HC Deb 15 July 1998 vol 316 cc456-80

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 31, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body),")

6.15 pm
Mr. Byers

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 49 and the Government motions to disagree.

Mr. Byers

It is important that each school should have its own governing body. It would be inappropriate to group school governing bodies as the Lords amendments propose. We do not want to stop governing bodies co-operating with each other. Many hon. Members have infant and junior schools in their constituencies that co-operate on joint matters. There is nothing to stop them co-operating on matters to do with site maintenance or school buildings, for example. We are not impeding such beneficial co-operation, which should take place between schools on the same site.

However, each school should have its own governing body because governing bodies have a particular responsibility for raising standards. We do not want them to be distracted from that task, and their lines of accountability should not be blurred. We are concerned that grouping governing bodies will blur the necessary accountability for raising standards. Each school should have its own governing body that is accountable for its standards.

Mrs. Browning

Will the Minister refresh my memory about the situation in education action zones? Do the Government's proposals not allow education action zones to do what the amendment asks? In an education action zone, a group of schools could decide to form a mutual governing body and disapply their individual governing bodies. The Minister claims to be serious about standards. Why would that affect standards in the maintained sector, but not in education action zones? Will he clarify his thinking on that matter?

Mr. Byers

The position in education action zones is different because of the overall powers that we intend to give the zones. It is not just a question of allowing governing bodies to cede their powers to the education action zone forum, which they can do if they want. The important point is that the governing body can decide to hand over all or some of its powers to the forum. That is different from individual schools having grouped governing bodies. The education action zone will have a range of other provisions to do with disapplying national agreements on teachers' pay and conditions or the national curriculum if that is felt appropriate.

The point of the action zone is to enable all the initiatives to come together. That will not be the case with the grouping of governing bodies. Most important, the education action zone forum will be responsible for laying down the standards and targets to be achieved by schools in a zone. We are not comparing like with like. The grouping of school governing bodies is separate from the powers that we intend to give schools and governing bodies in education action zones.

It is true, though, that we intend to give new powers to governing bodies. It is because we are doing so, particularly in the raising of standards, that we feel that each school should have its own governing body. There will be a new duty on governors to run the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement. Governing bodies will need to set targets for their schools and agree them with the local education authority for inclusion in the education development plan. Obviously, a governing body will have to have due regard to the new code of practice that we want to be established between LEAs and individual schools. All those new responsibilities can be effectively discharged only if a single governing body is responsible for driving up standards in the way that we expect.

In addition, it is important that parents should have a greater say on school governing bodies, which is why we have provided for greater emphasis on and a greater role for parents in the new membership of governing bodies. Our concern is that grouping governing bodies will reduce the number, and therefore dilute the proportion, of parents serving on them. It is not in the interests of parents to group governing bodies as the House of Lords has suggested.

It is not just the Government who feel that it is appropriate to have a single governing body for each school. The National Association of Head Teachers, which I think most hon. Members would agree has a legitimate view to express on this item, fully supports the Government's proposals to reject the proposal to group governing bodies. It understands that, if one governing body is responsible for two schools and two head teachers, there would be confusion about which head teacher is responsible. The House should disagree with the Lords amendment in order to cut through that uncertainty and such blurred lines of accountability.

Governors have a key role to play in the standards agenda. That is why, for the first time this year, we have provided funds to enable governors to attend literacy training courses so that they know how teachers should be delivering the literacy strategy in primary schools when it starts in September. We also intend to ensure that, next year, when we launch the numeracy strategy, governors will be able to take part in training.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Will the Minister clarify the type of circumstances in which he would envisage that the view of a single governing body on how to raise standards would be overridden by a local education authority?

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman tries to take me down an avenue that is not incorporated in the amendments. Provided that it is in order, I shall try to address the issue to which he has referred.

In the context of the education development plan, a school and the LEA will have to agree targets. If there is disagreement, it will be registered in the plan and sent to the Secretary of State, who can then agree either with the school or with the LEA. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to reply to that intervention.

The Government take the view that it is important to have a single governing body for each school. Grouping governing bodies may be convenient for matters that can be dealt with in co-operation, such as those concerning buildings and premises and site management, but such matters are not key functions of a school governing body. The key task and role of a governing body at the present time must be to raise standards in the schools for which they have responsibility. That will occur only if each school has its own governing body. It is for those reasons that I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)

I can scarcely claim to rise in the House as an expert. Anybody who knows me well appreciates that I am an expert in nothing whatever. However, I am an enthusiast for certain things, and one of them is individual success stories in my constituency—not least that of St. Alphege Church of England school.

While I have the opportunity of discussing the school, which provides nursery, infant and junior education, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Curran, the head teacher of the junior school, and to my very good friend Councillor Ron Herd, who has been the chairman of governors for a little while and a governor for some time longer. I also express my appreciation to Baroness Seccombe, who successfully moved the amendment in another place.

I pay tribute to the staff, parents and friends of St. Alphege school, and particularly to Mrs. Elaine Winterbottom, the headmistress of the infant school, who is shortly to retire after 25 years as headmistress. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to extend that tribute.

Mrs. Winterbottom trained as a nursery and infant school teacher at Kingston-upon-Hull training college, and taught at schools in Lancashire and Hull before moving to Solihull. She has been teaching for 30 years in the borough of Solihull, beginning with one year as a home tutor and three years at Ulverley infant school. Twenty-six years ago, she was appointed deputy head of St. Alphege Church of England junior and infant school, and one year later became head teacher of the infant school, when the junior school moved to its present site in Widney Manor road. Those 26 years were quite interesting, because, at material times, I was then a relatively new borough councillor in Solihull—as indeed was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is not in his place; he is about his silent duties in connection with this debate.

The infant school rapidly expanded from three to six classes and opened one of the first purpose-built nursery units in the borough. As head of a Church school, it is not surprising that Elaine Winterbottom has been particularly involved in the standing advisory committee on religious education—SACRE. In 1989, she became a member of the Church of England committee on SACRE and was involved in writing the handbook for religious education in infant and junior schools. Under her leadership, St. Alphege infant school has developed strong links with parents, the community and the Church.

Parental involvement in the school has thrived with the formation of the Friends of St. Alphege Schools and the growth of parental support in the classroom. Regular events involve the wider community, such as the very popular songs of praise for local elderly people and the St. Alphege festival. Mrs. Winterbottom retires with the utmost good wishes and gratitude of the people of Solihull.

Turning to the merits of this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that that graceless intervention by Labour Members does not signal any detraction from the tribute that I have paid.

St. Alphege is a Church of England aided school which has a single governing body. As far as we can tell, in one form or another, there have been sole administrators of the parish school since Elizabethan times—certainly since 1862. At various stages, there were separate schools for boys and girls, but on other dates they were amalgamated. In 1973, the original one-form entry site became too small for an expansion to two-form entry, and the junior department moved to another site half a mile away. The walk through parkland between the two sites is one of the most pleasant in Solihull. Through all those changes, one governing body has represented continuity and an attachment to St. Alphege parish church.

That governing body wishes to remain one single body, for what we consider to be one school—albeit on two sites, with two heads—for the following reasons. The first reason is to retain continuity, and the second is that any child given entry at the nursery stage is given the right of attendance through to the end of junior school; the admission rules are administered as for one school.

Thirdly, actions in the nursery and infant schools affect the junior school. For instance, because of the enormous parental pressure for entry to the school, and the need to accommodate classes of 30, the lower school is considering expanding to take a three-form entry. That means that the junior school will have to follow suit.

Fourthly, two school governing bodies, although one might contain the same foundation governors, would inevitably drift apart. Two bodies would increase administration difficulties and costs. St. Alphege is the school of one parish; we wish it to be administered as one.

Fifthly, the governors of an aided school are responsible for 15 per cent. of certain costs, and as a single body we administer moneys that we have accrued for that purpose. Sixthly, and not least, there is, I am happy to say, one parent-teacher "friends" organisation.

6.30 pm

Their Lordships, in their wisdom, were addressed on the matter by Lady Seccombe, and as we are now allowed to quote from the Hansard record of the proceedings of another place, I shall dip briefly into her speech. She reminded their Lordships: the school has been administered by a single governing body, probably since Elizabethan times…The school caters for infants and junior pupils and, because of its success, outgrew its site. It was therefore forced into locating the junior department to a site half a mile away. In reality it continues as one school on two sites. Continuity has been an essential ingredient throughout the years and its attachment to the parish church has been a much-valued focal point in the area. Further changes are possible as there is parental pressure for a three-form entry". I am not surprised by that, because St. Alphege is one of the most successful schools in Solihull, which has many successful schools.

Baroness Seccombe continued: The chairman of the governors tells me that the board is deeply concerned about the Bill as it would disallow the way that it has organised the school for centuries. The governors fear that with two boards administration costs would escalate and there would be duplications in many areas. They also worry that there could be conflict and that the two boards would drift apart. There are other matters which concern them. At present any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of admission through to the end of junior school. Certain monies administered by the governors for capital projects at both schools are administered as one. They fear that they would have to set up a foundation to cater for such funds".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 833–34.] I appreciate the fact that you have been most indulgent to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to pay a tribute to a greatly respected lady from my constituency. You have also enabled me to talk in some detail about the schools group of St. Alphege. I shall finish by saying that St. Alphege school in Solihull has got it right, and their Lordships got it right too. Even now, the Government could get it right, and if they had the grace to reconsider, I would heap praises on their head.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

After today's performance, it would be interesting to hear a Conservative heaping praises on the Government's head. We wait to hear that. I do not wish to pay tribute to the lady that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, although it is good to hear tributes paid in the House to former colleagues and to teachers who have given their lives to education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's tribute will be well received.

We support the way in which the Government are investing powers in governing bodies and giving them, together with heads, the ability to run schools efficiently and effectively, making decisions as locally and as swiftly as possible. Indeed, we do not think that the exception to the rule will be needed in many cases. It amazes us that on such a small detail the Government wish to force the issue and insist that every school have an individual governing body. I do not believe that that is necessary.

The vast majority of schools would want their own single governing body anyway, because they would want the special relationship with the parents and the community—and, indeed, with their local education authority representatives, when they turn up. To force that on everybody seems a little over the top, and goes against the thrust of the rest of the Government's policy, which is based on standards, not structures. Here we are told that the structures come first and the standards will follow later.

I must admit that in my time in teaching I have had only one experience of being on a joint governing body. When I first moved to Leeds, the high schools were all grouped together with a single governing body. That system was an utter disaster. All that happened was that, once a term, the home economics departments, as they were then called, vied with each other to provide the best tea for the governors. Little business was done, except that a report was presented. The whole thing was not only a sham but a shambles.

I am not arguing for the Lords amendment on the basis of having had any good personal experience of joint governing bodies. However, the hon. Member for Solihull has given us an excellent example of a single governing body, operating for what are now two schools, working effectively.

Mrs. Browning

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I declare an interest as the president of the Institute of Home Economics? I hope that, with his passing reference to the excellent teas that the home economics departments provided, he will not leave the House with the impression that those departments are somehow ancillary to the teaching in our schools. We need more home economics teachers, and a greater appreciation of their work.

Mr. Willis

When the hon. Lady left the Opposition Front Bench, it was a great loss to the House. Her intervention is most timely. It was a disgrace that the home economics departments should have had to make the tea for the governors. They had far more important things to do, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that their job should have been in the home economics classrooms—but I digress, down the path along which the hon. Lady has led me.

Although I had a poor experience of a joint governing body, I can see occasions when it would be advantageous to have a single governing body overseeing a group of schools. The hon. Member for Solihull has given us an example of a junior school and an infant school with a long tradition, now on different sites but with a real sense of association.

There are many examples. For instance, many Church schools throughout the country have expanded, and are now faced with the same scenario as the hon. Member for Solihull described. Of course, there are also junior and infant schools on the same site that were built and intended to operate as separate schools, yet have come together to form a single governing body because that is the most effective and efficient way to run the organisation.

All that we are arguing for, and all that their Lordships were arguing for, is not to defeat the Government and create a crisis—heavens above, I hope that this does not become a constitutional crisis. We are simply saying that there are exceptions, and that it is important to allow flexibility.

In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned education action zones. She was right. The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats supported the introduction of those zones. We feel that they have much to offer, provided that they are successful. A new way of looking at school organisation and bringing schools together with the business community is an exciting experiment, which we hope will work.

If it is a good idea to have a single governing body for a group of schools in an education action zone, it cannot be argued that it is not a good idea to have a junior and an infant school continuing with a single governing body on the same site. That is illogical. Furthermore, the Minister said that that would dilute the parental or community involvement. That is exactly what is happening with a single governing body in an education action zone, where sometimes there are as many as 20 schools. That may be a price worth paying in this brave new world of moving away from traditional structures. Clearly, that issue must be examined.

I wish to refer to beacon schools. On Monday, I went to the beacon school in my constituency, St. Aidan's—one of the finest schools I have ever had the good fortune to be involved with. I talked to the head, the staff and the governors about the other schools that the school will support, and it was exciting to see how the new system would work on the ground. However, it was clear then—it is clear again today—that there may be a requirement for those governing bodies to work together. It might be perceivable that it would be worth while to have a single governing body—particularly, as in this case, where one of the schools that St. Aidan's is going to work with is another Church school. I can see advantages in that. If we throw out the Lords amendment, we will cut off a route—that is all.

The vast majority of schools will want a single governing body, and that is right and proper. There will be few exceptions to that rule, but let us leave in the Bill an opportunity for that to happen.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who, to those of us who are junior Members of the House, gave an excellent example of how a Member of Parliament can show up a vital issue in his own constituency. It is a timely reminder of the vital link between Members of Parliament and our constituencies—one which we would be well advised to retain in the future.

The Education Select Committee recently commenced a study into head teachers. One of the ideas that we intended to look at was whether there could be one head teacher for a number of schools: the corollary of that would be one governing body for a number of schools. It is frankly perverse that the Government oppose the Lords amendment while Labour Members have actively toyed with the revolutionary concept—some are rather in favour of it—of one head for a number of schools. There are a few cases where that happens already. I believe that there are a cluster of schools in Dorset where one head has overall control. I am not aware of whether there is one governing body that might be affected by the changes that the Government are seeking to put back in the Bill.

The thrust of the Government's approach to the amendment is typical of their approach almost from day one of the Bill. It is the approach of a party that is hungry for power. Once it acquires that power, it becomes consumed with the determination to accrue as much of it as possible for the centre and for the Departments, and to take away as much discretion as possible from every other aspect of the education system—particularly from the local education authorities.

It should not be a matter for central Government whether a number of governing bodies that are responsible for more than one school exist in a particular education authority. That should not detain the House, but it does when the Government elevate it above its normal importance.

Recently, as part of the study into head teachers, the Education Select Committee visited Zurich. We were told by the canton of Zurich that, in Switzerland, there are 26 cantons, so there are 26 education systems. One can imagine the brainstorm that the Minister would have if he had to contemplate 26 different education systems in this country, yet for the people of Switzerland, that is par for the course—it is part of their way of life. Out of that flexibility, they have managed to develop a fine education system.

One of the features of the Swiss education system is that the country does not have schools at all—it has "school houses". The canton of Zurich does not, at present, have head teachers, but those concerned were talking about proposals to introduce them and to move towards the UK model, which was developed very much by the last Government. We asked how big the schools would be. We were told that that would depend on how many school houses they decided to include under the umbrella of one school.

6.45 pm

Clearly, a flexibility and imagination exist there that are totally lacking in the Department for Education and Employment, under the auspices of the Minister. We are on rigid tramlines in this country, where the idea that there might be some joint enterprise on two sites is dismissed out of hand, it would appear from the Minister's comments.

The other aspect of the Swiss system which illuminates this debate is that the local community is in charge of all the school houses. It would make far more sense if there were to be a local power to determine whether a governing body should have authority over a group of schools, rather than over just one. It would make far more sense if that decision were downstreamed to the local council or to the local parish council, where the needs of the particular area and the history of a school—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—could illuminate the decision to be made by local people who understood the circumstances.

Later this evening, we will have a debate about the partnership between the independent and private sectors, when we will hear just how little—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a future debate. I should say that Lords amendments are always narrow. He must address his remarks to the Lords amendment, and not to Switzerland or any other part of the world.

Mr. St. Aubyn

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am bound—without going beyond the thrust of the Lords amendment—to mention the research by the Committee into the school system in the United States, where there are also schools on more than one site run by a single governing body. The other day, we heard from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot allow that. Lords amendments are even tighter than our own amendments. We cannot go wide of them. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Lords amendment. If he is finding difficulty, that is fine—he can sit down and let another hon. Member speak.

Mr. St. Aubyn

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as always, your advice is both pertinent and brief. I shall certainly take it before too long.

When I was a local councillor in Paddington, one of the schools in my area was an amalgam of two secondary schools, and it had reinvented the American system of the lower high and upper high school. I heard from the headmaster the other day about how successful that has been for the two schools, and how much it has helped to develop the full potential of each pupil.

What would happen if a local education authority wanted, for sound local reasons, to run two schools as a lower and a higher secondary school, rather than in parallel, and, to make the scheme work, determined that it would make perfect sense for only one governing body to oversee the entire administration of the two sites? I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that issue before we vote on this important issue.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Given your advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief and address my remarks strictly to the amendment. When he was speaking, I was reminded of that old maxim that St. Aubyn's speech is to the amendments what London is to Paddington, which I hope was apposite given that Paddington was mentioned.

The Minister has made four points of false logic. The first concerns the Government's version of the classic dilemma between control and diversity. This lies at the heart of the amendments. They want central control to maintain coherent, consistent standards through what the Minister has called a single line of accountability school governance, but that contradicts the desire for diversity and for a flexible system that respects local traditions and needs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. He said that he spoke as an expert on nothing; if that were so—given his wide experience and expertise, which is so greatly admired by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I should hate to think where I count on a scale of expertise from one to 100.

The second point of false logic, which was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), is the contradiction between the policy on schools in education action zones and the policy on other schools. The Government are arguing that a single governing body should be responsible for one school but that the opposite should apply in education action zones, where one governing body will be answerable for several schools gathered together.

The third problem relates to the notion that the Government's proposals will create a simpler system. Several schools may have been closely knit or even seamless in their practical organisation for decades or even centuries, when they have been united by a single governing body. Under the Bill, those schools will have to create several governing bodies, so to argue that that is clearer and more straightforward is nonsense.

The fourth and most profound criticism of the proposals is that the Government are claiming that they want to simplify the system of accountability, despite the fact that, under the Bill, accountability will be shared among governing bodies, education action zones, local education authorities and the Secretary of State. The Bill will create several points of power and accountability, leaving the management of education in a state of confusion. If the Government reject the amendments, they will cut across the thrust of the Bill; I believe that the House should support the flexibility that the amendments would allow.

Mrs. May

I commend the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I regret the fact that cackles of laughter greeted his tribute to St. Alphege school, as he was genuinely supporting a member of staff who has clearly contributed a great deal to the life of the local community.

Mr. Byers

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as I want to put on the record the fact that the disagreement, which will be recorded in Hansard, had nothing whatever to do with Mrs. Winterbottom and the excellent service that she has given over many years to St. Alphege; the disagreement was about the amendment.

Mrs. May

That was not how it seemed at the time, although I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position.

The Government's attitude to the issue of single governing bodies was summed up in the Minister's response to the pertinent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She reminded him that, elsewhere in the Bill, the Government had accepted the concept of grouped governing bodies in the form of the education action forum in an education action zone. He tried valiantly to defend the Government's position by suggesting that there was a difference between governing bodies coming together in an education action forum and the grouped governing bodies that are the subject of the amendments but, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, he failed to show that there were any real differences.

That betrayed the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments, which is plain mean. We are considering the amendments because the example of St. Alphege was raised in another place by Baroness Seccombe, who spoke eloquently of the excellent education provided in that school, which has a tradition of having a single governing body. That arrangement has worked well, resulting in a popular school that produces excellent results, and the governors and all those involved with the school want that tradition to continue. The Government, however, are saying, "No. We know best."

We have heard today about how the Government believe in the importance of local decision making. However, in the case of St. Alphege, although everyone in the local community is saying that the school should be allowed to continue to have a single governing body, the Minister is saying no.

Mr. Byers

I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Opposition spokesman, can answer this simple question: if grouped governing bodies are so important, why has not the House of Lords insisted that foundation schools be allowed to have them?

Mrs. May

In considering the issue, the House of Lords had very much in mind the example of the school that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull mentioned. The Lords wanted to give such schools the opportunity to have single governing bodies. Is the Minister now suggesting that he is willing to take the matter further and allow all types of school to have grouped governing bodies?

Mr. Byers

The Government disagree with the principle of grouped governing bodies. As the hon. Lady has made a very strong case in favour of grouping governing bodies, will she explain why the amendments that she supports would not extend that advantage to foundation schools?

Mrs. May

If the Minister thinks that I have made a good case in favour of grouped governing bodies, he should join us in voting to agree to the Lords amendments.

The Government are being mean in trying to prevent schools such as St. Alphege from having a single governing body, although that arrangement has been shown to work extremely well. They have deployed two arguments against single governing bodies, both in another place and in the House of Commons. The first was that, in grouping governing bodies, one would have to reduce the number of parental representatives. We are all in favour of parents taking an active role in schools, and especially on governing bodies. The Conservative Government put a significant emphasis on parental choice and the role of parents in decision taking in their local schools. The issue of the number of governors from any particular grouping does not preclude the Government from accepting the concept of a single governing body.

Baroness Blackstone said: Governing bodies are there to promote higher standards and provide accountability for the school's performance. They should be looking at the strategic direction that the school should be taking."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 835.] That was given as a reason for not having a single governing body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, and as Baroness Seccombe said in the other place, the need for strategic direction is precisely one of the reasons why the governing body of St. Alphege Church of England school wants to remain single. Its members believe that the school on two sites is more properly guided by a single body that can take into account issues of concern to both sites.

7 pm

The Government merely pretend to be interested in flexibility and local decision taking. I am very disappointed by what the Minister said, because the press announcements issued immediately after the Government's defeat in the Lords implied that they would reconsider. As we have seen all too often, when a microphone or press release is put in front of Ministers in the current Government, they say something entirely different from what they do in the Chamber.

The Government are being just plain mean. They should accept their own comments on flexibility and local decision taking, and allow governing bodies to decide that, where it works in local circumstances, local people should be allowed to have a single governing body.

Mr. Byers

This may become known as the St. Alphege group of amendments. As Minister for School Standards, I join the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in offering congratulations and thanks to Mrs. Winterbottom, who has given many years of loyal and devoted service. She is a credit to her profession, and I am sure that many thousands of children have benefited from her endeavours.

I assure the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we considered the consequences of the Lords amendment, and rejected it as wrong-headed and foolish. It fails to recognise the important role that school governors play in raising standards: not the old approach that governing bodies used to have, but the new approach outlined in the Bill, giving every governing body the responsibility to raise standards. The Bill introduces a range of new duties for governing bodies: to monitor the performance of head teachers; to respond to a warning notice from a local education authority; and to agree their aspect of the education development plan.

We believe that the lines of accountability will be blurred if there is not a single governing body for each single school. That is why we intend to resist the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hayes

Surely the Minister would not argue that the new responsibilities are greater than the extra responsibilities produced by the changes to the structure of governing bodies in 1986 or, indeed, the implications of local management of schools in 1988. Surely those were greater transfers of power to governing bodies, yet the situation as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) prevailed in those periods of change and worked very well.

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman reveals the Conservative party's great weakness on education. The powers given to governing bodies under Conservative legislation were all about structure and did not give responsibility for standards. The Bill is about driving up standards, which is why we need a single governing body for each school. There can be co-operation where there is a tradition of it, and there can be joint working between individual governing bodies, but there is no doubt in the Government's mind that it is wholly appropriate that each school should have its own governing body. There should be no flexibility to fail, and under our proposals that will not be the case. Accordingly, I must ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

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

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 167.

Division No. 337] [7.5 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Bayley, Hugh
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Beard, Nigel
Alexander, Douglas Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Allen, Graham Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Bennett, Andrew F
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Benton, Joe
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Bermingham, Gerald
Ashton, Joe Best, Harold
Atherton, Ms Candy Betts, Clive
Atkins, Charlotte Blackman, Liz
Banks, Tony Blears, Ms Hazel
Barron, Kevin Borrow, David
Battle, John Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Follett, Barbara
Bradshaw, Ben Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Brinton, Mrs Helen Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Foulkes, George
Browne, Desmond Fyfe, Maria
Buck, Ms Karen Galbraith, Sam
Burden, Richard Gapes, Mike
Burgon, Colin Gardiner, Barry
Butler, Mrs Christine George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Byers, Stephen Gerrard, Neil
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Gibson, Dr Ian
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell-Savours, Dale Godsiff, Roger
Canavan, Dennis Goggins, Paul
Cann, Jamie Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Caplin, Ivor Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Caton, Martin Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Chaytor, David Grocott, Bruce
Chisholm, Malcolm Grogan, John
Clapham, Michael Gunnell, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Hain, Peter
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Hanson, David
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Healey, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clelland, David Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon Hesford, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Coleman, Iain Hinchliffe, David
Colman, Tony Hodge, Ms Margaret
Connarty, Michael Hoey, Kate
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Home Robertson, John
Cooper, Yvette Hood, Jimmy
Corbett, Robin Hoon, Geoffrey
Corbyn, Jeremy Hope, Phil
Corston, Ms Jean Hopkins, Kelvin
Cousins, Jim Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cox, Tom Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cranston, Ross Howells, Dr Kim
Crausby, David Hoyle, Lindsay
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cummings, John Humble, Mrs Joan
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland) Hurst, Alan
Hutton, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Iddon, Dr Brian
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Ingram, Adam
Dafis, Cynog Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dalyell, Tam Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Darvill, Keith
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Dawson, Hilton Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dean, Mrs Janet Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Denham, John Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dismore, Andrew Jowell, Ms Tessa
Dobbin, Jim Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H Keeble, Ms Sally
Doran, Frank Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Drew, David Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Efford, Clive Khabra, Piara S
Ellman, Mrs Louise Kilfoyle, Peter
Etherington, Bill King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Fisher, Mark King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fitzpatrick, Jim Kingham, Ms Tess
Flynn, Paul Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Laxton, Bob Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Leslie, Christopher Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Levitt, Tom Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Liddell, Mrs Helen Rogers, Allan
Linton, Martin Rooker, Jeff
Livingstone, Ken Rooney, Terry
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lock, David Rowlands, Ted
Love, Andrew Ruane, Chris
McAllion, John Ruddock, Ms Joan
McAvoy, Thomas Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McCabe, Steve Salter, Martin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) Savidge, Malcolm
McDonnell, John Sawford, Phil
McFall, John Sedgemore, Brian
McIsaac, Shona Sheerman, Barry
Mackinlay, Andrew Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McNulty, Tony Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
MacShane, Denis Skinner, Dennis
Mactaggart, Fiona Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McWalter, Tony Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mahon, Mrs Alice Snape, Peter
Mallaber, Judy Soley, Clive
Mandelson, Peter Spellar, John
Marek, Dr John Squire, Ms Rachel
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Steinberg, Gerry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Martlew, Eric Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Meale, Alan Stringer, Graham
Michael, Alun Stuart, Ms Gisela
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Milburn, Alan
Miller, Andrew Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Moffatt, Laura Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Temple-Morris, Peter
Moran, Ms Margaret Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Timms, Stephen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) Tipping, Paddy
Morley, Elliot Touhig, Don
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Truswell, Paul
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mudie, George Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mullin, Chris Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug Vaz, Keith
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Vis, Dr Rudi
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Wareing, Robert N
O'Hara, Eddie Watts, David
Olner, Bill White, Brian
Pearson, Ian Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pickthall, Colin Wicks, Malcolm
Pike, Peter L Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Pollard, Kerry
Pope, Greg Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Pound, Stephen Winnick, David
Powell, Sir Raymond Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Wise, Audrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Worthington, Tony
Primarolo, Dawn Wray, James
Prosser, Gwyn Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Quinn, Lawrie Wyatt, Derek
Radice, Giles
Rammell, Bill Tellers for the Ayes:
Raynsford, Nick Mr. David Jamieson and
Mr. Jim Dowd.
NOES
Allan, Richard Baldry, Tony
Arbuthnot, James Ballard, Jackie
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Beggs, Roy
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Beith, Rt Hon A J
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Baker, Norman Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul Kirkwood, Archy
Body, Sir Richard Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Boswell, Tim Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Leigh, Edward
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Letwin, Oliver
Brady, Graham Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Brake, Tom Lidington, David
Brand, Dr Peter Livsey, Richard
Brazier, Julian Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Breed, Colin Llwyd, Elfyn
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Loughton, Tim
Browning, Mrs Angela Luff, Peter
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Burnett, John Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Burstow, Paul McLoughlin, Patrick
Butterfill, John Madel, Sir David
Cable, Dr Vincent Malins, Humfrey
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) Maples, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Chidgey, David May, Mrs Theresa
Chope, Christopher Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Clappison, James Moore, Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington) Moss, Malcolm
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Nicholls, Patrick
Collins, Tim Norman, Archie
Colvin, Michael Oaten, Mark
Cotter, Brian Öpik, Lembit
Cran, James Ottaway, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David Paice, James
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Paterson, Owen
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Pickles, Eric
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Prior, David
Donaldson, Jeffrey Randall, John
Duncan Smith, Iain Redwood, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Rendel, David
Evans, Nigel Robathan, Andrew
Faber, David Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fabricant, Michael Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Fallon, Michael Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Fearn, Ronnie Ruffley, David
Flight, Howard St Aubyn, Nick
Forsythe, Clifford Sanders, Adrian
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Sayeed, Jonathan
Foster, Don (Bath) Shepherd, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Fraser, Christopher Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
George, Andrew (St Ives) Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Gibb, Nick Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gill, Christopher Spicer, Sir Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Spring, Richard
Gorrie, Donald Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, James Steen, Anthony
Green, Damian Stunell, Andrew
Grieve, Dominic Syms, Robert
Hague, Rt Hon William Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Hammond, Philip Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Harris, Dr Evan Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Harvey, Nick Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hawkins, Nick Tonge, Dr Jenny
Hayes, John Tredinnick, David
Heald, Oliver Trend, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Tyler, Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Tyrie, Andrew
Horam, John Viggers, Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Wallace, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Walter, Robert
Hunter, Andrew Wardle, Charles
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Webb, Steve
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Wells, Bowen
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Whitney, Sir Raymond
Whittingdale, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Keetch, Paul Wilkinson, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) Willetts, David
Willis, Phil Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Wilshire, David Tellers for the Noes:
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) Mr. Nigel Waterson and
Yeo, Tim Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 49 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 34, line 24, at end insert ("; and (c) the aims and values of the school, and the ways in which the school intends to promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.")

Ms Estelle Morris

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we may consider the Government amendment thereto, Lords amendment No. 52 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Ms Morris

We take seriously schools' responsibilities for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Our motion to disagree with amendment No. 52, on which the Government were defeated in the other place, does not mean that we do not share the view that those are proper responsibilities for schools. We want schools to carry out those responsibilities as well as they can.

As well as disagreeing to amendment No. 52, we want to amend amendment No. 50, on which we were defeated in the other place. The Government originally resisted Baroness Young's amendments because they were too detailed and prescriptive a package. We did not dispute the content or her wish that schools should address the issues concerned. However, the amendments placed demands on schools. We have considered her comments carefully, and have examined her amendments. We offer a compromise that acknowledges the importance to parents of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—matters which parents have a right to discuss. However, other significant concerns deserve equal treatment. We want to remove from governing bodies onerous requirements that run counter to our policy of lifting unnecessary burdens and reducing bureaucracy.

We propose to extend the list of items that parents are able to discuss under clause 42. Our proposal includes Baroness Young's intended issues, but the clause would go wider to cover pupils' entire educational experience including standards of achievement and the schools' contribution to their behaviour, discipline and general well-being. We want to signal that those are matters of importance to parents. We hope to encourage more parents to go to annual meetings that are often poorly attended. The list of matters to be discussed includes matters on which parents rightly take a view.

We propose to remove clause 43, which places extensive duties on governing bodies. That removes the requirement that governing bodies should maintain a statement of the aims of the school's secular curriculum. In sum, we are removing one amendment, but incorporating the provisions of the second into a wider amendment of our own. We value these matters highly. We have already announced that we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider that area for our review of the national curriculum for 2000, and to suggest how children's moral, cultural, spiritual and social development and work on citizenship can be more firmly placed within the curriculum and given the support it has lacked hitherto.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

I agree with what Lady Young said about these important amendments when they gained substantial support in the other place after a wide-ranging debate. I welcome the Government's movement and their willingness to advance in a spirit of compromise. I welcome their acceptance of the importance of using annual meetings for a discussion between governors and parents of the aims and values of a school and how it will promote development of the whole child, including his or her spiritual and moral development.

In their compromise, the Government acknowledge that such development is closely linked to education for adult life and citizenship. However, a close reading of Lady Young's amendment and of the Government's amendment to it reveals little difference between them, unless it is that the Government want to water down Lady Young's proposal. I cannot believe that that is the case, and I hope that it is not.

The Minister for School Standards knows, following meetings with me in his office, that I am passionately interested in these matters. I have two children at a Church primary school, and the values of that school are important to its successful development and to propelling it to being one of the best in the country, irrespective of the fact that a large proportion of its pupils come from backgrounds in which they speak foreign languages.

Research shows that schools that are explicit and self-conscious about spiritual and moral development achieve higher educational standards than those that are not. Every recent Ofsted report tells us that the superiority of Church schools is noticeable in their effectiveness as communities, in their quality and in their spiritual life. It is clear that Church schools, which make a habit of promoting spiritual and moral development, do better not only in promoting those values, but in developing educational values, too. I am worried that the Government's focus on cognitive development—numeracy and literacy in particular—takes some emphasis away from spiritual and moral development of pupils. The Government will deny that, and will rightly argue that there should be a balance between educational skills and wider moral and spiritual values. We need them to acknowledge the importance of moral and spiritual values.

A school framework for moral, spiritual, social and cultural development, such as that being developed by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, is a significant and underrated means of increasing schools' effectiveness and raising standards. Pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is closely linked with both the espoused values and the lived values of their schools.

It would have been more consistent to retain the wording of Lady Young's amendment, and to add subsequent amendments to bring in citizenship, educational achievement and pupils' behaviour. We are debating a narrow difference in wording, and I should like to know why Lady Young's amendment could not be left alone.

Mr. Willis

There is a difficulty with the means of assessing the whole business of moral development. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he explain how spiritual, moral and social development would be assessed and monitored under Lady Young's amendment?

Mr. Leigh

I shall come to that later, because these matters were widely discussed in the other place. It is true that Ofsted found that this is a confused and difficult area. These are philosophical matters rather than simple skills, such as numeracy or literacy, which can be measured. The fact that there are difficulties should not prevent us from trying to promote moral and spiritual development. It is an important point. I may accept that what I propose is wrong and what the hon. Gentleman says is right. If so, we would have had a useful debate.

7.30 pm

The Secretary of State is simply trying to overturn Lords amendment No. 52. The other place suggests that there should be not only an annual meeting, where the way in which moral and spiritual development was being promoted by the school could be discussed, but an annual report. The Government's rejection of that proposal is short-sighted and wrong, or reactionary. It partly relates to what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was saying. The perceived difficulties with targets for monitoring spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and anxieties about teacher work load, may mean that this important matter will continue to be neglected by schools because there will be no requirement to mention it in their annual report.

Ofsted inspection reports show that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils and schools is a weak and confused area. That is surely all the more reason for schools to be encouraged to be explicit about developing policies, targets and means of assessment. The many examples of good practice and the lead given by the voluntary aided sector show that it is possible to develop specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related targets in this area, which the Government are developing through the QCA. The obvious connection between a school's vision and values and educational achievement make this an area that needs as much attention and resourcing as any other. We should not wait for the next tragedy, such as the recent murder of a headmaster in London, to stir us into giving consistent high priority to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of young people.

Literacy and numeracy can provide basic skills—personal, social, educational and citizenship—as part of the curriculum. That can provide a great deal, but they all need to cohere with an explicit whole-school framework that provides the why as distinct from the what and the how of education. In opposing the Lords amendment and thus seeking to wipe it off the Bill, the Government are emphasising the what and the how at the expense of the why. Those are not my words or concepts. They come from the QCA's draft guidance in November 1997 which stated: The promotion of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development provides the 'why' (as opposed to the 'what' and the 'how') of education: it is an essential ingredient of school success. I am worried that we will get loose talk based on Professor Barber's speech to the Secondary Heads Association. He highlighted the moral agenda in education, but believed that the ethic based on religion or communism should be replaced by one based on global citizenship. I do not agree. Being a citizen of the world is far too woolly a concept and does not provide the rigorous education that I believe in. That is my personal opinion. If other people want to promote that sort of ethic and tell our children that we are members of the global community, that is fair enough, but I think that things go much deeper. However, at least Professor Barber is trying to address the issues.

I want to deal briefly with the debate in the other place, because it is important that hon. Members appreciate that there was a high-quality, wide-ranging debate. Members in the other place, from a wide range of backgrounds, debated the matter raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The Lord Bishop of Ripon said: spiritual development, along with moral, social and cultural development, is not confined to schools but is a part of family and community life. Equally, these are not separate aspects of education to be placed in compartments. They are a dimension of all education. The bishop said that moral and spiritual development is part of family life. There were interventions from atheists who said, "That's all very well. You may be religious, but we do not want to force religion down the throats of all our children." I accept that. Not all schools are Church schools, and children should not be forced to be little Christians or little anythings. However, they are entitled to as wide ranging an education as possible, and one that delves into areas other than strictly educational ones.

In reply to people such as Lord Dormand of Easington, who said that he was an atheist and could not see how we could simply promote religious values, there were several interesting interventions. Lord Dearing, who was not stressing the religious aspects of moral and spiritual education, said: I recall using phrases like 'to go beyond', and making it broader than spiritual values based on religion. We wanted to incorporate a sense of wonder; a sense of awe; beauty; respect for one's fellow human beings; and appreciation of courage, both physical and moral. The Earl of Halsbury said: If the noble Lord, Lord Dormand requires a definition of 'spirituality', I can give him…one. If you wish to be a better person than you are, or if you feel ashamed of something which you have done, or admire beautiful music, or admire courage and courageous action in other people, or admire the way in which they attend to the sick and the invalid, and so on, that is a spiritual exercise. That is the only definition that one can give."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 477–83.] People have been talking about these matters for thousands of years. Xenophon asked a contemporary Persian educationist what the Persians taught children. He was told that they were taught to ride hard, shoot straight and speak the truth. That was what moral and spiritual education was all about in Persia some 2,000 years ago. We have a more up-to-date report in the QCA's recently published advice on the scope of such education. There is a strong case for recognising the central place of citizenship, personal, social and health education and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the education of all young people by introducing more explicit provision into the statutory framework. That is all I am asking for.

Whether hon. Members have religious convictions or are atheists, we all believe that education goes far wider than simply instilling strictly educational requirements in children. All studies and all our experience tell us that, when schools try to involve the family and the local community in the wider discussion of moral and spiritual development, it creates successful schools. I am sure that the Government accept that. I believe that the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have much respect, is personally committed to such a concept. I hope that the Government's treatment of the Lords amendments does not water down the excellent work of the other place.

Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)

I should like to clarify how Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 will be interpreted. I hope that it can be interpreted in such a way that the school's annual parents meetings could include discussion of the school as a collective rather than just individual pupils. The wording of the amendment is good on the various aspects of the development of individuals, but the school is a community and it exists within the wider community.

I hope that the phrase from the Lords amendment that the Government have retained— the aims and values of the school"— will cover discussion of how the school operates as a community and matters such as how young people can help each other, how they can deal with bullying and how the school can make a contribution to the wider community. It would be helpful if the Minister could make it clear that such discussion, as well as discussion of how the school helps each pupil to develop, is part of what the Government intend.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)

I wish to make a practical point about the amendments. I do not wish to go over the ground laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I agreed with every word he said—the House would do well to listen to him—and that includes his admiration for the Minister.

The substantive Government amendment is an improvement on the original Lords amendment. I thank the Minister and the Government for the amendment. I draw attention to the word "citizenship". One of the most important tasks that our schools are fitted and equipped to do is to help our children develop their sense of citizenship. We desperately need people to have a sense of citizenship if we are to engage them in the political process, apart from anything else. The House probably has a vested interest in agreeing with that.

As I understand it, in essence the Government's position on the amendments is that they are happy to have the issues discussed at meetings that parents will attend, but not to have them put in writing. Presumably, although the Lords amendment does not make it clear, it would be perfectly acceptable to put the expression of spiritual, moral, social and cultural values in the school's prospectus. I do not see that a new document would be required. The expression could be part of the current document to comply with the Lords amendment.

I have two conflicting views that I must express to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about the issues in the amendments, but I know that teachers are concerned that too much responsibility is dumped on them by the rest of society. They are asked to pick up the pieces of all sorts of problems that are the fault of bad parenting or whatever. I know that they feel that burden heavily, and we must think carefully before we accept the amendments.

I respect the Minister's desire to resist imposing additional burdens on schools. As I understand it, the motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 52 is effectively a deregulatory measure; the Government are worried about the regulatory burden that the Lords amendment may impose. Obviously, Conservative Members have sympathy with that proposition, but it is incontestable that the best schools have the clearest view of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development that they should offer children. I suspect that they also have a clear view about preparing people for adult life and developing citizenship; that they want to boast about their educational achievements; and that the governing body is anxious to promote good behaviour and discipline. The best schools do those things already, and, as my hon. Friend said, they are often, but by no means always, denominational schools.

7.45 pm

We know that spiritual and moral development is easy when the leadership in a school is good. At my grammar school—a subject to which we may return later—such matters were very much at the forefront of the leadership of the school team. They flowed naturally into the ethos of the school. To have a debate about the issues at an annual meeting, or to put them in the prospectus, would have been easy for that school.

I heard the Minister say that including in annual school meetings the issues set out in the amendment would encourage attendance at those meetings. I wish that that were the case. Sadly, I suspect that schools that already have these matters best developed in their curriculum attract the best attendance at their annual meetings and are already prepared to discuss them, without legislation obliging them to do so. I fear that, even at those schools, one group will be debarred from such meetings. Working parents often find it difficult to juggle their conflicting responsibilities and get to meetings. I declare a personal interest, because the obligations imposed on me by the House mean that I can never attend meetings at my daughter's and my son's schools. The Government are behaving strangely in accepting and even going beyond the principle of Lady Young's amendment, but not daring to have it put in writing.

I have been reading the Department for Education and Employment's mission statement in the comprehensive spending review. I have done a rough count of the words and it is just a little over 200. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the CSR or the educational policies, aims and objectives of the Government, the statement expresses rather well what the Department wants to do. It explains the means by which the Department intends to fulfil its objectives, and sets out the Department's targets—all in 200 words.

I bet that the process of developing that written statement of the purpose was important within the Department. I bet that it focused minds clearly. That is what the process of discussion about the aims and objectives of the school will do in the governing body. Discussion has that purpose, too, but it also sends a signal to parents of children at the school or those who aspire to send their children to that school. That is important. Aspiring parents will not attend annual meetings; they will have only the prospectus and perhaps informal chats with the teaching staff to rely on.

I cannot understand the Government's opposition to a written statement. It would not take for ever to write 200 words. It would not be a huge regulatory burden. I should have thought that it would comply with the spirit of the Lords amendment. I see no earthly reason why the Government should resist it. The Government get two cheers for what they have done so far. They will get a third if they drop their opposition to a written statement.

Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs)

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said. For many years, I have been a governor of a school that has formulated just such a policy statement, which is in the prospectus and which the governing body reviews. There is no problem with it. The pupils of the school are a broad range of Anglican, Catholic, Muslim and many other religions, but the policy statement of the school is a Christian one. If parents are to have choice, they ought to know from the prospectus precisely the policy of the governing body on important matters that go beyond pure academic education to allow them to assess the schools for which they want to enter their children.

Given the supportive spirit of the Government, I cannot understand what objection they have to Lords amendment No. 52. The amendment does not say that the policy statement has to be Christian. It does not define what is wanted in a narrow way. It is surely part of the responsibility of the governing body, in reflecting its community, to focus on such matters. I ask the Government to reconsider whether they have any basis of opposition to Lords amendment No. 52. I should have thought that it was precisely what we should like to see operate in all our schools.

Mrs. May

I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). They showed how serious we are about ensuring that schools take into account and promote the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of their pupils. We place high importance on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made well the point that the Government seem to be half doing one thing and not doing the other. It appears from their amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 that they have accepted that the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of the school and the pupils is important, yet they will not go that bit further and say that the school shall be required to make a statement to that effect and provide that information in writing to parents. The Minister will have to work hard to explain why, having accepted the principle of the importance of those aspects of pupils' development within the school and of their educational life, the Government are not prepared to say why parents should be denied the opportunity to have it set out in a written statement or report.

We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the need for moral and spiritual development and have been willing to go some way towards accepting the principle of the amendments moved in the other place by Lady Young. However, the noble Lady's amendments made it clear that the school should put those values in writing and ensure that parents had access to that document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, those who do not attend school annual general meetings of the governing body—we all know that the number of those who do attend tends to be small—need to have something in writing. That way, parents will know where the school stands on an important issue.

Ms Estelle Morris

I want to establish at the outset my belief that, for too long, the part of the curriculum that deals with moral, spiritual, social and cultural development has been ignored. I also want to emphasise the agreement in the House on this subject, because we are under an obligation to show leadership in this matter.

I should not like anyone who reads the debate to think that there is not strong agreement in the House that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is an issue which schools ought to address. I know that there is a difference of opinion about how that should be done and about how far we should go, but it is right that we should give a clear lead and not allow anybody outside who does not think that that is an important role for schools to quote disagreement in the House as a reason for not taking action. I gather from the nods on the Opposition Benches opposite—it is difficult for anyone reading Hansard to detect nods of agreement—that we are broadly agreed on that point.

The Government have already taken action, and I shall go over the steps we have taken. We have ensured that the next review of the national curriculum will require schools to teach spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and citizenship. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). It is one of the Secretary of State's main concerns that we should do better in training our young people to be active participants in their community and in democracy and politics when they grow up. In our first year, we have steered the review of the national curriculum in that direction. We have to remember that, when changes have been made and there is a proper framework for this part of the curriculum in schools, which is properly inspected by Ofsted, those will act as levers, mechanisms and messages to the school that the subject should be valued.

The problem is that, although the subject is the only part of the curriculum that appears in primary legislation—everything else in the national curriculum appears in secondary legislation—and so already has a place in English education law, it is ignored because of the lack of other forms of pressure on teachers and schools. All the additional levers that Governments can use—the review of the national curriculum, the work that Ofsted can do and the curriculum now being set down for initial teacher training—will add to the force of what the previous Government put in primary legislation and ensure that it is carried into practice.

I do not disagree with the Opposition on any of those points. The disagreement, if disagreement there is, surrounds how far we go in making demands on schools and governing bodies. There is a danger that, every time a Government think that something is important, they make their feelings clear by putting a responsibility on someone else to do something. There are times when that is right, but when the all those demands combine, the result is sometimes onerous responsibilities and demands on head teachers, governing bodies and teachers which do not allow them the flexibility they need to run schools. We are giving a clear message and ensuring that it is reflected in the curriculum, properly reported to parents in their child's end-of-term report, and properly inspected. Those are the levers that achieve our objective.

Let me explain why we disagree with Lords amendment No. 52. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a legitimate point about setting targets. For the area of the curriculum that we are discussing, and not for many other important areas, we want to set targets that describe what means of assessment will be used to monitor this development; and…report on the achievement or otherwise of those targets. I accept the importance of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils as part of the curriculum, but I accept the importance of many other parts of the curriculum as well—the importance of physical education, music, drama, numeracy, physics and so on. If we set down in primary legislation the same demands on governing bodies for everything we thought important, we would create a straitjacket for schools, and they would spend their time abiding by the letter of the law, but not thinking about how to do their job and deliver the goods for children.

We desire not to weaken the overall message. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough wants to hear that assurance, I am happy to give it. However, like the other work that we are doing in the Department, the Bill is designed to rationalise the requirements on schools in primary legislation.

I know that the issue is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart, and I take it seriously. I know that he cherishes the subject and thinks that schools need to teach it and to teach it well, but that can be multiplied for almost every area of knowledge. We have to take into account whether schools and governing bodies can manage the requirements we impose.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that it is better to set in place the other mechanisms that I have described, which have more to do with the normal day-to-day management of schools and will be incorporated better in the annual ebbs and flows of school activity, than to insist on a bolt-on extra that has to be done for reports and school meetings. We do not want someone cobbling together some sort of report when the annual meeting comes along. We want to get this part of the curriculum embedded in day-to-day life. It should be something that schools do because it is important and as natural as teaching literacy and numeracy. That is our aim, and that is why we choose to work via a review of the national curriculum, monitoring and reporting to parents.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's argument about the diversity that will always exist in people's ideas of what values and morals underpin their community. One of the things I have learnt since becoming a Member of Parliament and having had the opportunity to visit schools in my constituency and beyond is that there is a commonality of values in Church schools that holds the community and the school together. I attribute the success of many Church schools to those common values—that binding together by shared values is incredibly important. I want all school communities to feel that sense of belonging through having shared values; I want pupils to understand those values and abide by them because it is right to do so and wrong to disobey them.

We asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to produce a framework, which has already been produced, so that schools have a structure to adopt when drawing up their own values system. Such a structure is already available to Church schools—the values system is given in the religion followed by that school; but in non-Church schools the task can be more challenging. All schools need a system of common values. I should be happy to let the hon. Member for Gainsborough have a copy of the document on values now being piloted by the QCA. We hope that, by the time the review of the national curriculum takes place, the important aspect of the curriculum and of pupil development that we have been discussing will have become embedded in our school communities. I hope that the House accepts my assurances.

Lords amendment and Government amendment thereto agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 52 disagreed to.

Forward to