammar school in Liverpool, the Liverpool Institute high school. I used to say that I went to school with the Beatles, but these days I say that I went to school with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) because more people know who one means. That school provided the best possible education for children, regardless of their families' incomes. If a child had the ability, he was able to utilise it fully, go to university and make a career—which he could not possibly have done in any other way in a system that did not provide that excellent start.

The tragedy of education in the 1980s is that, thanks to Labour intervention over 20 years, those schools——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Mr. Simon Hughes.

12.8 am

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Methinks the Conservatives do protest too much. The questions so far asked about the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust have not been answered. The reality of this debate is that there are regulations before the House—[Interruption.] Yes, this is my speech. Conservative Members have had plenty of time.

Mr. Norris

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) had completed his speech as far as the Chair was concerned. He was moving widely away from the scope of the debate. Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Norris

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I strayed I apologise, but I submit that to infer from that straying that I had completed my speech was perhaps less than charitable of you. You might at least permit me to conclude my peroration.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman had a superb peroration, but it went on for a very long time. Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has done his cause no service by taking a long time to say very little about the trust and its origins. The Secretary of State was equally evasive, as he was on the radio this morning and as his colleagues up and down the land know him and his hon. Friends to be.

This matter was debated by the Association of County Councils last Thursday. Not only had the association in February condemned the Secretary of State's action in laying regulations giving him powers to pay Grant-Maintained Schools Ltd., but—so embarrassed were its Conservative members—not a word did they utter about the issue in last week's ACC debate. The questions about why the trust had been described as a charity were not answered for some time; moreover, at no time has the question been answered whether an application had even then been made—and it is believed, on firm evidence, that it had not.

At no time have the Secretary of State and his colleagues described how leaflets came to be circulated which give the game away very clearly. One of them— printed on blue paper—reads as follows: Schools making this choice need independent advice. Not every school will qualify; there will be strict checks and safeguards to ensure that only well-run schools obtain GM status. The Trust can offer advice on whether GM status is right for your school. It will also be able to offer specialist advice on and assistance with the completion and submission of applications. That is not advice to schools that have already become grant-maintained, have voted to become grant-maintained or even have started the procedure to become grant-maintained.

I have here the company's memorandum of association, lodged I believe with Companies house on 18 July last year. They clearly include in the company's objects: To assist governors and headmasters in acquiring GM status". There was never any prospect of the organisation's being a charity. The Secretary of State and his colleagues know that, and they have been dishonest to the House—as they have been dishonest throughout the debate. The reality is that a Tory front organisation has been set up. It has been campaigning for grant-maintained status, although so far without Government money. Where has the money come from so far? We have not been told, but the organisation has been active, and people have been evasive about explaining its activities. I phoned one of the trust company's directors today. He refused to answer any questions about the trust's activities. The trust's telephone number, indeed, was unobtainable today, so willing is it to give advice.

The Secretary of State's tawdry defence of this Tory front organisation might be that he appointed the hon. Member for Epping Forest when he was not a Member of Parliament. He should now make it clear that the hon. Gentleman should no longer be in that position, because it is prejudicial to the independence of the organisation, as it is for Tory activists, known former Tory party employees and Tory councillors to be its backbone and only political appointees.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)

Give us the reason why.

Mr. Hughes

Because the Government assert that this is an independent, non-campaigning organisation, whereas the reality is that it is urging people, directly and indirectly, to seek grant-maintained status. I hold no brief for Rochdale or for any other authority that spends public money——

Mr. John Marshall

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes

I shall not give way. Hon. Members have had plenty of time to argue the case, and Conservative Members have not argued it successfully.

I hold no brief for local authorities that spend public money in this sort of campaigning. However, it is equally unacceptable for the Government to set up an organisation improperly and prematurely and to ignore advice, or fail to take proper advice. There has been no explanation of the Secretary of State's mistakes, or those of his officials.

The Government ask the House to approve regulations that allow the funding not only of grant-maintained schools but also of proposed grant-maintained schools, which is not provided for in the Act. The criteria here relate to schools with a good reputation, able staff and the support of the community and that is not provided for in the Act either. They will therefore be unable in future to come to the House and say that other public bodies should not spend public money on campaigns. The Secretary of State has done his career, credibility and integrity a great disservice. I ask him to reconsider his position; and if the hon. Member for Epping Forest has any honour, he ought to resign his post before the end of the debate tonight.

12.20 am

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

It is clear that the debate is not about the grant-maintained schools principle, the desirability of grant-maintained schools, or the holding of ballots. It is about one important principle: that the Secretary of State and the Government want to use taxpayers' money to fund a Conservative party front organisation.

No evidence has been produced in the debate to counter that accusation. The chairman of the organisa-tion earned his meal ticket back into the House of Commons by running that organisation. The director of the organisation is a former employee of Conservative central office. He is a Conservative member of Oxford city council. So keen is that individual to look after public funds that recently he was thrown out of the members' room of Oxfordshire county council for using the telephone on grant-maintained schools trust business.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

That is petty.

Mr. Fatchett

The hon. Gentleman says that that is petty. Mr. Turner is the gentleman to whom we are to entrust taxpayers' money. When he behaves in that way, he is not worthy of that trust. Every other member of the trust is a paid-up, card-carrying member of the Conservative party. The House is being asked for a blank cheque to support the Conservative party. Taxpayers, without their knowledge, are being asked to fund a blank cheque because the Conservative party does not have the courage to campaign throughout the country on behalf of opting out and grant-maintained schools. That blank cheque should have been underwritten by the Conservative party. It should have been paid for by Conservative party funds.

When the Secretary of State says that the money will be used in a particular way, what greater nonsense could he offer? We know that when that money is used in a particular way, other money will be released for straightforward party political purposes. The trust has deliberately misled the public and parents. The hon.

Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said that there had been a mistake. It took the organisation a month to find out that there had been a mistake. During that time that information was sent to headteachers, parents and teachers.

Mr. Norris

rose——

Mr. Fatchett

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman is making unjustified allegations about me and he ought to give way.

Mr. Fatchett

I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 25 minutes. His speech was a disgrace and an embarrassment.

Mr. Hayes

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has made serious allegations against the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Fatchett

I am perfectly prepared to talk on for the next four minutes. We saw that the hon. Member for Epping Forest had no supporters on his side of the House. He had to speak for more than 20 minutes to fill in the time. If the Conservative party wants to behave in that way, two of us can play at that game.

I want to ask the Minister a question—maybe we can have a response. We know that the trust has misled parents and that because of that——

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett

No. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the Minister's time.

We know that parents have been misled by the trust. Where ballots have taken place, I would advise parents to examine their legal rights closely to see whether they can challenge in court the conduct of ballots because of the misrepresentation that has taken place.

It took the trust one month to change the word "charity". We need to know when the Department of Education and Science found out and what advice it gave the charity and what advice it gave the trust. I think that the answer is that they were in collusion and that the Department knew exactly what was going on.

I will leave the Minister time to wind up. This measure is one of arrogance. It tries to use taxpayers' money for party-political purposes. If local government behaved in this way, the Government would use legislation to stop it. The Secretary of State says that that is right. This Secretary of State has no principles. He will move the goal posts whenever it is convenient to him to move them. That is why the regulations are flawed.

We believe in consistency and in principle. We shall vote against the regulations because we believe in good law and because we do not believe in using taxpayers' money for party-political purposes.

12.27 am

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

Such a lot of huffing and puffing, such a lot of pompous, holier-than-thou sentiments and sanctimonious rubbish have been spoken tonight.

No money from the public purse has been spent by the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust, but money to campaign against parents exercising their rights under the law has been spent by public authorities, and that is totally unacceptable.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has honourably acknowledged the mistake that was made by his trust, and I hope that the House will have the grace to accept what he said. I believe that he was right in every respect, especially that the purpose of the trust is to advise governors——

It being one and half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [17th March].

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 255.

Division No. 124]	[12.28 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Dixon, Don
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Dobson, Frank
Alton, David	Doran, Frank
Anderson, Donald	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Armstrong, Hilary	Eastham, Ken
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Fatchett, Derek
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Faulds, Andrew
Battle, John	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Beckett, Margaret	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Beith, A. J.	Fisher, Mark
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Flannery, Martin
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Flynn, Paul
Bermingham, Gerald	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bidwell, Sydney	Fraser, John
Blair, Tony	Fyfe, Maria
Blunkett, David	Galbraith, Sam
Boyes, Roland	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Bradley, Keith	George, Bruce
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Gordon, Mildred
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Graham, Thomas
Buckley, George J.	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Callaghan, Jim	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Hardy, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Harman, Ms Harriet
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Haynes, Frank
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Clay, Bob	Henderson, Doug
Clelland, David	Hinchliffe, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Coleman, Donald	Holland, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Home Robertson, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Hood, Jimmy
Cope, Rt Hon John	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corbett, Robin	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Cousins, Jim	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Crowther, Stan	Hoyle, Doug
Cryer, Bob	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Cummings, John	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Darling, Alistair	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Ingram, Adam
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kirkwood, Archy	Quin, Ms Joyce
Lamond, James	Radice, Giles
Leadbitter, Ted	Randall, Stuart
Leighton, Ron	Redmond, Martin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Lewis, Terry	Reid, Dr John
Litherland, Robert	Richardson, Jo
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Robertson, George
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Robinson, Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie	Rogers, Allan
McAllion, John	Rooker, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCartney, Ian	Rowlands, Ted
McFall, John	Ruddock, Joan
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Sheerman, Barry
McKelvey, William	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McLeish, Henry	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McWilliam, John	Skinner, Dennis
Madden, Max	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Marek, Dr John	Snape, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Spearing, Nigel
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Steinberg, Gerry
Martlew, Eric	Stott, Roger
Maxton, John	Straw, Jack
Meacher, Michael	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Meale, Alan	Turner, Dennis
Michael, Alun	Vaz, Keith
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Wall, Pat
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)	Wallace, James
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Morgan, Rhodri	Wareing, Robert N.
Morley, Elliott	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Wigley, Dafydd
Mowlam, Marjorie	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mullin, Chris	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Murphy, Paul	Wilson, Brian
Nellist, Dave	Winnick, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Wise, Mrs Audrey
O'Brien, William	Worthington, Tony
O'Neill, Martin	Wray, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Patchett, Terry
Pendry, Tom	Tellers for the Ayes:
Pike, Peter L.	Mr. Llin Golding and
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Mr. Nigel Griffiths.
Primarolo, Dawn

NOES
Adley, Robert	Bowis, John
Alexander, Richard	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Brazier, Julian
Allason, Rupert	Bright, Graham
Amess, David	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Amos, Alan	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Arbuthnot, James	Browne, John (Winchester)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Budgen, Nicholas
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Burns, Simon
Ashby, David	Burt, Alistair
Aspinwall, Jack	Butcher, John
Atkins, Robert	Butler, Chris
Atkinson, David	Butterfill, John
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baldry, Tony	Carrington, Matthew
Batiste, Spencer	Carttiss, Michael
Bellingham, Henry	Cash, William
Bendall, Vivian	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Chapman, Sydney
Bevan, David Gilroy	Chope, Christopher
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Churchill, Mr
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Body, Sir Richard	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Boswell, Tim	Colvin, Michael
Bottomley, Peter	Conway, Derek
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James	Janman, Tim
Cran, James	Jessel, Toby
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Curry, David	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Davis, David (Boothterry)	Key, Robert
Day, Stephen	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Devlin, Tim	Kirkhope, Timothy
Dicks, Terry	Knapman, Roger
Dorrell, Stephen	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dover, Den	Knowles, Michael
Dunn, Bob	Knox, David
Durant, Tony	Lang, Ian
Dykes, Hugh	Latham, Michael
Eggar, Tim	Lawrence, Ivan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fallon, Michael	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Favell, Tony	Lightbown, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lilley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Lord, Michael
Forman, Nigel	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Franks, Cecil	Maclean, David
Freeman, Roger	McLoughlin, Patrick
French, Douglas	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Fry, Peter	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Gale, Roger	Madel, David
Gardiner, George	Major, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Matins, Humfrey
Gill, Christopher	Mans, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan	Maples, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Marland, Paul
Goodlad, Alastair	Marlow, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gorst, John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gow, Ian	Mates, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Maude, Hon Francis
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gregory, Conal	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Miller, Sir Hal
Grylls, Michael	Mills, Iain
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Miscampbell, Norman
Hague, William	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Mitchell, Sir David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Moate, Roger
Hampson, Dr Keith	Monro, Sir Hector
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Harris, David	Morrison, Sir Charles
Haselhurst, Alan	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Hayes, Jerry	Moss, Malcolm
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Hayward, Robert	Neale, Gerrard
Heddle, John	Nelson, Anthony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Nicholls, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hind, Kenneth	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Norris, Steve
Howard, Michael	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Page, Richard
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Paice, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Patnick, Irvine
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Pawsey, James
Hunter, Andrew	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Irvine, Michael	Porter, David (Waveney)
Jack, Michael	Portillo, Michael
Jackson, Robert	Powell, William (Corby)

Price, Sir David	Twinn, Dr Ian
Raffan, Keith	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Rathbone, Tim	Walden, George
Redwood, John	Waller, Gary
Renton, Tim	Ward, John
Rhodes James, Robert	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Warren, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Watts, John
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wells, Bowen
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wheeler, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Whitney, Ray
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Widdecombe, Ann
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Wiggin, Jerry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Winterton, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wood, Timothy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Woodcock, Mike
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Yeo, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Tellers for the Noes:
Tracey, Richard	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Tredinnick, David	Mr. David Heathcoat-
Trippier, David	Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.