POWER OF LEA TO INNOVATE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Hansard, 5 February 2002)

§ Mr. Willis
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Power of school to innovate without permission of the Secretary of State (No. 2)—

'(1)This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.

(2) A maintained school governing body may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the governing body contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.

(4)The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the governing body.'.

§ Mr. Willis
I am delighted to be able to begin this debate at last. I hope that the next day and a half will be as interesting and as entertaining as the last hour.
I want to concentrate on the two new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have tabled, both of which deal with autonomy. One of the great features of the Bill as it was presented to the House on Second Reading—and one of its great features that was presented in Committee—was that it would encourage schools to innovate and that it would encourage a plethora of approaches to raising standards. Schools would be able to present new ideas and thoughts.
New clause 5 deals with the right of local education authorities to be able to present new ideas, innovate and initiate, whereas, during the passage of the Bill, the Government envisaged that local authorities would be passive—they would carry out the wishes of the Government or facilitate the wishes of schools. For some reason, the Government rejected the idea that local authorities should be able to innovate.
Earlier today, the Secretary of State made one of the longest statements ever heard by the House, and we now know why. She did not respond to a question that I asked her about local authorities. The way in which schools are being turned round, in terms of coming out of special measures, is largely due to the brilliant work being done in the vast majority of local authorities. Although the 797 Ofsted report clearly states that a number of local authorities are failing to meet the required standards, a significant number are doing so. If new clause 5 were added to the Bill, local authorities would have exactly the same powers but they would not have to ask the Secretary of State for them, provided that they do not show serious signs of weakness in their inspection process, whether it is carried out by Ofsted or the Audit Commission.

§ Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell)
The hon. Gentleman has tabled a couple of interesting new clauses, which are certainly worthy of due consideration. In relation to the point that he has just made about weaker authorities, new clause 5 does not contain a provision to allow Ofsted or the Secretary of State to identify and remove the right to innovate from an underperforming authority. Will he tell us how that might be done?

§ Mr. Willis
As usual, the hon. Gentleman has applied his diagnostic brain to the new clause. Let me reassure him. Subsection (4) states: The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a local education authority as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the authority. That includes advice given by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and the Audit Commission. The new clause has been carefully drafted by expert draftsmen to ensure that the Secretary of State has that backstop.

§ Chris Grayling
I interpreted that phraseology as relating to individual areas of regulation rather than to a wholesale power of the Secretary of State to remove from an LEA the right to innovate because it is underperforming. That is what I am trying to clarify.

§ Mr. Willis
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave before—[Interruption.] Hon. Members make a telling point, and I accept the compliment—if it was one.
The Minister will tell us whether the new clause will achieve the objective that I desire.

§ Mr. Fallon
The problem with the drafting, which the hon. Gentleman calls "expert", is that subsection (4) gives a power to the Secretary of State that is mandatory, not discretionary. Subsections (2) and (3) say that local authorities "may" do this or that, but in every circumstance the Secretary of State has to do it because it says "shall". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on that with his experts, unless he can explain it more fully.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of such matters as a former Minister in a former Government, now gone. I reassure him that I did not use the same draftsmen as the Government used to draft their manuscript amendment. However, I take his point. Subsection (4) tries to give the Secretary of State a backstop if she believes that there are reasons why a local authority should not be given powers to innovate. I am sure that hon. Members will regard that as a reasonable way to proceed rather than giving local authorities unlimited powers, irrespective of whether they are performing well.

§ Mr. Fallon
The problem is that subsection (4) does not give the Secretary of State a power to be exercised 798 under certain circumstances when she feels like it. Instead, it makes it mandatory that she shall in every circumstance designate any of the requirements. There is no choice about whether to do that.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in wanting his points clarified. We want the Secretary of State to make proper provision to ensure that local authorities in special measures and those that are a cause for concern do not get the power to innovate. For that to happen, the Secretary of State has to have the powers and must use them. That is the purpose behind new clause 5.
7.15 pm
New clause 6 is important and I intend to divide the House on it. It goes to the heart of the Bill. The Government claim that they want to move away from appearing to have total central control of everything that schools do, but the Bill does just that. It takes unto the Secretary of State powers that did not exist before. A school cannot innovate or receive earned autonomy unless the Secretary of State agrees to it. That is the most preposterous level of centralisation ever.
I concede that, in the past, schools perhaps had too much autonomy to do what they liked. That regime went with the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988, Ofsted and the rigorous inspection of our schools. Mike Tomlinson's report contains evidence that schools have adjusted to those regimes. They now regard inspection and audit as an essential tool within the school improvement process. Schools see the new tenor of inspections, especially the light touch inspections, that Mike Tomlinson has introduced as part of the process rather than something to be dreaded at the end of four or six years.
We have put in place a national curriculum and developed a clear sense of audit and inspection, and schools now operate within that climate. New clause 6 is simple: unless a school is in special measures or showing serious signs for concern, it should automatically be given the right to innovate. It should not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State and say, "This is what we'd like to do. Please can we have permission to do it?"

§ Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and it surprises me that he has been hostile to innovative projects introduced by previous Governments. Would new clause 6 allow a school that promotes the raising of educational standards to charge for admissions, to decide not to admit pupils with brown eyes or curly hair, or to extend the school day without the agreement of the teaching staff? It seems that the new clause could achieve that.

§ Mr. Willis
I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not going to spend the next day and a half engaged in a hostile debate. I am trying to be helpful. I thought that with his vast consultancy experience in such matters he would applaud the measure. He is far too intelligent not to accept that the Secretary of State has to lay down the parameters within which innovation and autonomy can be exercised. We do not have a problem with that. Indeed, we have co-operated well on that aspect of the Bill. Having set 799 down those parameters, however, schools should not have to go back to the Secretary of State every time they want to instigate an innovation within those broad parameters.

§ Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)
I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. Is it to be inferred that one of the benefits of new clause 6 is the absence of a bureaucratic process of informing the Secretary of State about an innovative project that a governing body of a school might undertake? If that is the case, how does the hon. Gentleman expect the Secretary of State to know whether or not it would appropriate to invoke new clause 6(4) and seek to restrict the ability of a governing body to undertake that kind of project?

§ Mr. Willis
First, I have made it clear that, under the new clause, I hope the Secretary of State will lay down the condition that schools that show serious weakness, require special measures or are under-achieving in the eyes of Ofsted, are not entitled to apply for earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That is one safeguard. Secondly, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, local authorities were rightly given a duty to raise standards in their schools. The relationship that local authorities now have with their schools is largely positive; they engage in positive dialogue. That is another safeguard. It is also recognised that governing bodies have a duty because they carry most of the legal powers in a school. If they are to ensure that their ideas for innovation and powers of autonomy are realised, they have got to act reasonably.
We cannot have it both ways. If we argue that schools should be given powers to innovate, if we want a diverse and exciting secondary education system and if we want a plethora of different arrangements in the 14 to 19-year-old sector, we must free schools to get on with the job. That is an exciting concept, and to realise it, we should not confine schools to having to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I do not want to detain him while he is developing his argument. However, new clause 6(4) gives rise to a problem that is similar to the one in new clause 5(4), as it does not seem to allow for the possibility for which the hon. Gentleman argued. He said that there are authorities or qualifying bodies generally, as well as school governing bodies, that may not meet Ofsted requirements. However, the purpose of subsection (4) is not explicitly to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain qualifying bodies from the power to undertake innovative projects. Its purpose is, by order, to designate certain requirements under education legislation which, by extension, would apply to all qualifying bodies. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to give the Secretary of State the freedom to choose certain schools that were counted as failing schools, why did he not write that into the new clause?

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not want to put anything unnecessary into the Bill. Sadly, an awful lot of things that should have been included in it will be introduced in secondary legislation.
New clause 6(4) is clear. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that it is a catch-all for the Secretary of State, who can lay down regulations 800 under which all schools can innovate. I am arguing strongly that, if we want the innovation in schools that most hon. Members want, we must free schools to achieve it. The Secretary of State says that she wants to trust schools, and the chief inspector says in his new Ofsted report that we have better school management than ever before, so we cannot simply say, "Ah, but we just do not trust you enough." We must address that issue.

§ Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key to the new clause is the definition of innovation? As drafted, the new clause hands considerable powers to the Secretary of State to define innovation. Does he envisage that under his new clause admissions policy is an area in which a school can innovate?

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman knows my views on admissions policy, which is key to having an education system that all youngsters can access as a level playing field. One of my great criticisms of current admissions policies—I am being dragged into another part of the Bill—is that there is a plethora of different arrangements, which tier admissions and result in children being creamed off. I do not favour that, but we should have a genuine debate with the Secretary of State about the parameters of innovation. As for individual schools, the new clause tries to ensure that a school does not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State every time that it wants to innovate. We want to set down guidelines within which schools can automatically innovate, provided that, for example, they are not in special measures or another category.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as drafted, the new clause would allow a school to innovate in admissions policy, and would certainly give a future Secretary of State enormous powers to transform admissions policies by the back door?

§ Mr. Willis
I must confess that when I wrote the new clause, I envisaged that a Liberal Democrat would be in power. The hon. Gentleman knows that we would apply certain rigorous conditions if we were in government. There is a failing in the Bill regarding earned autonomy; eventually, we learned that only 10 per cent. of schools would get earned autonomy. Many schools that were announced today as having outstanding Ofsted reports would not be in that 10 per cent. We want to pin the Government down; we want them to say what innovation means and what its parameters will be. The Secretary of State must know that when she introduces regulations, there will be certain areas in which schools will not be allowed to innovate; I hope that admissions is one of them.

§ Mr. Brady
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) hit on a key flaw in the Bill? Under clause 2, the Secretary of State would have the power to permit selection by ability or aptitude; charging by schools in the maintained sector; and the suspension of special educational needs provision. The power would be limitless. The hon. Member for Bury, North hit on what is wrong in a Bill that gives the Secretary of State enormous power, without providing any constraints or giving the House the capability to control what he or she intends to do with it.

§ Mr. Willis
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said; he put his finger on a great problem with 801 which all Opposition Members have had to wrestle during the passage of the Bill. In Committee, we had insufficient time to examine the meaning of much of the Bill's contents. On Report, we find ourselves with ludicrously little time to deal with crucial issues.
While it is interesting to analyse a Liberal Democrat new clause, our aim is to try to ensure that the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State give a proper explanation of the Bill's intentions. Hon. Members should remember that we have not had much of the promised guidance that would provide an explanation of the Bill.

§ Mr. Fallon
rose—

§ Chris Grayling
rose—

§ Mr. Willis
I shall make a little progress. I realise that the hon. Gentlemen are so enthralled with the debate that they want it to continue until 10 o'clock at least.
An illuminating aspect of the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon on Mike Tomlinson's latest report for Ofsted was her response to questions about the increasing division, particularly at secondary level, between schools and children making excellent progress and those not doing so. The whole House shared a sense of frustration that children from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, from Bangladeshi and Pakistani backgrounds, travellers' children and children in care were not making the progress that we had hoped for. The 2001 GCSE results last summer showed that 30,000 young people were leaving school without a single GCSE between them. That is an indictment of our system. It is not a credit to any of us.
7.30 pm
In answer to questions this afternoon about raising standards at key stage 3, the Secretary of State's vision was that children should have more of the same and be tested more, and that somehow, although that had failed at key stage 2, it would suddenly be a success at key stage 3. I found it an incredibly sad response.
Many of the children who are switched off by the age of 11, and many of the children, especially from ethnic minority homes, for whom the curriculum is a turn-off as well, attend schools in the lower quartile of the league tables. According to the Government's current policy, as reflected in the Bill, none of those schools will be allowed to innovate. They will all have to follow a tightly controlled prescription from the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State and the Minister shake their heads. I am happy for them to intervene to explain that that will not be the case. In reality, that is what is envisaged. The very schools that most need to innovate will be the ones that cannot. New clause 6 deals with that issue.

§ Mr. Fallon
I understand that for the Government, freedom is control. The House must be willing to simplify their extraordinary proposal whereby schools will have to beg for their freedom. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the weakness of new clause 6, especially subsection (3), is that under the guise of innovation, a 802 school could exempt itself from almost anything—not just admissions, as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, but from obligations on attendance, truancy, discipline, testing or almost anything else? The drafting of subsection (3) is too wide, in almost the same sense as the drafting of subsection (4) is too narrow.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman has his point of view, which he has expressed clearly. In the circumstances that he described, two things would occur. First, the local authority, which has a duty in this regard, would have to intervene. Secondly, when Ofsted inspected, it would fail the school on all those factors and put it into special measures. The school's powers to innovate would thus be lost.
I have great faith in schools. Of course, at times, like my two newly acquired dogs, they let me down. I should tell the Secretary of State that I have two lovely new dogs, but at times they are a huge disappointment to me. However, I do not want another "Diary" piece on the subject. Generally speaking, I believe that schools are desperate to do a good job.
As a head teacher for almost 20 years before entering the House, there were times when I looked back and felt that I should have done things differently. Things should have been performed in a better way. We should have taken different decisions. That will inevitably be the case.
If we want to attack some of the problems in our secondary schools and deal with the issues of under-achievement and of youngsters being turned off, we must free schools so that they can be innovative, and so that they do not have to go to the Secretary of State every time they want to do something different.

§ Chris Grayling
May I say how much I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the free schools policy that we advocated at the last general election? As regards the positioning of the new clause within the Bill, would it not cause a legislative problem were the clause to be accepted by the House tonight? In a sense, although the clause might deliver to schools the freedom to innovate that all of us would welcome, it would come directly head to head with the provisions on earned autonomy.
In one part of the Bill, we would be saying to schools that they had the freedom to innovate, subject to the Secretary of State's imposition of a number of restricted areas, but in another part of the Bill, we would be saying that a school had to apply for the right to innovate. In order to introduce the new clause into the Bill, would we not need to delete substantial chunks from the rest of the Bill?

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a good point. We never got to the bottom of why the provisions on innovation and earned autonomy were not meshed within the Bill. In many cases, they seem to be one and the same. When we reached the provisions on earned autonomy, which we are not dealing with tonight, we were staggered for two reasons—first, because earned autonomy meant the ability to disapply the national curriculum, or it applied to pay and conditions. That was the extent of earned autonomy.
Secondly, the Committee was staggered to learn that the extent of the Government's confidence in our secondary schools was that by the end of the Parliament, 803 10 per cent. of them would have achieved that. That would mean that some of the schools that had been granted specialist status or beacon status would not be considered good enough for earned autonomy. I am trying to deal with that controlling element through the new clause and the amendments. I am sure that when he has the opportunity, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will speak eloquently and fluently on these matters.

§ Dr. John Pugh (Southport)
Conservative Members seem to be struggling with the meaning of innovation and autonomy. If those are difficult concepts to follow, they are at any rate embodied in the Bill and probably would be involved in any Conservative free school proposals. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Conservative Members are in danger of missing the point of the new clause, which is essentially to decide who has autonomy and the capacity to innovate, and who legitimately should have it?

§ Mr. Willis
The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) disowned the Conservative policy on education at the last election, and one can understand why. It was a discredited policy and the Conservative party suffered a landslide defeat because it had no real policies on education that people understood. I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford has learned the error of his ways. The party is a reformed party and he is much more friendly and considerate. In that tone, I am trying to engage members of the Conservative party and meet them half way. I am delighted to be able to do so.
I shall make a little progress—

§ Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham)
rose—

§ Mr. Willis
I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman. It would be most discourteous of me not to do so.

§ Mr. Hoban
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those of us who are new to the debate on innovation and autonomy, I want to clarify the aim of new clauses 5 and 6. I understand that the aim is to give every school the power to innovate, which seems entirely reasonable. From the hon. Gentleman's comments, it seems that the range of areas in which a school can innovate will be set by the Secretary of State. Although the new clause would allow more schools to innovate, there is a risk that the Secretary of State would narrow the areas in which schools could be innovative.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I congratulate him on it. How much better that we know the parameters within which schools will be able to innovate than schools spending inordinate amounts of time making presentations to the Secretary of State, only to be told, "I'm very sorry, but that is not an area in which you can innovate." It is that sort of bureaucratic nonsense that I am trying to do away with. Whether or not the drafting of the new clause is as precise as it should be, if the Government were to accept it—I understand that they will accept the principle—they would redraft it in their 804 own image, although it is to be hoped that they would do so slightly better than in respect of the order of consideration.

§ Mr. David Cameron (Witney)
I still do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point about subsection (4) of new clause 6. Presumably, it would allow the Secretary of State to designate areas in which innovation is not possible. New clause 6 therefore has a push-me-pull-you element, as subsection (3) says that all schools can innovate, while subsection (4) says that the Secretary of State can decide where that is not possible. If he wants free schools, why is he prepared to give so much power to the Secretary of State?

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. I do not want free schools. Indeed, I do not want what the Conservative party proposed at the last election, which was simply a free-for-all. He knows what we said about admissions, which were one of the central planks of the Conservative proposals on free schools. I am not proposing free schools, as I accept that there should be parameters in which schools should work. My argument is simple; indeed, it is so reasonable that I cannot understand why the Government would not accept it. After the parameters have been drawn—it is up to the Government to decide them—all schools should be given the same powers, provided that they are not in special measures. Surely, that is an easy concept for the Government to understand.
I have tabled a number of minor amendments that feature in this group. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 would protect schools so that the guidance from the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has to be taken into consideration. I think that that is eminently reasonable. Amendment No. 66 takes into consideration special education needs. Again, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have any problem with that. It is important that, whenever a school is innovating, it thinks very carefully about the effect on children with special education needs. There is a great fear that, in terms of innovation, we will drive out of our schools some of the youngsters who need their school most, so the amendment seeks to ensure some protection.
Amendment No. 68 seeks in respect of the powers to innovate to ensure that schools have a duty to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. It would not be a prescribed curriculum of the sort that we have now, but it would have to be broad and balanced. Amendment No. 67 would establish negotiating structures for schools exempted from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. One of the features of the Government's plans in the Bill is a disapplication in respect of teachers' pay and conditions. Although that may be desirable in some cases, it is crucial that teachers have the power to negotiate, and that is what amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure.
This has, I hope, been an interesting presentation. I appreciate the way in which hon. Members have engaged on the new clause and I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Brady
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), especially after enjoying so many interesting exchanges with him in Committee in the past few weeks. His exposition was very much in keeping with what we heard in Committee, where 805 we had useful discussions and found an enormous amount of common ground, sometimes in surprising quarters. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always found ourselves in agreement in the past few years, so such common ground is a measure of the depth of some of our concerns. We are anxious not about the Government's objectives in dealing with innovation and autonomy—we all agree that they are laudable—but about their whole approach, and that anxiety is reflected in the extent to which not only Liberal Democrat and Opposition Members, but sometimes Labour Members who are aware of the potential effects of the Bill, have found common cause.
7.45 pm
It is important to consider the provisions in the context of what happened in Committee. It is also important, not least in terms of our exchanges about the change to the order of consideration, that we consider the Minister's own words about the way in which he believes that education legislation should be developed. First, I cite the remarks that he made in the very first sitting of Standing Committee G on the morning of Tuesday 11 December last year: I make no bones about my third introductory point: we want more education measures to be passed through secondary legislation than has traditionally been the case. Education measures have been out of step with other legislation, and thus have been unnecessarily inflexible and unduly prescriptive. The Committee will discuss the many instances in which greater flexibility would help to meet the different circumstances of communities throughout the country".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 13.] Thus, the Minister stated in very bald terms the preference of Ministers as to how the legislation should be taken forward, which is that as little detail as possible should be included in the Bill and that as much as possible should be left to ministerial discretion and dealt with through secondary legislation with a lower standard of scrutiny.

§ Mr. Cameron
My hon. Friend talks about a lack of detail in the Bill. Will he try to tell us where in the Bill the concept of innovation is explained? It appears in the new clauses tabled both by Opposition Members and by the Liberal Democrats, but it does not seem to be defined properly in the Bill.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Even if I cannot refer him to a definition of innovation, I can at least cite a definition of what the Minister believes it to imply, because he gave a most helpful and instructive explanation in the Committee's second sitting on the afternoon of 11 December. When I pressed him on what innovation should be, he replied: The term 'innovation' implies something new".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.] Thus far, all hon. Members would be with him, but many of us would believe that innovation is a continuing concept in which any entity, whether it is a corporate body, school or public body, would want to engage 806 continually in order constantly to improve its performance. That is the nub of what Opposition Members would like the term "innovation" to embody.

§ Chris Grayling
rose—

§ Mr. Hoban
rose—

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friends will have to wait a little longer to hear the rest of the Minister's definition. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), who was on the Committee.

§ Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he recognise how disappointing it was in Committee to encounter so many different situations—they are epitomised in the issue of innovation and autonomy—in which Ministers said, "This is what we want to do, but you'll have to take our word for it." We were effectively told that the Secretary of State would provide a definition of innovation through regulations. That does not sound very innovative to me.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend is right. It was a cause of anxiety throughout our proceedings in Committee that insufficient flesh was put on the Bill's bones.

§ Mr. Hoban
Clause 6 is entitled "Exemptions available to qualifying schools". I took it refer to subjects such as the curriculum and pay and conditions, in relation to which innovations could be made. For the benefit of those of us who did not serve on the Committee, may I ask whether the Minister explained any of the draft regulations that the clause covers and suggested the parameters of the scope for innovation that schools could enjoy?

§ Mr. Brady
The Minister gave a broad idea of the Government's thinking. However, I shall deal with that later, when we consider new clause 10. The Minister's words did not allay our reasonable fears about the use of the provisions. There are two intertwined concepts: innovation and earned autonomy. If my hon. Friend will be a little patient, I am currently trying to deal with the new clauses that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough tabled on exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made a point about the definition of innovation, for my delay in reverting to it. Rather than defining innovation, the Minister defined what was not meant by it. Conservative Members would like innovation to be part of schools' culture and thus improve standards and quality in a key public service. However, the Minister said: it would be a bit odd to talk about innovation carrying on for decades. By definition it would no longer be innovation, and should be dealt with in the ordinary legislative way. These powers are appropriate for trying out new things."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.] What a bizarre approach to education policy! The Minister suggests that the only new ideas are those that are knocking about in Ministers' heads or locked in a filing cabinet that is not available to other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am doing a little catching up on the terms that are being used. Is my hon. Friend suggesting 807 that the Government want a period of innovation but not the diversity that would exist in a normal system with freedom to innovate? They want a period of innovation, no diversity, and the ability to reimpose uniformity.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend may have hit on the truth. I am delighted that he is catching up with the terms, because he has made an important contribution. Ministers do not regard innovation as continual, but as happening for a defined period. The Bill defines a period for which innovation would be deemed appropriate, but allows for the possibility of extending it for a further finite period. However, Ministers reject the suggestion of continuing innovation. That is especially important when we consider the scope of the powers to innovate.
As we have already established, the powers to innovate are not specific; they are powers to make exemptions from the requirements of education legislation.

§ Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)
Does my hon. Friend agree that reducing bureaucracy in schools would be a genuine innovation? Will he enlighten hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee about whether a discussion took place on the sort of bureaucratic procedures that a school would have to undergo to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to innovate?

§ Mr. Brady
Such a discussion did, indeed, take place. It is worrying that although schools are drowning in a sea of red tape and regulation, the Bill provides for even more. Commercial entities face specific circumstances when they tender for a lucrative project. They can place a major burden on such an organisation. Ministers are trying to replicate those circumstances for schools that apply to innovate. They do not know the circumstances under which Ministers may be prepared to deem that innovation can take place.
The Bill includes a definition of the breadth of the exemptions from education legislation. That lies at the heart of new clauses 5 and 6, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I almost called him my hon. Friend, but that proves that we have been in too close proximity for the past few weeks. We shall shortly return to a more natural state.
The exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation include the ability to make an exemption from any provision of the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1973, the Education Act 1980, the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983, the Further Education Act 1985, the Education Act 1986, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The list goes on.
It may not apply to other hon. Members, but in my five years in Parliament, I have never come across a Government Bill that allows not only exemption from any provision of any existing measure but from the Bill that we are considering. That is the most remarkable attempt 808 by a Government to seize all discretion and power. The Minister confirmed that in terms in Committee on 11 December. He referred to my contribution and said: His other point, which was new"— innovative, perhaps— was what he described as the self-referential issue in the Bill. I refer him to clause 2(1)(a), which states that the applicant would have conferred exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation including, of course, those elements of education legislation that are in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 49.]

§ Mr. Osborne
My hon. Friend's point is spelled out in the explanatory notes, which state: The clauses allow the Secretary of State … to suspend legislative requirements and, if necessary, modify legislation or confer new powers. I suppose that it is some comfort that those powers are limited to primary and secondary education legislation.

§ Mr. Brady
We must beware. Earlier in our proceedings, we had an example of the Government tabling amendments without giving notice to the House. We must be careful that other Departments do not take such practice as a model. The exemptions that are relevant to innovation mean that the measure is not simply an Education Bill, but the last Education Bill. It marks the last occasion that any Government have to come to the House to obtain powers.
Given exemptions in other clauses that we shall examine later, the powers will be sufficient to allow Ministers to do whatever they want. I say that without qualification. The new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives try to constrain the powers a little. In Committee, I suggested that although we had heard a great deal about Henry VIII powers, the Bill was a Charles I measure. It tries to dispense altogether with the need to consult Parliament.
I have given some details of the powers to make exemptions from education legislation. I also took the trouble to obtain a note from the Library on the length of time it had taken the House of Commons to consider all the education measures that clause 2, a small provision, can suspend.
8 pm
In 1962, the Second Reading, Standing Committee, Report stage and Third Reading of the Education Act took the House of Commons 47 hours to consider. The House took only five hours to consider the relatively minor matters in the Education Act 1967, but spent a rather more serious 129.25 hours considering the Education Act 1980. I wonder whether any current Labour Members were here at that time—I am not sure whether any of those present have clocked up that length of service—but no doubt they were doing their jobs, as they were permitted to do in those days, by scrutinising the legislation properly.
I shall not go through all the figures, but 206 hours were spent on debating the Education Reform Act 1988. All the education legislation which under clause 2 could be suspended by ministerial fiat took the House of Commons alone 786 hours to consider. In Committee, we were able to give the current Bill 44.25 hours, and we had just six hours on Second Reading.

§ Chris Grayling
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was equally shameful to use the knife in our debates in 809 Committee on some of the key parts of the Bill—notably the early stages relating to innovation and earned autonomy, which are the crux of the Bill? At the end of our proceedings, we were awash with time to debate issues in relation to which there was no debate, while in the early stages we had nothing like enough time to devote to the issues in the Bill that really matter.

§ Mr. Brady
I take issue with the latter part of my hon. Friend's point, because even in the later stages of the Committee when we were debating less controversial matters, although we were moving as quickly as humanly possible—I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will bear me out—we were barely able to deal with all the amendments that had been grouped together for those later sittings. The effect was even more damaging when the so-called knife was applied in the earlier sittings. It is a matter of record that huge swathes of the Bill could not be debated in Committee.

§ Mr. George Osborne
I want to make an historical point. My hon. Friend said that we spent more than 40 hours discussing the Bill in Committee. I believe that the House spent more than 40 days in Committee debating Balfour's Education Act. Such things have changed under this Government.

§ Mr. Brady
That is a perfect illustration of why I am so pleased to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in the neighbouring constituency to my own, and of how much things have improved in that regard since last June.
The effect of the knives in Committee was that we did not conclude our deliberations on clause 11 and we had no debate whatever on clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. We were allowed a brief discussion on governing bodies under clause 18, but there was no discussion on clauses 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23, which covers federations of schools, all of which are key provisions in the Bill.

§ Mr. Andrew Turner
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Brady
I cannot resist.

§ Mr. Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is perhaps that the Government see the House and its Committees as a legislation machine rather than a scrutiny machine? They regard the most efficient kind of legislation machine as one that pumps through the maximum number of clauses—and, doubtless, regulations—in the minimum amount of time. Those of us who see the role of the House as that of a scrutinising machine view it in terms of how it protects the subject against an over-mighty Executive, ensures that those who work in the public sector are protected—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn the distinction between an intervention and a mini-speech. He must be much more succinct in an intervention.

§ Mr. Brady
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a telling point—a telling point that could have been made at any stage during the last five years. In one sense, 810 however, the Bill goes a stage further, in the sense that it will create a position in which the House of Commons will move on from being a legislative machine to being totally redundant and having no future role in education legislation. I shall not continue with the long list of clauses that we did not discuss in Committee.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
While my hon. Friend is making this point about time, may I ask whether he is aware that 15 or 16 further groups of amendments to this part of the Bill are still on the Order Paper to be considered? What confidence does he have that the House can possibly do justice to that amount of material—some of which is very substantive and controversial—in only one further sitting?

§ Mr. Brady
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will not be tempted to pursue that line. We should come back to the terms of the new clause that we are debating.

§ Mr. Brady
I am most grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, some more experienced Members of the House may on occasion take advantage of the relative inexperience of others. I am grateful to you for protecting me from my right hon. Friend—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall continue to give him the best protection that I can.

§ Mr. Brady
I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have also given me the opportunity to move on a little in my consideration of this group of new clauses and amendments.

§ Mr. Lansley
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Brady
Well, I am trying to move on, but I will take a brief intervention.

§ Mr. Lansley
My intervention relates to a point that my hon. Friend was making about the extent of the powers that the Government propose to take in clause 2. They are immensely wide-ranging powers to disapply or modify existing education legislation—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are debating new clause 5, and I hope that we can come back to that subject.

§ Mr. Brady
rose—

§ Mr. Lansley
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Brady
I certainly will, so long as my hon. Friend will take note of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Lansley
Absolutely, and, in this respect, I am following the point that my hon. Friend was making: that new clause 5 seeks to extend to local authorities—as new clause 6 extends to qualifying schools—some of the powers in relation to innovation and earned autonomy that 811 would be available without the Secretary of State's scrutiny. The point that I was trying to make is that the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State is seeking to take are on the application of a qualifying body. Is my hon. Friend aware of any intention on the part of the Government to solicit applications from qualifying bodies to secure modifications of legislation of a kind that the Government are seeking?

§ Mr. Brady
I am not aware of any intention to solicit such applications, but Ministers might wish to make their position clear in that regard when replying to the debate on this group of amendments.

§ Chris Grayling
Under new clauses 5 and 6, the qualifying body would not have to make an application. It would be able to take the decision in its own right, and the Secretary of State would then have to stop it.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend is right. This is where the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—in new clauses 5 and 6—and our own new clause 10, to which I shall return shortly, seek to shift the balance of this legislation in an important way. A thread runs through the Bill—whether in regard to clauses on exemptions for innovation or on earned autonomy—which suggests that it is up to Ministers to decide when it is appropriate or possible to take such action. The new clauses would make the legislation more permissive by freeing up the whole process and, without suggestions being solicited, schools or other qualifying bodies could make precisely those moves, which is a positive step.

§ Mr. Cameron
Will my hon. Friend clear up a worrying point that I put to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough? The hon. Gentleman is lending his support to new clauses 5 and 6, but in both, subsection (3) would give autonomy to governing bodies and LEAs while subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take it away in many circumstances. For the benefit of Conservative Members, will my hon. Friend describe the areas in which the Secretary of State would want to curtail the freedom of schools and governing bodies in such a way?

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point—the Liberal Democrat new clauses would have that effect, but I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I do not necessarily support the new clauses, I have enormous sympathy with their thrust. My hon. Friend might sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt had he been with us as we sat through the debates in Committee, during which we were ground down by the Government's relentless attempts to regulate and control so that we might occasionally fall into the trap of believing that that ought to be allowed.
Before I move on to new clause 10 and the earned autonomy provisions, I must focus briefly on the extent of the exemptions available for innovation. For the convenience of hon. Members, I shall consider amendment No. 79. The origin of the thinking behind it lies in a debate in Committee about the extent to which Ministers are taking unqualified, untrammelled powers to suspend legislation without exemption.
812 The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) may be interested to know that we probed the extent of that freedom by raising with the Minister the hypothetical question whether it would be possible to disapply certain aspects of the Education Act 1996 by removing sections 449 to 462, which prevent maintained schools from charging for places. The Minister was good enough to give confirmation: Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid. but"— he was very clear about this; I make no bones about it— I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 90.] How many hours of debate in the House took place and how much energy, belief and passion were expended in this place to ensure that children in this country have a right to free education? I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister seeks to remove that right, but Members on both sides of the House should be greatly disturbed that the best he could do in response to my question was, "We have no intention of doing it."
8.15 pm
No matter what Members of the House believe about the principle of free, universal education, they will no longer able to rely on it being provided by statute if the Bill becomes law. It will be provided at the whim and discretion of Ministers, which is a matter of grave concern.

§ Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point about those pillars of the Bill and I would be interested to hear the views of Liberal Democrat and Labour Back-Bench members of the Committee, but none are present. Does he agree that the specific situation that he has identified effectively shows that the Bill would give this Labour Government and the Secretary of State the power to do certain things—those which would give the hon. Member for Bury, North nightmares—although one might accept that they do not intend to do them?

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can only imagine that Labour and Liberal Democrat Back-Bench members of the Committee expected to debate the red herring amendments on faith schools and were surprised by the change to the programme motion. They must have been lulled into a false sense of security, or perhaps they expected to debate these more central matters another time. They have been confused by what the Government Whips chose to do without giving notice to Members on either side of the House.
Moving on from the point that we established in Committee—the exemption from any provision of education legislation might run as far as allowing maintained schools to introduce fees or charges—we come to amendment No. 79, which raises another concern. I freely admit that we could have tabled a raft of similar amendments, as Ministers seek the power to suspend any provision of education legislation, but amendment No. 79 simply picks on a particularly important aspect of those powers.
I say again that I accept that Ministers may have no immediate desire to allow charging, but unless we accept amendment No. 79 it will be possible for a maintained school to make such an application to a Minister. 813 Furthermore, in the spirit of good will, which we have tried to re-establish, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described this Minister as a reasonable and honourable man, although his judgment is occasionally lacking in matters of procedure.
I see that we shall now gain the enormous benefit of the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We look forward to being enlightened, and hearing his views on the powers the Government are taking to obtain exemptions from legislation that potentially allows maintained schools in his constituencies to charge for places.
More relevant to amendment No. 79 is the possibility that the Government may accept an application from a qualifying body for that body to be exempted from section 317 of the Education Act 1996. That section deals with the duties imposed on a governing body or local education authority in relation to pupils with special educational needs. As Members on both sides of the House accept, such pupils need special protection and education that meets whatever their needs may be. They may have autistic spectrum disorders, or physical disabilities. In any event, the 1996 Act currently provides a guarantee—a degree of certainty—that the special needs of a pupil in a maintained school will, as far as is reasonable, be met by the governing body and the local education authority.
I hope that Ministers will give a warm welcome to the amendment, which would give them an opportunity to guarantee the protection of children with special educational needs—not just in the generality of schools or in the specialist colleges whose expansion the Government are announcing, but in schools granted exemptions for purposes of innovation.
It is not beyond the realms of credibility that a school might make a bid for exemption from some requirements relating to special educational needs. It might avoid considerable costs by doing so. It is not far-fetched to imagine that at some point a school, while not saying that it did not want to make any SEN provision, might say that an aspect of such provision placed too heavy a burden on it. At present, Ministers are insisting on retaining the power to disapply that obligation. Amendment No. 79 would have the important effect of presenting such disapplications.
I hope Ministers will not just accept the specific terms of the amendment, and the fact that its aim is right, proper and important, but understand from the two examples given by the Opposition—the first, in Committee, relating to the introduction of charges and the second, on Report, relating to protection for those with special educational needs—that there is real concern about the limitless scope of the powers that they seek.
New clause 10 is particularly important. The theme was established by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled new clauses 5 and 6. New clause 5 seeks to allow a local education authority to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission—although, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State some power to control that freedom. New clause 6 would allow a school to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission, with a similar caveat in subsection (4). I know that the Secretary of State is keen to have powers to control the 814 process, but she is clearly confident that the new clauses will find favour on both sides of the House, as she has not felt it necessary to stay in order to witness that support.
New clause 10 takes the whole issue by the scruff of the neck. It attempts to change the balance. Opposition Members strongly support the move to give schools more autonomy. We believe that they are generally better able than Ministers to run their affairs, raise educational standards and give children the best possible education. In almost all circumstances, schools, heads, teachers and governing bodies should be left to get on with their work with the maximum freedom that is reasonable.

§ Chris Grayling
The importance of the new clause was highlighted in today's Ofsted report, which says: Problems in the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified teachers have increased; the situation is considerably worse in London than elsewhere. Teacher shortages are leading to the increased use of temporary supply teachers and the use of permanent teachers to teach subjects in which they are not adequately qualified". Does my hon. Friend recognise that the freedoms that the new clause would give heads and governing bodies may go some small way to providing the flexibility that would enable them to overcome the recruitment problems which are causing the difficulties highlighted by the chief inspector in the report?

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for the point that he makes.
To give Ministers credit, they have recognised that there is a severe problem of retention and recruitment in the teaching profession. They know that problems and difficulties are being caused for many schools, not just in the south-east, but in much of the country. They have responded by introducing provisions for earned autonomy—autonomy related to school performance, as they phrase it—but as is typical of their policies as a whole and as is endemic in the Bill they miss the point. They say, "Autonomy is a good thing, schools should be free to make more decisions for themselves—but only when we say so." They bring the whole thing back to the Secretary of State's office. Ministers decide when autonomy is a good thing and when it is not. That is not autonomy; it is central control. That is where the Government increasingly fall down, even when they have some inkling of the right direction in which they should be travelling.
The documents that the Minister gave to Committee members and has now given to other hon. Members to provide some detail of how the Government envisage allowing autonomy in certain circumstances raise more concerns than they settle. Many people have cast doubt on the validity of using free school meals to decide whether a school is performing well or not compared with other schools in its band. The use of the free school meals measure has been widely discredited. Normally Ministers would accept that, but they are so baffled as to how to measure plausibly which schools should be allowed autonomy and which not, that they have fallen back on the free school meals criteria.

§ Mr. Hoban
May I give my hon. Friend an example of the problem with using free school meals as an indicator of performance? I was talking to the head master of a 815 local secondary school, who pointed out that the take-up rate for free school meals in his school was 6 per cent., but in feeder primary schools it was 9 per cent. Families do not suddenly become richer when their children move from primary to secondary school. The use of a crude school measure such as free school meals seems lamentable.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend is right. I will be interested to hear what the Minister's justification is for the use of the free school meals criteria, because Ministers do not normally give credence to that measure of social need in regard to school performance.
The extent to which Ministers have sought to put flesh on the bones of the provision does not merely fail to answer questions, but raises many more issues that need to be settled. The Government have taken an odd approach whereby they claim to believe in autonomy for schools, but then attempt to row back from it and explain how they might interpret when autonomy is appropriate and when it is not. It is an extremely odd provision. New clause 10 would turn the Bill away from the plethora of ill-thought-out draft regulations that Ministers have in mind.

§ Mr. Cameron
To be fair, my hon. Friend should put some flesh on the bones of new clause 10, which seeks to give all maintained schools freedom over pay and conditions but then states in subsection (2) that there may be circumstances in which a school will not be eligible for automatic exemption. Surely my hon. Friend should explain the circumstances in which his proposed regulations would apply.

§ Mr. Brady
Absolutely. I plead guilty and I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend identify an apparent irregularity in the expert drafting of new clause 10. I should point out that I was charitable when he sought to make similar points about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I plead the same defence as I allowed the hon. Gentleman to use.
The Bill gives Ministers total control, discretion and freedom. They can do precisely as they wish. So whatever we attempt in new lauses—even if we allow Ministers reserve powers and trust them in a way in which they do not trust schools—in some circumstances it may be necessary to constrain autonomy or the freedom to innovate.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Gentleman has been generous in his comments. Our respective new clauses reiterate the same principle. We want the Government to set out in regulations, or in new legislation, the conditions in which schools would not get either earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That would be much healthier, as it would cut out a whole raft of bureaucracy involving schools having to apply and then being knocked back. We have all suffered from the whole business of bidding, which is something we want to avoid.

§ Mr. Brady
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Transparency and clarity are crucial to schools that may want to take advantage of the earned autonomy provisions. If we do not have that transparency and 816 clarity, schools will end up wasting more time—which they can ill afford to do—and more of their resources will be taken up with bids and projects which ultimately do not come to fruition, but which they have no earthly way of knowing will not find favour with Ministers.
New clause 10 would improve the Bill as it provides for regulations setting out the circumstances in which automatic exemption would not be appropriate. However there is a more important reason for accepting new clause 10: it would change the burden of proof. At present Ministers assume that schools are guilty until proved innocent. Ministers believe that schools are not capable of managing their own affairs and that it is not reasonable for them to have autonomy except in specific circumstances that Ministers have approved.
New clause 10—I accept that new clauses 5 and 6 take somewhat the same direction—seeks to shift the burden of proof and establish a different premise. If accepted, it would make it clear that we trust schools, head teachers, teachers—whether professional staff or the volunteers who do such important work in making schools function—and governors to do their job. The less Ministers interfere in what such people are doing, and the more freedom and discretion they are given, the better the job that they are likely to do.

§ Mr. George Osborne
I very much welcome the new clause that my hon. Friend is introducing. In Committee, did the Minister give some idea of take-up by estimating the number of schools or local education authorities that will apply under the unamended clauses? Without such an estimate we should surely err on the side of giving many schools freedom, which is what the new clause would provide.

§ Mr. Brady
As far as I am aware, the Minister did not estimate the number of schools that are likely to gain exemptions relating to innovation.

§ Mr. Timms
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Brady
The Minister says that I am correct, but he did estimate the number of schools that might initially qualify for earned autonomy. He suggested that an initial figure of 10 per cent. would be expected gradually to increase, although—perhaps reasonably—he was not prepared to predict a timetable for how soon a given percentage would qualify.
Of course, that figure depends greatly on the criteria set out by Ministers in the draft regulations. It is impossible to predict exactly how many would qualify against such an arbitrary yardstick as the free school meal test, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, can differ from school to school, from area to area, and perhaps from year to year. In principle, under this measure Ministers might grant a school so-called earned autonomy in one year because it was in the top 25 per cent. of the free school meal band, but if the number of free school meals subsequently fell because a new factory or business opened nearby and brought new jobs to the area, the band would change and the school—without any change in its performance or the individuals educated there—might no longer qualify. I doubt whether Ministers intend to withdraw earned autonomy in such circumstances, but these rather odd provisions leave open that possibility.
817 New clause 10 deals with a matter of principle—the extent to which we in this House are prepared to trust and respect schools, and give them dignity, by accepting that they are better at doing their own job than Ministers are. It would shift the emphasis away from the assumption of Ministers that—at the moment, at least—90 per cent. of schools are not capable of qualifying for earned autonomy, to the assumption that schools are capable of so qualifying, unless there is a reason why they should not.
I am not going to estimate the number of schools that might be expected to qualify for earned autonomy if the new clause were accepted, but if Ministers do not accept it they should reflect on the balance that they are seeking to enshrine in the Bill. Accepting new clause 10 would send the positive message to schools that we want them to have the freedom to flourish. Without new clause 10, the Bill will send the negative message that Ministers do not trust schools to perform, other than in the circumstances that Ministers prescribe.
I therefore commend new clause 10 to the House.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that some of the distinctions and definitions in the Bill with which hon. Members have been wrestling are new to me, but I think that I have comprehended them sufficiently to be able to make a small contribution to the debate. I know that other Conservative Members want to participate as well, so I shall not tarry too long.
The new clauses under debate make it clear that there is a commendable desire among Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members to provide that requirements in relation to the curriculum and pay and conditions are lifted from schools, except where specific circumstances mean that those requirements should be reimposed. I understood the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to say that, with new clause 6, he was thinking in particular about the reimposition of those requirements on schools considered, broadly speaking, to be failing. I suspect that the same is broadly true with the proposals in new clause 10, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), in relation to the earned autonomy provisions.

§ Mr. Cameron
I was wondering also whether subsection (2) of new clause 10 would be used to exempt failing schools from the freedom suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal could be used to exempt schools of a certain size? Many smaller schools, especially smaller primary schools, might not want to have extra freedom. Could not new clause 10 be used in that way?

§ Mr. Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have wrestled in my area of Cambridgeshire with the extent to which schools seek the devolution of budgets. Secondary schools in Cambridgeshire—in the main, they should properly be described as village colleges—are happy to have delegation of budgets, and will take it on. However, many primary schools have not 818 been as confident about taking on that responsibility. They either want the process to happen in stages, or they want to take on delegated budgets in concert with other schools, in partnership arrangements or under the umbrella of one of the schools to which they feed their pupils.

§ Mr. Andrew Turner
Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous to set such hard and fast rules as perhaps were implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)? Some very small schools were extremely successful as grant-maintained schools. They include the famous school in Cheshire that had more governors than pupils when it became grant maintained.

§ Mr. Lansley
I will always defer to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of the successes and experiences of schools that used the autonomy available under the grant-maintained scheme. I shall not dwell on that matter, save to say that it is possible, under new clause 10, to have a permissive arrangement by which schools that do not benefit from automatic exemption can opt themselves out of the process, so to speak. However, I suspect that we will soon find that, as schools use autonomy and demonstrate the benefits that accrue from that in terms of raising standards for pupils, other schools in the area will think of going in the same direction. Happily, that is what was increasingly becoming the case with grant-maintained schools.
It seems to me that Conservative Members want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of a power to innovate for schools, except for those schools whose governance, demonstrated accountability and performance are clearly inadequate when it comes to using that autonomy constructively, and which must therefore be excluded. In other words, do we want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of autonomy for schools, except for a category of schools that have not demonstrated that there would be reasonable confidence in their communities that they would use that autonomy well? If so, would these new clauses deliver that effectively?
8.45 pm
We have not dwelt much on new clause 5. I have the greatest respect for my local government colleagues. Indeed, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association I declare an interest, and I want, wherever possible, to support the views of local government. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will repeat what he said on 11 December: where there is to be a substantial use of the powers, it will be done through and in consultation with local education authorities. That point is important for the LGA and its members would be happy for the Minister to reiterate it.
That should not mean that new clause 5 is implemented, however. There is a risk that, by freeing LEAs from the constraint that the Secretary of State must remove any requirement placed on them, LEAs would be able to establish schools and to overturn existing planned infrastructures; for example, if they did not welcome measures taken by a school to take over LEA responsibilities or to implement its own schemes for admission and so forth. That would be undesirable.
The autonomy that we want will be exercised by schools on behalf of their pupils. That is the boundary that we want to set. If LEAs are offered the possibility to 819 exercise that exemption from education legislation on their own behalf, it would be a much wider extension of their powers than we want. The Secretary of State might then have to reimpose limitations on LEAs, as their ability to act autonomously would be far too wide.
Such powers are incompatible with the nature of a local education authority as distinct from a school. An LEA is, in essence, a creature of statute. With the exception of certain recently introduced general duties to the population of the area, people in LEAs—like those throughout local government—know that they are operating within statutory confines. They know where their powers lie; they know what lies within those powers and what is outside them.
In that sense, a school is not a creature of statute. It is a community that may have been established outside statute, but has been brought into the maintained sector because of the funding stream. If we gave an LEA the autonomy proposed in the new clause, it might act in such a way that it became difficult to hold it accountable because it had disapplied its statutory limitations. A school, however, is inherently accountable to its own community.

§ Mr. Brady
My hon. Friend's point gives me an opportunity to deal with an aspect of new clauses 5 and 6 that I failed to address during my earlier remarks. If we consider the new clauses as a suite—one relating to LEAs and one to schools—it might be reasonable to assume that the power to innovate under new clause 5 related to the LEA own activities rather than to those of schools. However, has my hon. Friend considered that, taken separately, new clause 5 might allow LEAs to take and implement powers with regard to schools in the area without the permission, consent or agreement of those schools?

§ Mr. Lansley
My hon. Friend is following the same line of thought as me. New clause 5 would enable an LEA to disapply legislation affecting it. In effect, the LEA could take upon itself the power to restructure its funding relationship with all the schools in its area and to change the planning framework. As my hon. Friend made clear, the LEA could restructure its responsibilities for special educational needs and the statementing of pupils. Given the nature of the powers in clause 2 that new clause 5 would vary, the LEA would also have the power to restructure its services and activities in relation to schools and pupils outside its area. In effect, we would create competing authorities.
Competition may be a good thing, but we have not contemplated competition between local education authorities that are free to disapply education legislation and enter into a free-for-all in an urban area. I am not sure that it would be wise to contemplate that on the basis of new clause 5, which seems to contain none of the subsequent safeguards that should be imposed, whereas I feel much less perturbed by new clause 6. Under new clause 6, such freedom would be given to the governing bodies of maintained schools. That would fit the philosophy of many schools, as they were established as self-governing communities, so new clause 6 seems perfectly reasonable.
The issue therefore with new clause 6 is not whether it is right in principle, but whether it is effective, or defective, in practice. That is rather different, and it is 820 where I part company with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Under subsection (4) of new clause 6, with the stroke of the Secretary of State's pen, all the control that the Secretary of State wished to exercise over the power to innovate could be reintroduced, but that could be done in a more damaging way because of its drafting. To prevent schools from using the powers that they would be given under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would probably have to designate many of the requirements imposed under education legislation as a whole.
Under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to designate those requirements imposed under education legislation in relation to a specific subset of schools. It would be sensible, for example, to think of a new form of qualifying school, as is implied in subsequent clauses that we shall be discussing, and apply that to new clause 6.

§ Mr. Willis
I follow the drift of what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that new clause 10 has the same defects? Unless the Bill stated the ways in which schools would be allowed innovate, we would fall into the same trap. I am trying not to inhibit schools from innovating in the ways that they want to innovate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is also trying not to do that. We do not know how schools will innovate; if we did, we could prescribe much more easily.

§ Mr. Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was speaking of two defects in new clause 6, the first of which, as he implies, could be also attributed to new clause 10. Again, under subsection (2) of new clause 10, the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce all the restrictions that might otherwise apply. The second defect in new clause 6 is that the order re-imposing requirements would not discriminate between classes of schools, but there is no such defect in new clause 10. That is important because it links directly to the principle of earned autonomy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West so ably explained, earned autonomy is presumed; it is not the exception.
On the defect by which the Secretary of State could reintroduce all those restrictions with the stroke of a pen, new clause 10 is safer because it is specific about the areas in which earned autonomy would be presumed to be extended to schools. New clause 10 makes it clear that earned autonomy would relate to specific parts of the curriculum and to pay and conditions. By extension, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State, by order, simply to disapply new clause 10. It would be easy for schools then to say, "Why not let us have that freedom and that possibility?"
After the Bill is passed, Ministers will come to use their order-making powers. I hope that they will behave like Ofsted, which is trying to ensure that not only do outstanding schools deliver exceptional results for their pupils, but that the great many schools that are comfortable to be in the middle of the performing range—and do not see the necessity of increasing their performance so that it becomes among the very best—realise that they have the freedoms and autonomy to deliver.

§ Mr. George Osborne
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Ministers and Government Whips 821 have spent the last 10 minutes in a huddle, instead of listening to his excellent speech. Is that because, as I suspect, this part of the Bill is receiving more scrutiny than they had hoped?

§ Mr. Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, I have not been a Member that long, but I have been here long enough to realise that to expect Ministers to listen to what Opposition Members are saying is a stretch too far. However, I am glad to see that I have regained the attention of the Minister for School Standards.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me a tiny digression, I must point out that, as a former civil servant, I recall that, from time to time, what Members say in the House is read, if not by Ministers, by their officials. That can produce some benefit in the subsequent implementation of legislation, often through the use of Ministers' pens, even if their minds are not necessarily wholly engaged. We shall see what happens in this case.
I must sit down in a minute, because I have said nearly all the things that I wanted to say—and a few more. However, I want to endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about amendment No. 79 by comparison with the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, particularly amendment No. 66 and the amendments that are consequential on it. It seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to reinsert some protection through amendment No. 66, whereas, in fact, the protection already exists in legislation.
Parliament expressed a specific intention in 1996 in relation to special educational needs. When Parliament has been clear in the past about a particular obligation that it wishes to be fulfilled under all circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend made clear, to endorse such an approach today and not give Ministers the freedom to disapply Parliament's intentions at their whim in the future.
As I explained, I cannot support new clause 5. New clause 6 is defective, and, although some of the criticisms might be applied to new clause 10, they are not sufficiently valid. I therefore have every confidence in supporting new clause 10.

§ Chris Grayling
This group of new clauses and amendments apply to what I regard as the most important part of the Bill. If the Bill is passed—whether or not as amended by the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)—it will have a profound effect on our education system. At least in theory, it will take us back in the direction of the aspirations of the last Conservative Government for grant-maintained schools, and in the direction of those that the Conservative party has subsequently espoused for free schools.
As we have heard tonight, a question remains about the degree to which the Bill—far from delivering the aspirations in it—will take us towards greater centralisation by putting more powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. To that end, I applaud this group of new clauses, even though I find some of the detail of the new clauses extremely difficult to endorse, as they contain particular flaws.
822 9 pm
New clause 5 extends the power to innovate to a local education authority. It gives it the right to implement an innovative project that it believes will help to raise educational standards achieved by children or adults in its area. A fine-sounding ambition—except that it does not address how the relationship between the LEA and the school would work and how a decision on an innovative project taken by the LEA would work when set against the school's decision to innovate.
Let me clarify that by giving a topical example. If an LEA decides to restructure a school's academic year and move to a system of five and six terms instead of three, what right would schools have to say, "No thanks. This is not something that we want to pursue"? I know that people in education and LEAs are interested in that, but equally schools desire stability. They want an end to the seemingly relentless process of change and to allow the initiatives that are in place to bed down.
What would happen in those circumstances? Would the LEA have the power to impose the new school year on schools in its area or could those schools turn around and say that it is not right for them? I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough if he wants to clarify that.

§ Mr. Willis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to respond. He makes a valid point. The omission from new clauses 5, 6 and, with respect, new clause 10 is that they do not address the relationship that schools have with their local authority, so it would be necessary to clarify joint arrangements. However, it is not our intention—the hon. Gentleman might have to take my word for this—to make local authorities go back to the old days when they controlled schools. I am sure we all accept that those days have gone. New clause 5 would ensure that innovative projects could be used to raise standards. Inevitably, that would mean working with schools, not ordering them to do things. I would expect the regulations by the Secretary of State—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was invited to intervene, but it still has to be an intervention, not a speech.

§ Chris Grayling
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that clarification. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for responding to my comments.
My second concern about new clause 5 relates to subsection (3). It would allow an authority to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the authority. It is not clear whether that would simply apply to legislation as it relates to the LEA itself or whether the LEA would have the right to intervene to prevent a school from deciding to innovate and exempt itself from a piece of legislation. That point of clarification would be required were the new clause to become law.
My third concern relates to new clauses 5 and 6, which would create areas of conflict between the Secretary of State and a school. In subsection (4) of both new clauses, the hon. Gentleman sets out that The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation … as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification 823 by either the LEA or the governing body of a school. None the less, unless the Secretary of State sets out detailed processes of exemption, there may be regular conflicts between schools that are seeking to innovate and a Secretary of State who, for example, seeks to protect the national curriculum.
Suppose that a school decided to innovate in modern languages and move away from simply offering French and German, the most common languages offered by secondary schools. It would lose those languages from the curriculum and adopt other languages that would give it a distinctive position in its catchment area. It could offer Japanese and Spanish as prime languages in the curriculum rather than the conventional languages. In such a situation, the Secretary of State might conceivably say that she did not want that, then seek to intervene to prevent that innovation.
There would therefore be a conflict between the school and the Secretary of State about what precisely the school could do. I am concerned that new clause 5(4) and new clause 6(4) are too vague about the areas in which the Secretary of the State has the power to intervene and say that something is not acceptable. If we are going to give schools the freedom to innovate, which, undoubtedly Conservative Members would like—I suspect the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough increasingly wants it too—we need to define carefully in legislation which areas are covered; otherwise, schools do not have guidance to decide when they can, and cannot, innovate.

§ Mr. Lansley
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would make it possible for a school governing body to disapply all its data collection, information and accountability functions? In effect, the Secretary of State would not have to be told about that; she would simply discover that the school governing body had taken that action when the figures stopped coming in or when Ofsted was turned away at the school gates.

§ Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that a school would only discover whether it was allowed to do something when it tried it; the Secretary of State might then have to intervene to say no, which would give rise to conflict.
Conflict could also arise with faith schools, which could use the powers enshrined in new clause 6. It is particularly appropriate to consider faith schools, given the participation of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in tabling later new clauses. One could easily envisage a faith school wanting to innovate in a way deemed inappropriate by the Secretary of State. It might wish to restructure the curriculum, change admissions policy, change religious education in the school, and so on. It is conceivable that a school may seek to innovate, then discover that it was in conflict with the Secretary of State who, again, would have to intervene after the event to say, "No, you may not do that."

§ Mr. Hoban
Is not one problem that, by applying to the Secretary of State for the power to innovate on a case by case basis, a great deal of uncertainty is introduced into the system? For example, the current Secretary of State is very much in favour of faith schools. If, however, she was replaced by the right hon. Member for Holborn 824 and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he might veto proposals on faith schools, although the right hon. Lady would accept them.

§ Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes a good point which speaks for itself. New clauses 5 and 6 are admirable in their aspirations, but their detail would create too many complexities and problems for the House to accept them in their current form, given that we have a duty to try to produce the most effective and best-quality legislation which works in practice.
I have a particular concern about the way that the two new clauses and the part of the Bill that they seek to enhance would work in relation to admissions procedures. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is offering schools greater freedom to choose their own admissions procedure. The Government claim that to some degree schools have that. I recently experienced in my constituency the limitations of the freedom that schools currently enjoy.
Blenheim high school in my constituency, an enormously popular school, has this year been forced to turn away 180 pupils seeking places at that school, despite the fact that only a few months ago the school sought to change its admissions policy to enable a number of those who have been turned away to attend the school. That change to the admissions policy was overturned by the schools adjudicator, following a complaint by the London borough of Sutton, which is controlled by the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—a decision that I very much regret, because of the difficulty that it is creating for young people in my constituency.
We know that school admissions are a difficult matter. A school might choose to amend its admissions policy not necessarily for any reason related to selection by academic ability, but simply because it wants to reflect a local geographic issue. If the Secretary of State retains the power to intervene and tell the school that it cannot do so, that creates a potential conflict between schools and the Secretary of State.
On new clause 10, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for the aspirations that the clause reflects. One of my great disappointments in the Bill and in the Government's handling of education has been the lack of tangible action to address the great disparities in the rewards offered to the education profession in different parts of the country.
Those disparities were clearly shown in the answer to a written question that I tabled this week. I asked the Department what the ratio was between the salary of a newly qualified teacher three years in the job and average house prices in London, Surrey, Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. The disparities are enormous. Essentially, a teacher who has been in a job for three years on average earnings for that profession can afford to buy the average house in the north-east and in Yorkshire. In London and the south-east the ratio of an average teacher's salary to the average house price is 1:8.
The practical reality is that costs in the south-east of England are making it massively more difficult for our schools to attract teachers. I mentioned the Ofsted report. It is worth dwelling on the comments made about the 825 issues dealt with by new clause 10. The report highlights the problems of schools in London, the south-east and other areas where housing costs are high. It states: In all types of school, the situation in London is considerably worse than elsewhere in the country. Vacancy levels in London primary schools in January were 3.3 per cent. Those are fundamentally difficult problems for schools in London and the south-east. We need tangible action to solve those problems. One way of doing that is to give schools greater flexibility to set different pay and conditions to meet individual recruitment needs. I know about specific cases in which schools needed to bend the rules to bring in teachers, after they had advertised time and again for vacancies to be filled and not received applications.

§ Mr. Lansley
Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that was done in examining changes to the area cost adjustment in the revenue support grant system, which looked at specific costs, as they are called? Although there are national pay scales, the use of flexibility within those pay scales is already evident in response to local labour market pressures. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to what is required under the Bill, there should be allocations of funding to local authorities and to schools to reflect those different costs? For example, it cannot be right for a school in Hertfordshire to receive £277 per pupil more than a school in Cambridgeshire.

§ Chris Grayling
I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that, if the Government accept new clause 10, it will give schools the flexibility to adjust their pay and conditions to meet local recruitment needs. If that happens, the Minister should then go to the Treasury and make the strongest possible representations about support for our education system that reflects the very disparate needs of teachers in different parts of the country. I hope that the Government will help our head teachers to fill the gaps that they currently have great difficulty in filling, remove the need for them to recruit from abroad to such a degree and provide real solutions to a problem that is becoming serious and which the inspectorate said would have an adverse impact on exam results in future years. If we start down that road by implementing a provision such as new clause 10, we will begin to address the issue and to provide our schools with the flexibility in the system that is necessary for tackling the problem.
Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 deal with the importance of special educational needs. In Committee, the Opposition tabled a significant number of amendments merely to clarify the role of schools, governing bodies and LEAs in relation to special educational needs. It was disappointing that the Government systematically rejected them. Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 restate the importance of special educational needs and give the Government the opportunity to change their mind and accept that they could enhance the Bill in relation to SENs and send out to the country a clearer signal about their importance. The amendments would clarify for governing bodies this area of responsibility and the decisions that they cannot take.

§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonable to go further and say 826 that if the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 79, they will effectively be demonstrating that they do not give proper attention to special needs and are unwilling to safeguard special needs education in the way in which members of the Committee and the Opposition would wish them to do?

§ Chris Grayling
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She makes the case for the amendments very clearly. There is no reason for the Government to say no to them. If they accept them, they will send out a powerful signal about the importance of SEN provision in our schools and demonstrate that we care about and are committed to the educational interests of children of all abilities, including those with particular needs as well as those with particular abilities. If they reject them, they will be sending out a wholly negative signal on this important matter.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will accept new clause 10 and amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131, as they are significant contributions to tackling the financial problems of our country that would also send a clear signal about the importance of special educational needs. I hope that they will accept that the amendments would be an important part of the Bill and should go forth as such from the House.

§ Mr. Cameron
I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 10. I have to tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that I have misgivings about new clauses 5 and 6, for reasons that I shall explain. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I see a lot of merit in new clause 10.
New clauses 5 and 6 would basically extend the power to promote innovative projects to two groups other than those envisaged in the Bill—LEAs and governing bodies. New clauses 5 and 6 suffer from the problem of push me, pull you, which I mentioned earlier. They give extra freedom with one hand and take it away with the other.
The Bill is a "Whitehall knows best" measure. The first lines of the first chapter demonstrate that by stating: The purpose of this Chapter is to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may … in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England". I stress, in the opinion of the Secretary of State". No one matters except the right hon. Lady. With great respect to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I am not sure whether new clauses 5 and 6 help.
We all support allowing schools to be innovative to improve education. However, it is remarkable that the ability to do that will be at the whim of the Secretary of State. I want to make some detailed points about new clauses 5 and 6.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that someone else would be better qualified than the Secretary of State to make decisions, or more accountable? Is he one of the people who believes that we should keep politics out of politics?

§ Mr. Cameron
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire beat me to it when he said earlier that 827 schools should have more power to make the decisions. In the Bill, it appears that only the Secretary of State's opinion counts. We should give schools the freedom to decide. New clauses 5, 6 and 10 would partly achieve that, but I am worried that new clauses 5 and 6 confer a power and then take it away.
New clauses 5 and 6 and the Bill deal with innovation, but it is difficult to find a definition in the measure or the explanatory notes. What exactly does the Secretary of State hope that the schools will achieve? Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that, in Committee, the Minister had described innovation as simply something new.
New clauses 5 and 6 appear to envisage a narrow definition of innovation and innovative projects. New clause 6 describes them as contributing to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school. It should go further. Some projects may benefit future pupils more than current pupils. Is "educational standards" too narrow? Perhaps some schools want to develop projects with other parts of the community. The definition should therefore be wider.
The real problem with new clauses 5 and 6 is the push-me-pull-you element. In new clause 5(3), the local education authority and in new clause 6(3), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from education legislation, as the Secretary of State can do under the Bill. That is a laudable objective; schools should have the power to do that. However, in both new clauses, subsections (4) give the power to the Secretary of State to designate any requirement imposed by education legislation … as not subject to exemption". The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gives with one hand and allows the Secretary of State to take away with the other.

§ Mr. Willis
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with increasing frustration. Is he saying that the Conservative party would allow schools to do exactly what they wanted, including ordering all students to appear nude or beating them with sticks?

§ Mr. Cameron
Of course not, but when I intervened on the hon. Gentleman and asked him to be more specific about the powers that he would give to the Secretary of State, answer came there none.
New clause 10 is a much better provision. As my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Altrincham and Sale, West suggested, it contains a presumption in favour of the freedom to give all maintained schools—except a very small number of them—power over pay and conditions. In Oxfordshire, there is a serious problem with recruiting and retaining good teachers—a problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also referred—and the average price of a house in west 828 Oxfordshire last year was £180,000. I am not sure what formula my hon. Friend might apply to that in his work-out, but such issues create huge problems.

§ Mr. George Osborne
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purchase of a house by the previous Member for Witney raised the average house price in west Oxfordshire?

§ Mr. Cameron
My hon. Friend is tempting me to say something that I am sure the occupant of the Chair would not allow. That purchase probably fell in a different year, but that may well have been the case.

§ Mr. Dobson
Not many teachers could have bought it.

§ Mr. Cameron
That is true. You could fit a lot of teachers in it, though, if you wanted to. Probably more than enough, in fact.
There is a problem for teachers who need to be able to afford housing in Oxfordshire. New clause 10 would help them, and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West when the matter is put to a vote tonight.

§ Mr. George Osborne
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 10, which has been so ably introduced by my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I often think that the west of Sale does not get the recognition that it deserves when he is referred to.
There is a welcome recognition in the new clauses and amendments of an important principle, which is that more freedom, more autonomy, and more innovation in our education system is a good thing. The fact that that principle is embodied, albeit inadequately, in an Education Bill introduced by a Labour Government shows just how far the education debate has moved on from the days of Tony Crosland, when Labour Governments wanted to make all schools exactly the same. It also illustrates the progress that Conservative Governments made in establishing the principle that excellence lies in diversity in our education system.
I welcome the principle of freedom and innovation behind the new clauses, and I welcome the fact that that has been accepted by those on the Labour Front Bench; I suspect that such principles do not seep deeply into the Labour Back Benches, but we shall see. My hon. Friends the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and the hon. Member for Harrogate—

§ Mr. Dobson
And Knaresborough.

§ Mr. Osborne
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) reminds me. I am sorry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman only in interventions today. Many of us were looking forward to a more lengthy contribution from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down then!"] Labour Members do not want these clauses to get the scrutiny that they deserve. We saw the shenanigans of the Labour Whips earlier today, and it is a good thing that these important parts of the Bill have indeed had the scrutiny that they deserve.
829 The Government are saying to schools, "We will decide when you can have freedom from central Government, and when you can't." Well, that is no freedom at all. I know that it is new Labour's idea of freedom, but it is not real freedom if the power lies with the Secretary of State. It is, however, completely consistent with the trend that all education legislation introduced by this Government has taken. Everyone involved in education knows exactly what that means; it means more bureaucracy for schools, more form filling and more red tape. Wilmslow high school in my constituency went through a lengthy process of applying for specialist arts status, only to have it refused. That school knows what it is like to go through that process. We can all imagine that a similar range of red tape and form filling will be required for schools applying for innovative status.
9.30 pm
Real freedom involves a presumption in favour of autonomy. Real freedom is embodied in new clause 10. Real freedom is the freedom to innovate, set teachers' pay and conditions, decide the structure of the school day and year and opt out of certain prescriptive elements of the curriculum. There are important exceptions, which are embodied in subsection (2) of the new clause and the amendments exempting special educational needs children, but freedom should be the rule, not the exception. That is why I support our new clause.

§ Mr. Timms
We have had an extensive debate on the changes. Let me pick up some detailed points. I stress that the proposals on the power to innovate, which new clauses 5 and 6 address, are intended to support innovation generated by those who deliver the education service on the front line. We want LEAs and schools to make proposals, drawing on their expertise, that contribute to higher educational standards. That will be the acid test in deciding whether to accept their proposals. We are confident that that power will contribute to supporting schools and LEAs in making far-reaching changes, but we must bear a number of important principles in mind.
First, under the Bill as drafted, an order would have to be made on all decisions to waive primary legislation, which would mean that everybody knew what the law was, and the absence of such a provision is a significant flaw in the new clauses. Secondly, the proposals contain no mechanism to check the actions of any LEA or governing body, no matter what its record. I was interested in the characteristically courteous rebuke offered by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in reminding him of that problem. Thirdly, no parliamentary process is envisaged. Governing bodies and LEAs would have the power to determine the law in their area across a wide range of provisions with no parliamentary process being observed. Our view is that there should be parliamentary accountability. The new clauses would set that aside.

§ Mr. Brady
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Timms
I cannot, given the constraints. Let me make progress, if I may.
830 On earned autonomy, given the nature of the freedoms, we must ensure that they go to schools in the best possible position to use them in the interests of their pupils. Autonomy must be earned; it will not be unconditional. I think that that is right and that, on reflection, the House will think it right too.
Of course, as standards continue to rise over time and as leadership improves, more schools are likely to be in a position to use those additional freedoms. We shall review the criteria in the light of experience with the aim of increasing the number of schools involved, but, in the initial stages, we shall evaluate and learn from the experiences of our best schools. That will help us to consider what further flexibilities and what deregulation will benefit the school system as a whole.
That is the right approach, as it complements the innovation proposals in chapters 1 and 2. It is important for the House to recognise the distinction between the power to innovate in chapter 1 and the proposals on earned autonomy in chapter 2, which have been confused.

§ Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Timms
I cannot, given the number of points to which I must respond. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Entirely understandable concern was expressed about special educational needs, so I am grateful to the Members who raised the matter for the chance to reaffirm our commitment to ensure that all schools, including those with earned autonomy, continue to meet in full their obligations to children with special educational needs. Nothing in earned autonomy will in any way change the responsibilities of schools or LEAs with respect to those children. If a child has an LEA statement including particular curricular requirements, for example, those must still be met by the school, whatever curriculum changes it may decide to introduce. I hope that that provides some reassurance on this important matter.
As for the power to innovate and special educational needs, I can give similar reassurances, particularly in response to amendment No. 79. As we have been reminded a couple of times, the purpose of the power set out in clause 1 is to facilitate innovative projects that may contribute to the raising of standards. In the case of proposals that would not raise standards or that would benefit one group at the expense of another, the power could not be used. There is no reason why innovative proposals from schools or LEAs are any less likely to relate to children with special educational needs, and I am sure we all want such pupils to benefit from them. It is important to repeat, however, that proposals will be accepted only if the Secretary of State believes that they are likely to contribute to higher educational standards.
The 1996 Act makes it clear that the school curriculum should be balanced and broadly based, a requirement that is retained in the Bill. The power to make variations relates to the national curriculum, which is only one element of the basic school curriculum.
I hope that, in the short time that I have been given to respond to a very full debate, I have been able to reassure Members. We think it important to provide new avenues for innovation. I hope that, on the basis of my assurances, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will feel able to withdraw the motion.

§ Mr. Willis
I am grateful to the Minister for speeding up his response; I will do likewise.
I accept that new clause 5 does not make clear how it would apply to schools, and I will not press it to a vote. New clause 6, however, establishes a principle on which we clearly disagree with the Government. They want to control the level of autonomy, and to ensure that all schools must apply to the Secretary of State. We believe that they should set parameters whereby all schools can automatically have autonomy.

§ Adam Price
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
No.
One of the flaws in new clause 10 and, indeed, in the Conservatives' arguments is the fact that they want freedom for all schools, but accept that there must be some limits to that freedom. I accept that too, and I think the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right to say that the Secretary of State should make the decisions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.