HC Deb 15 July 1998 vol 316 cc489-500

Lords amendment: No. 115, in page 74, line 41, leave out (", 101 and") and insert ("to")

Mr. Byers

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 128 and 374.

Mr. Byers

The amendments fall into three broad categories. Amendments Nos. 115, 117, 122 to 124 and 374 are technical and tidying-up amendments.

Two groups of amendments have greater substance. Amendments Nos. 116, 118 to 120, 125, 126 and 128 would give effect to the recommendations that were made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords. That Committee recommended that certain measures should be written into the Bill.

The parents who will be eligible to a vote in a petition or to take part in a ballot and the fact that there should be 20 per cent. or more of eligible parents at the relevant school signing a petition were matters that the Committee thought should be recorded in the Bill. The amendments meet the Committee's recommendations. We were pleased to be able to agree with those recommendations.

The second significant group consists of amendments Nos. 121 and 127. Those relate to what are known as the gagging provisions in the Bill. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that the Government were concerned that local education authorities and school governing bodies might abuse their positions, particularly in relation to the use of public money, in arguing for or against one side of the argument in relation to the retention of selective schools.

In Committee, the Government stuck to their original view, which was that it would be far better to impose a blanket ban on governing bodies and local education authorities embarking on any campaigning issue. A number of hon. Members who are present this evening, including me, engaged in a heated debate about whether that was the right way in which to proceed. As always, the Government proved to be a listening Government. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition began his listening tour yesterday, and I wish him well; but this Government have been listening for a long time. As a result of their listening, they felt that this part of the Bill should be changed.

Opposition Members asked why governing bodies should be restricted. If governing bodies felt strongly about an issue, should they not be allowed to articulate their view? Some of my hon. Friends feel that local education authorities should be able to articulate particular views as well. The Government have decided—and their decision is reflected in the Lords amendments—that it is appropriate for local education authorities, and school governing bodies, to be able to express their views on important issues. However, we continue to claim that they should not be allowed to use public money to pursue a partial argument. That is where we draw the line.

If a school governing body holds a fete or summer fair to raise money to argue for the retention of the grammar school system, that is perfectly right and proper; if a local education authority seeks to raise money, it will probably be in difficulties. I am not sure that such action is within LEAs' powers. No doubt, in due course, there will be interesting legal arguments about whether it would be ultra vires. In any event, it would not be possible to stop an elected member of a local authority from campaigning openly in favour of a specific argument; but we are drawing a line in the sand in regard to the use of public money.

The Lords amendments permit public bodies—grammar school governing bodies, secondary modern school governing bodies and local education authorities, if they wish—to argue their case. We do not wish to restrict their activities in that regard; what we are saying is that they should not be able to use public money to support their campaigns.

I think that the amendments strike the right balance between the two competing arguments. Having considered the issue, I recommend that the House agree with the House of Lords.

Mr. Green

As reshuffle fever grips the Government Benches, we should all be aware that each occasion on which we are privileged to hear the Minister speak on the Bill may be the last time that we hear him speak from the Front Bench. Let me begin by thanking him for the small mercy of the slight move that he has made on the gagging provisions. I am relieved to discover that the Government have not yet got into the mode of trying to dictate what school fetes should raise money for, although it must be said that that is only a small step forward.

The Lords amendments relate to one of the more distasteful parts of the Bill—and, as evidenced by the number of amendments that the Government have been forced to table in the House of Lords, one of the more intrinsically incoherent parts. The plethora of amendments to this part of the Bill demonstrates the difficulty of turning blind prejudice into good legislation. The Minister referred to the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee that more details of the ballot should be included in the Bill, and that less should be left in regulations. The Committee is right, of course, and we should be grateful for the moves that have been made; but I hope that the Minister will explain what coherent principles he is using to decide what should be in the Bill and what should be left in regulations.

That question is particularly important in this context. Apart from the over-arching point about the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly, there is the question of the time scale. Given the point at which the consultation period will end, we assume that the regulations will be published in the recess. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on that.

I know that several of my hon. Friends have specific constituency points to make, so I shall be fairly brief. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that parents throughout the country are worried about the clauses to which the amendments refer, and in many respects they are right to feel betrayed.

Any number of quotes from the current Prime Minister before the election illustrate the point. During the by-election campaign in Wirral, South, he said: A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee. Parents of children in grammar schools throughout the country will know how much that guarantee is worth when they see the Bill. Even more strongly, he said in Birmingham in April 1997: Our task is not to change anything that works or any good school that is doing well. Our challenge is to change what is not working in the education system. The amendments are designed to make it easy to change something that is working well in the education system, so they are unnecessary and damaging.

The amendments show how difficult it has been for the Government to enforce the betrayals that the Prime Minister is inflicting on those parents. Amendment No. 126 refers to parents eligible to vote. I was fascinated to receive a written answer confirming what I had suspected—that each child can have an unlimited number of parents eligible to petition and vote. That shows the arcane lengths to which the Bill going. One might naturally think that any child could have a maximum of two parents.

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have simply rolled forward the definition of eligible parents contained in the Conservatives' legislation on grant-maintained school ballots and petitions. That is the definition that has traditionally been used.

8.45 pm
Mr. Green

That had to be on a narrower basis, because it affected parents at individual schools rather than across local education authorities. I do not remember the Labour party welcoming those ballots, so I am not sure that the Minister's argument washes.

Many people will find the 20 per cent. rule peculiar. The Government have decided that, when they are dealing with matters that they care about, such as trade unions, 40 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. For schools, which they do not care about, they have decided that 20 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. Parents across the country will observe the difference and note where the Government's real interests lie.

The Minister will be aware that various local Labour parties are trying to organise campaigns against grammar schools. He told the Social Market Foundation on 1 July this year: One of our priorities over the next few months is to identify new ways in which excellent schools can simply be allowed to get on with what they do well without undue distraction. I commend those words. The Minister is right and he should put his words into action by encouraging his hon. Friends and many Labour councillors throughout the country not to try to cause undue distractions to good schools by campaigning for their destruction.

The amendments say nothing about the cost of the ballots. Ministers refuse to answer the question when they are asked. One assumes that many thousands of pounds will be spent. I am sure that the House would be grateful to hear any figures that the Minister has. Whatever the cost, it is inconceivable that the money available for education is best used by spending it on ballots.

The wasted money is bad enough, but that is not all that will be diverted from better purposes. A great deal of energy will also be expended. I have two excellent grammar schools in my constituency—Highworth school for girls and Norton Knatchbull school for boys. They are already having to look over their shoulders at what may be coming. Inevitably, the energy of senior staff, other staff and those parents who are most involved is being distracted from their normal work of helping the schools towards thinking about what is likely to happen in the ballots. The net result of that uncertainty will be a reduction in the amount of creative time and energy devoted to improving the education of children. I cannot believe that the Minister thinks such ballots are a sensible use of time.

Mr. Brady

Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the effect that the uncertainty is having on parents who are contemplating the best schools for their children? The proposals are already having the perverse effect of pushing parents towards independent schools rather than excellent grammar and secondary schools which they might otherwise choose.

Mr. Green

My hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise, makes an extremely good point. I cannot believe that it is one of the Government's intentions to drive more children into the independent sector. They must know that that is one of the possible effects of the policy. Although we on the Opposition Benches have no problem with that, because we believe in parental choice, ideologically the Government are shooting themselves in the foot.

Amendment No. 115 refers to clause 99, which states that a grammar school is a school that selects all (or substantially all) of its pupils…by reference to general ability". It is interesting that, although the Government have quite sensibly taken up the previous Government's idea that schools should be allowed to select certain skills—a percentage of pupils can be selected for sporting or artistic ability—they are still hostile to the idea of selection on academic ability. As the Minister will know, there are those who argue that part of the problem faced by sports and arts colleges is that they are not allowed greater specialism and a higher percentage of selection. Had grammar schools not provided a good service for centuries, it would have been typical of the new Labour Government—indeed, I commend the idea to the Minister—to suggest that specialist academic colleges would be a good idea, too. The proposed policy does not even fit their own purported ideology. Trying to damage grammar schools in such a way is atavistic, and unworthy of many of the other things that the Minister is trying to achieve.

Mrs. Browning

Are we not debating the fact that the Government and the Minister are philosophically opposed to education by selection—they have made that very clear—but realise that it would be extremely unpopular among parents whose children attend grammar schools or live in an area where they hope that their children will attend one? They have contrived a balloting system, and the Minister has made an announcement about not using public money, which is right and proper.

Having set a policy of hostility towards grammar schools, despite their excellence, particularly in academic subjects, the Government are standing back, wringing their hands saying, "It's nothing to do with us, guy." In practice, the trade unions will be the ones who find the money to drive anti-grammar school campaigns. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) laughs; he has good reason to do so. He knows that, in every ballot on an application for a grant-maintained school, he and his chums from the trade unions found the wherewithal and the ability to run a no campaign. The Minister knows that; the Government know it. They will let the trade unions do their dirty work for them.

Mr. Green

My hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to hide behind others in the campaign because they put out so much soft soap before the election, saying that good schools would not be threatened. We said that they would be, and we have been proved right. Everything that was said before the election, by everyone from the Prime Minister downwards, is proved to have been a deceit on the public.

We have spoken of the chaos that will be caused by the ballot process, and is already being caused by the uncertainty. However, much more chaos and expense will, of course, be caused by the consequence of any changes. One key point that the House and people outside will need to realise is that the chaos, the expense and the disruption of children's vital years in education will not be confined to the grammar schools but will spread to all the schools in the areas concerned.

I have in different parts of my constituency both extremely good grammar schools and excellent comprehensive schools. The disruption caused by any change to the grammar schools would affect schools right across the board. Damage would be caused to the education of the many, not the few.

Mr. Hayes

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about disruption, and of course it will last longer than the duration of the ballots. Relationships will be strained in perpetuity. Imagine the situation during a ballot, with school against school, parent against parent and community against community—hardly a policy to bind together communities and local areas. The disruption will go on in perpetuity and damage the education opportunities of countless children.

Mr. Green

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I observe that we are straying rather wide of the amendments before us. Will he return to them, please?

Mr. Green

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The amendments are problematic because, at the margins of the Government's policy, the category of people affected is wider than existing parents and pupils. The amendments deal with the question of who is eligible to vote in the ballots, and the Government are having that difficulty precisely because it is not only the children, parents and governors from the grammar schools who will be affected but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, the whole community.

That is one reason why the Government have had such difficulty and have had to bring before the House amendments made in another place. It is regrettable that they are betraying their pre-election promises by introducing those clauses and the amendments to them, because putting good schools under threat is no way to raise standards in all schools. At best, the Government are causing short-term disruption and, at worst, they are engaging in long-term vandalism. However, I am sure that, if and when ballots take place, parents will show more common sense than Ministers have.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I support the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), our Front-Bench spokesman. First, I must declare an interest, in that both my daughters attended the excellent South Wilts grammar school for girls in Salisbury. I put on record the thanks of my wife and myself, as well as those of our children, for that superb education, which was both academic and rounded, and included an education through the community in south Wiltshire. They started in the village school, they progressed to Wilton middle school, and they have both now gone to university.

I wish also to put on record my thanks to the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he received a delegation that I brought to see him earlier in the year, which included the heads of South Wilts grammar school for girls and of Bishop Wordsworth's school, together with their respective chairmen of governors.

The Minister received us with courtesy, and indeed with spirit. He was challenging in the way in which he listened to our arguments, and then suggested that there might be even better ways in which we could raise educational standards in my ancient cathedral city and the other part of south Wiltshire that I represent. We came away most encouraged, in the knowledge that the Minister and his officials had listened carefully, and we hoped that we had influenced some of the decisions that he would take—although we were a little disappointed in that respect.

On many occasions over many years, I have made my views clear on behalf of my constituents, and that was but the latest occasion on which I did so. I might not have tried to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had it not been for the bizarre remarks by Baroness Blackstone when the Bill was considered in another place. She said: this amendment appears to be about fairness and democracy, but I have a suspicion that it is about tailoring the electorate in order to achieve a particular result. If ever logic were stood on its head by anyone, it was by the noble Baroness. She added that a feeder school was defined as a school which has sent five or more pupils in total to the relevant grammar school or schools over the previous three years. That definition was arrived at after consultation with a number of grammar schools."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 54.] I bet that all those schools asked her to do exactly the opposite of what the Government propose.

While the Bill is making progress—thanks to the enormous majority that we face—the local Labour party in Salisbury is going around stirring up apathy in a community where education is regarded as an important piece of our social fabric; where the old warfare between comprehensive and grammar schools was, fortunately, ended 15 years ago; where education is so important that, in considering reorganisation to meet the needs of modern Britain, the secondary modern schools are proposing a sixth form; where the comprehensive school has excellent academic results; and where the grammar schools are part of a wide and varied educational fabric.

The clauses and the amendments are crucial to the argument. I am disappointed that the Government have not listened to the representations, and seem to be intent on fighting a thoroughly old-fashioned class war, concerned with the battles of so many years ago. It is in sorrow rather than anger that I have made my few remarks in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will have second thoughts.

9 pm

Mr. Brady

Ministers know that I have a strong interest in the future of the remaining grammar schools, and of the secondary moderns which are their companions. Ministers have doubtless followed my comments on previous occasions.

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is characteristic of these debates that people speak up for some of the best schools in the country. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford stressed that we are not talking about the grammar schools being the best. We stand to lose a system that is working in both the grammar and the secondary modern schools.

Last week, the Minister underlined that point for my constituents and the people of Trafford by including the Ashton-on-Mersey school in his list of beacon schools. That is a most helpful gesture by the Government, which underlined to my constituents the fact that Ministers share my view that it is nothing but arrant nonsense to suggest that those who do not go to the grammar schools are consigned to failure at 11. They clearly are not—they are consigned to beacon schools.

Last night, I had the privilege of presenting awards at another secondary modern school in my constituency, the New Wellington school. It is achieving magnificent results—often better than many comprehensive schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the telling point that that was the kind of initiative that the Government might have come up with had they not been wedded to a rather old-fashioned hostility towards grammar schools. In the north of Trafford, we have good grammar schools in Stretford and Urmston, which are doing the job of raising the academic standards of all schools—as will the beacon schools, I hope.

The Minister referred to the origin of many of the amendments lying with the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The Committee was right to return to many of the arguments of Conservative members of the Standing Committee—that the Bill was too vague, left too much to discretion and subsequent regulation by Ministers, and contained insufficient detail and information for parents and others with an interest.

The Minister talked about the technical amendments, and amendments that are required to put a little more in the Bill. Some of them are welcome as far as they go. I certainly welcome the slight relaxation in the gagging provisions. That will be welcome to the governing bodies of schools in my constituency, many of which have been very concerned about the interpretation of the limitations placed on them by the Bill.

The Minister rightly accepted that even this Government could not prevent people who happened to be school governors from expressing their views; those people would probably have published their views anyway with "governor of" in parenthesis after their names. He has accepted that the restriction would have been unreasonable and unnecessary.

I welcome the fact that no public money can be spent on campaigning, either by the schools or by local education authorities. I particularly welcome the relaxation of the gagging order on LEAs, as I want local Labour parties and councillors to be able to demonstrate their hostility to these excellent schools as openly as possible. It is regrettable that the Government have tried to wash their hands of the implications of their proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.

Mr. Green

I assure my hon. Friend that, certainly in Kent, where some Labour Members are very publicly opposing the grammar schools in their constituencies, parents will not fail to let it be known who is leading the campaign and what effect it will have.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful for that intelligence on what is happening in the south-east.

In Trafford, Labour councillors have been more reticent about stating their views, in the knowledge that, certainly for nearly all my life, local elections there have frequently turned on the question of the future of the grammar schools. Labour won control of the council only in 1995, when it came up with a new local formula; it said that it would do nothing to harm the grammar schools, and that future policy would be a matter for a Labour Government if and when one were elected. The council passed the buck to the Government, but the Government are now passing it back. Ultimately, however, the buck will rest fairly and squarely with the Labour party, which is maintaining its hostility to these excellent schools.

The amendments leave considerable room for confusion; they are not as good as we may have wanted. However, they would rightly make it more clear which parents are eligible to vote in ballots. The consultation paper on the matter is something of a dog's breakfast; it contains completely different eligibility criteria for different types of grammar schools—those that stand alone, those in groups and those that are in wholly selective LEA areas. The Government must say exactly why they believe it appropriate that only parents of children in primary feeder schools should vote on the future of some grammar schools, whereas all parents of school-age children—primary or secondary—may vote on the future of others.

The amendments also deal with the payment of costs that are necessarily incurred not in campaigning, but in the petitioning and balloting procedure. They would ensure that the Bill specified that a petition would have to meet a 20 per cent. threshold before a ballot could be called. That is welcome, although I should prefer a higher threshold.

A more important point—whether there should be a minimum majority requirement in any ballot—is left open. It is wrong that vastly important decisions on the future of many schools could be taken by a small number of parents. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I believe that the criteria that apply in ballots on trade union recognition could reasonably apply in school ballots; I do not understand why, in trade union ballots, 40 per cent. of those eligible must vote whereas, in ballots on schools, a simple majority of any number of parents is sufficient. I should like the Bill to be clearer on that.

Lords amendment No. 118 is rather worrying. Is my understanding correct—that it would remove the power for Ministers to establish how the result of a ballot is to be ascertained? If so, is the Minister deliberately endorsing a position whereby the Government give up the power to set a minimum threshold for a majority requirement to come into the balloting procedure?

This is possibly the biggest issue of concern to my constituents. The onus must be firmly on those who seek to change a system that works so well. In the borough of Trafford, that system achieves the best A-level results in the country, and the 10th best GCSE results; in Buckinghamshire, it achieves the best GCSE results. That should be borne in mind by those who want to introduce a balloting system that could throw away those advantages far too cheaply.

Which are the designated areas? Has the Minister given further thought to whether greater emphasis on the truly local might be appropriate in the balloting procedure? For the grammar schools in Altrincham, the catchment area would be a far more appropriate boundary for balloting and parental eligibility than the whole borough of Trafford.

Some of the changes are welcome, but some are cause for concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made clear, the changes will cause massive disruption not only through the balloting procedure itself but if a ballot should decide to get rid of selective schools. In any shift towards comprehensive schools, there is a reduction in the number and diversity of schools and in parental choice, and standards generally go down. To throw away the high standards in some of the best schools in the country would be unfortunate at a time when the Government say that they are focusing on the need to raise standards.

One of the most unfortunate effects of the ballot campaigns, if and when they happen, will arise from the attitude of those who oppose selection. They talk about the children in secondary modern schools being consigned to failure at 11, and risk damaging and discouraging those children. The Secretary of State regularly visits my constituency, although he has not so far taken the time to visit one of my grammar schools, but when Ministers come to my constituency, they will see that both the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools are excellent. At a school such as New Wellington school, where I was last night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the mark again. Will he come back to the amendments?

Mr. Brady

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to emphasise the point that one of the most damaging effects of the ballot campaigns could be the erroneous argument that we are dealing with some pupils who have failed and some who succeed. We are dealing with pupils who are being educated appropriately for their abilities and the way in which they are best able to learn. The system works and those people who detract from it or oppose the retention of a selective education system, where we still have one, are doing a disservice to children in secondary modern schools.

9.15 pm
Mr. Hayes

My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) accused the Government of incoherence in these amendments, which was typically kind—I would accuse them of intolerance. Change for the sake of change is undesirable, but creating the potential for change for its own sake is also deeply undesirable.

The technical amendments are not contentious, but funding is more complex and the amendment that deals with it is welcome in the sense that it would free governing bodies to set out a clear and resolute case in defence of their school—or not, if they do not wish to defend it, although I cannot imagine that that would be the case—and because it prohibits the spending of public money. As we have seen with the ballots for grant-maintained schools, the problem is that there are cleverer and more sinister ways to fund extremely negative and dirty campaigns, often perpetrated by the less wise members of the Labour party—not like the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).

The reservation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) alluded is right and proper, and the amendment does not go sufficiently far towards controlling that sort of activity. As I said, I am concerned that there will be dirty campaigns, but I disagree with my hon. Friend, in that I do not think that the Labour party will be able to escape the blame. If there are any petitions or campaigns in south Lincolnshire, we shall nail the blame where it belongs.

Indeed, many of us would welcome the opportunity to do so, because the ballot and the process that leads to it, which is implicit in this legislation, will be deeply unpopular with parents of grammar school pupils, parents with children at feeder schools who believe that they will have a chance of getting to grammar school—usually a greater proportion of the children than ultimately get there—and people who have a relationship with the school past and present, in other words, much of the community. Electorally, that would be an undesirable move from the Government's point of view and it would not be in their interests.

I must point out two other aspects of the Bill, the first of which has not been mentioned. What will be the effect of the provisions on the discretion of local education authorities? Lincolnshire LEA is Conservative-controlled, but, until the last election, it was under Labour control and, during that time, it chose not to interfere with grammar schools. That may have had more to do with the practical business of trying to remain popular—clearly it failed, as Labour was thrown out—than with any philosophical commitment to selection; notwithstanding that, the LEA had the right to make a decision that was sensitive to local traditions, opinion and needs.

The Bill would certainly inhibit and restrict the freedom of democratically elected county councillors or members of LEAs to make decisions appropriate for their areas. That returns us to the contradiction between a centrally controlled, dictated and uniform system, which in fairness may be designed to drive up standards, and the flexibility and diversity from which education benefits so greatly, which gives local people the power to make local decisions that best match the needs of local communities.

My final point was dealt with to some extent but needs amplification. Where selection exists, it is good not merely for the children who are selected but for children in primary schools, who try to attain the necessary standard to gain admission to the local grammar school, and for many secondary modern schools. In the past, I have mentioned good schools in Spalding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendments.

Mr. Hayes

In summary, then, the amendments fail to deal with the maintenance of high standards across the primary and secondary education systems where selection exists. We shall fight to retain not only grammar schools but all good schools where local people want them.

Mr. Byers

I shall seek to deal only with points raised about the amendments, so I can be fairly brief. I listened with interest to those points. I have met several hon. Members and delegations from their constituencies, including representatives of grammar schools, and head teachers. I have also visited grammar schools to see the quality of the education that they provide.

As the Minister responsible for school standards, I should be mindful of all the arguments, but that does not mean that all of them can be incorporated in regulations. The regulations on which we are consulting are better and fairer than they would have been had I not heard those representations. They go nowhere near meeting the concerns expressed by many Conservative Members, but they improve on what might have been had we not heard those concerns.

As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who made his points well, has said, I met him and a delegation from grammar schools in his constituency. The draft regulations are out for consultation, which will finish at the end of July, and we shall produce the regulations in due course.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about timing. We want the House to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the regulations affecting grammar schools, and we shall produce a timetable that will ensure that hon. Members can do so. We are conscious of the strong views held by Conservative Members and Labour Members on grammar schools. I want the regulations to be as fair as possible, and I want to ensure that people feel that they have had an opportunity to express their views.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful for that commitment. I apologise if I am pre-empting the Minister, but I am keen that he should address the question whether any of the amendments—particularly Lords amendment No. 118 on the possibility of a threshold majority—would limit the scope of regulations to take account of the consultation exercise.

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points to which I intended to return. He is right to say that Lords amendment No. 118 removes reference to regulations specifying how the result of a ballot will be determined. It does that because Lords amendment No. 128 ensures that the Bill will say how regulations will be determined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition and impact of designated areas, which are important to his constituency. I intend designated areas to be included in draft regulations, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to debate them and vote on them. There will be an opportunity to revisit the issue in more detail once the regulations specify the designated areas. I hope that that meets some of his concerns.

The onus for change will rest on those advocating change. There is no doubt that, in so important a decision as the future of grammar schools and the selective system, there will be a high turnout among parents. That is why we have not been persuaded to specify a minimum turnout in the Bill or regulations. We have provided that a minimum of 20 per cent. of parents should sign the petition to requisition a ballot, but, once a ballot has been called, the nature and importance of the decision will ensure a high turnout among the parents eligible to take part.

I do not believe that this is a betrayal by the Government. Our manifesto clearly stated that the future of grammar schools would be a matter for local determination by parents. That is what we are seeking to do in the regulations under the Bill and in the draft regulations that will come forward in due course. Let us be clear: it will not be the Labour Government who close a grammar school, but local parents. That is only right and proper. Where grammar schools have broad support, they have nothing to fear from the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues raised by Conservative Members, if not to satisfy them. We will have the chance to revisit the matter when we go through the affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations. I will make sure that the draft regulations are published in a way that ensures a debate in this House and in the House of Lords. The Lords amendments improve the Bill, and I am pleased that they have had a broad welcome from Opposition Members. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in its amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 129 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Forward to