House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills First Report

Formal Minutes

25 January 2006

Members present:

Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair

Dr Roberta Blackman- Woods

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mr David Chaytor

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Tim Farron

Helen Jones

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Mr Rob wilson

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Draft Report, proposed by Mr Rob Wilson, brought up and read, as follows:

1. 'The Government published its White Paper on proposals for schools, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All, on 25 October 2005.[107] This is a major policy initiative, strongly backed by the Prime Minister with a speech the day before publication and a four-page foreword to the document, as well as by the Secretary of State herself. In oral evidence to the Committee on 2 November 2005 the Secretary of State told us that a Bill to enact those proposals which required legislation would be published early in 2006. The Committee agreed to report by the end of January.

Conduct of the inquiry

2. The timescale of the Committee's inquiry has proved to be unrealistically short. It has provided insufficient time to call the witnesses we wished to see and insufficient time to consider all the issues with appropriate care. In particular:

The Committee did not ask the DfES to respond to its written questions quickly enough
The Deputy Prime Minister was not asked to give evidence despite his public criticism of his own Government's proposals
The short timescale did not allow us to examine all the appropriate research evidence (for example, the evidence cited by the Secretary of State indicating that there is no correlation between the number of admissions authorities and social segregation[108])

Context of the White Paper

3. Much of the confusion over the White Paper has arisen due to the conflict between the contents and stated intentions of the White Paper, and the statements made and issued by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in support of the White Paper, presumably to assuage the fears of Labour backbenchers.

4. The Secretary of State has reiterated on many occasions that the White Paper is about 'driving up standards and helping the most disadvantaged children' whereas, the white paper is, in the main part proposing changes which will benefit children from all backgrounds and communities as a whole.

5. The White Paper is about proposing structural fundamental changes which will alter the way in which schools operate on a day-to-day level and interact within the local community. It could be said that the White Paper in some way takes positive steps towards building neighbourly communities. Communities within which the school plays an integral role providing parents with the opportunity to take ownership, and become stakeholders in what is arguably one of the most important functions funded by the State.

6. The White Paper takes further steps towards liberating schools from rigid LEA control. Parents, children, governors and teachers would be in control of how funding allocated to education is spent. They would be free to form partnerships in a similar way to that which universities do now. Local schools would be more accountable to local communities. This is something we support.

7. The White Paper comes after eight years of Labour Government. Its record on education is patchy at best and there have been some significant failures.

8. Pass rates at GCSE and A level have risen each year, and the number of children achieving high marks in Key Stage tests has also increased. However, critics of the Government have argued strongly that examinations have become less rigorous, that the marks required to gain the highest grades have fallen and that much of the increase in performance in Key Stage tests can be accounted for by 'teaching to the tests'. The Statistics Commission has supported this last point.

9. The most recent criticism comes from the National Audit Office in a report on Improving poorly performing schools in England.[109] It said that in July 2005 there were 1,557 poorly performing schools in England serving around 980,000 pupils.[110]

"…a sizeable number of schools encounter problems that put children's education at risk, and some of these schools do not provide good value for money. In 2004-05, around £837 million was spent in England through a range of national programmes to help improve schools that were failing or at risk of failing. "[111]

It is unacceptable for 13% of children in England to be taught in poorly performing schools. The cost to those children, and to the taxpayer in the attempts to put matters right, is immense.

10. The NAO has also recently reported on the Government's failure to reduce truancy rates despite spending more than £800 million on special projects, and there is evidence that social mobility in the UK is the lowest in Europe.

11. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The Government clearly recognises this, and so has produced the White Paper to tackle some of the worst problems. The test of its success will be the extent to which it provides a better deal for all pupils.

The White Paper proposals

In-school reforms

12. The government proposes significant changes to the way in which poor behaviour and disaffected pupils are dealt with. In particular, it says that it will legislate for a new 'right to discipline' for teachers.

13. The White Paper puts great emphasis on more personalised, tailored education. It argues in favour of more setting, which the Government has said that it supports since 1997, but with little apparent increase. It also proposes more personal tutoring where that is needed, both for those who have fallen behind and those who need to be stretched. It envisages further expansion of the gifted and talented programme and an increase in grouping and setting of pupils by ability.

14. There is a recognition of the importance of staff development in raising attainment, and particular support is promised for headteachers and the development of future headteachers.

15. We welcome all of these proposals which we believe will have a beneficial effect on schools.

Trust schools

16. One of the main measures proposed in the White Paper is the development of foundation schools to form Trust schools. These schools will have greater autonomy than community schools, will be their own admissions authorities and may form groups around not-for-profit charitable Trusts, enabling them for example to develop "a distinctive approach to the curriculum and teaching."[112]The Government says that "This will lead to a wider range of approaches, more innovation and greater choice for parents".[113]

17. There was no enthusiasm for Trust schools from most of our witnesses, but there was an inconsistency in the critics' approach. They felt Trusts would change little, but still opposed them.

18. We support the development of Trust schools, with their greater autonomy and the external support that a trust would bring. This autonomy should include full ownership of assets. Independence must mean full independence if it is to have impact and real value. We believe that as the Trust is a new category of school it should be a duty to promote it. We also believe that the Government should leave open the option of a requirement for schools to become Trusts or independent of the local authority in some form.

19. The White Paper proposes that each Trust school should only have one elected parent governor, although one-third of the governing body will be parents, the others being appointed by the Trust. We consider that this reduces parental influence rather than increases it. It should be a requirement that at least half of the parents on a Trust school governing body should be elected.

Local authorities

20. The White paper proposes that local authorities should no longer be providers of schools but commissioners of education, with a significant role in monitoring standards in schools, assessing demand for places and tendering for new schools.

21. We support this change. Local authorities will find it hard to perform their duty to act as champions of parents if they are still providers of services. We also agree that local authorities should have the duty to promote choice, diversity and fair access. Real choice for all families from a diversity of schools and providers offers ultimately a better life.

22. The suggestion has been made that local authorities should have a role in setting benchmarks for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds admitted to secondary schools. We disagree strongly with this proposal. Admissions should be regulated by the admissions Code of Practice rather than by any other considerations. It may be designed to address the concern that some schools may seek to 'cherry pick' pupils, but this proposal could be a means of local authorities making undue demands on schools for which they are not the admissions authority.

Choice and admissions

23. The Government argues that greater choice for parents will drive up standards, with popular schools being able to expand more easily. It will also address issues of concern about admissions. The reason why most children fail to gain a place at their favoured school is that popular schools are over-subscribed. If they are able to expand more easily the pressure on admissions will fall. This is also an argument in favour of new schools, including those established through parent power. We are strongly in favour of the plans for parents to have greater power in the process to establish new schools and to allow new schools and to allow good schools to expand.

24. Allowing for more choice may mean funding surplus places, but the costs will be offset by the reduction in money needed for remedial measures in poorly performing schools. The proposals will help to make the education market work more effectively to provide what parents want.

25. We also think that the government should look at ways of providing extra funding to follow directly pupils who need additional help, such as those eligible for free school meals. This should be on the principle of money following the pupil rather than grants for particular areas.

26. There have been calls for adherence to the Code of Practice on School Admissions to be a legal requirement. We disagree. The Code provides guidance but allows for variation depending on local circumstances, and we believe that this is the best way to deal with admissions issues.

Conclusions

27. Much of what the White Paper proposes is to be welcomed. It envisages a clean 'purchaser/provider' split between local authorities and schools, leaving schools with more control over their own affairs and providing parents and pupils with a greater degree of choice.

28. The question is whether the Government is willing to back its own instinct. Does the Government want to move to a freer education market? Is the White Paper a bluff, appealing over the heads of Labour MPs to middle class voters but without offering real change? Or is the Government going to be frightened off making necessary radical changes because of opposition from its own MPs? We will know more when the Bill is published, but we believe the Government should have the courage of its own convictions and keep to the word of the White Paper.'

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman' s draft report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.-(The Chairman.)

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Chairman's draft report" and insert the words "draft report proposed by Mr Rob Wilson".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 7

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Tim Farron

Helen Jones

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 18 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 19 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out from the word "schools" to the end of the paragraph.-(Helen Jones.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 5

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Stephen Williams

Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.

Paragraphs 19 to 35 agreed to.

Paragraph 36 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 13. to leave out from students to the end of paragraph 37 and insert the words "We welcome the commitment to increase the use of grouping and setting by ability and attainment. We also support the gifted and talented programme".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 7

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Paragraphs 36 to 43 agreed to.

Paragraph 44 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, after "vacancies" insert the words "We recommend that the Government looks urgently at setting a minimum entitlement in teachers' timetables, particularly in primary schools, for continuing personal development and such training. This is especially important in respect of newly-introduced elements to the curriculum , such as citizenship education, or significant curriculum changes in other subjects'".-(Mr Gordon Marsden.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 45 to 48 agreed to.

Paragraph 49 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from the word "partnerships" to the end of the paragraph.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraphs 49 to 56 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 57 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "group" to insert the words "We believe it is essential that Trusts do operate in a collaborative fashion and that Government embeds in any legislation requirements for this to be monitored at local and national level. We make specific recommendations elsewhere for mechanisms to effect this."-(Mr Gordon Marsden.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 58 to 62 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 63 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 10, after the word "collaboration" to insert the words "We carefully noted the evidence given by Sir Cyril Taylor and Ms Elizabeth Reid, Chairman and Chief Executive respectively of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, who both argued that the Trust concept was primarily designed to increase collaboration between schools. We recommend, therefore, the model of a federation of two or more schools as the preferred option for the development of the Trust school concept."-(Mr David Chaytor.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph 64 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 65 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from 'Commissioner' to the end of the paragraph and insert the words "should not be or remain a serving DfES civil servant after appointment and indeed that it might be useful for Government to seek an appointee from outside DfES. The Commissioner should be established at arm's length from the Department reporting to Parliament through the Select Committee as well as to ministers in DfES. This will be essential to enable her or him to operate in a more independent manner and enjoy the confidence of all parties concerned."-(Mr Gordon Marsden.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Tim Farron

Helen Jones

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Mr Rob Wilson

Question put, That paragraph 65, as amended, be agreed to.

Paragraphs 66 and 67 read and agreed to.

A paragraph-(Mr Gordon Marsden)-brought up and read as follows:

"We have also heard concerns from a number of witnesses about the knock-on effects of school expansion on other schools in the neighbouring area if this is not done carefully and with close co-operation and consultation. This is an issue not just for Trust Schools but for existing ones. Many head teachers are themselves concerned that expansion might affect their ability to function on an optimum basis and spread good practice and work collaboratively with other schools in the locality. Sir Alan Steer, whose report has made a significant contribution to the White Paper on discipline issues, himself said he would not wish to expand his own school beyond its existing size. We urge Government to have due regard to these concerns and to implement mechanisms in the Bill to allay them. We make some recommendations to this effect later on."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Paragraph added (now paragraph 68).

Paragraph 68 (now paragraph 69) read.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 69 to 72(now paragraphs 70 to 73) agreed to.

Paragraph 73 (now paragraph 74) read

Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from the word "pupils" to "Christine" in line 5.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 74 (now paragraph 75) read as follows:

"She also emphasised the importance of the local authority in ensuring that every child has a school place:

"I think we would like to see an additional duty on all schools to co-operate with the local authority and other schools in the local area to find every child a school place, and that is particularly important for children who are hard to place, for a range of reasons, have special educational needs or present the greatest challenge."

Although there are to be requirements to accept Looked After Children, there are no such safeguards for pupils on free school meals, or to protect the right of access to a local school for low achieving pupils with parents who may themselves have underachieved at school. We agree that this is a vital issue, and we look forward to seeing more detail on how that is to be achieved under the new arrangements."

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "school" in line 7 to insert the words "This is a particularly important issue in view of the current concerns about the different legal position of Academies in respect of the admission of children with SEN. It is possible that Trust schools could also be exempt from the obligations that apply to all other maintained schools. We recommend, therefore, that all publicly funded schools should be given the same legal responsibilities in this respect."-(Mr David Chaytor.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 75 and 76 (now 76 and 77) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 77 (now paragraph 78) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out from the word "outcomes" to the end of the paragraph and insert "which we consider is the most effective way of monitoring schools performance of these responsibilities.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 78 (now paragraph 79 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 79 (now paragraph 80) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, leave out from "services" to the end of the paragraph.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 80 (now paragraph 81) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 81 (now paragraph 82) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from the word "change" to the end of the paragraph.-(Helen Jones.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Helen Jones
Noes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr David Chaytor
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 82 (now paragraph 83) read.

Amendment proposed, i. line 14, to leave out form the word " here" to the end of the paragraph and insert the words "There is an issue over PFI spending and the balance sheet that is much bigger than the issue with the odd school project, namely should more schools be built on PFI schemes? This process is building up significant financial problems for the future."-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 84) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 84 (now paragraph 85) read as follows:

"We are firmly of the opinion that fair access should take top priority, followed by choice and diversity respectively. Fair access means the transparent operation of fair admissions policies, but it also means that schools must demonstrate responsibility on the issue of the social composition of their intakes. The issue of the segregation of the school population by social background is significant, and schools need to show that they are aware of their responsibilities to their communities in general as well as to those children whom they do admit".

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from the owrd "respectively" to the end of the paragraph and insert the words" There is growing concern and a body of evidence about the relationship between school admissions and levels of social segregation and schools need to show that they are aware of their responsibilities to their communities in general as well as to the children whom they admit. We propose that a new duty be placed on all schools to promote social inclusion and community cohesion through all of their institutional policies and procedures, including their admissions policies."-(Mr David Chaytor.)

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods

Mr David Chaytor

Jeff Ennis

Tim Farron

Helen Jones

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Mr Rob Wilson

Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from "We" in line 1 to the end of the paragraph and insert "consider that the three duties of promoting choice, diversity and fair access are of equal importance".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

A paragraph-(Mr Gordon Marsden)-brought up and read as follows:

"We have already discussed the emphasis placed by many submissions to our enquiry, both oral and written, on the need for schools, whether or not they have Trust status, to spread good practice across their locality. But it is particularly important given the controversy that has emerged about Trust schools, that Government should give reassurance and set in place mechanisms to effect this. We recommend that Trust schools should be given the duty to spread good practice and demonstrate collaboration across the local authority area, and that their performance in this regard should be monitored by local authorities, who would report to the Schools Commissioner to produce an annual report to Parliament and to DfES."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Paragraph added (now paragraph 86).

A paragraph-(Mr Gordon Marsden)-brought up and read as follows:

"We have also heard concerns that children with special educational needs should not be excluded from their rightful entitlements as a result of proposals made in the White Paper. This is particularly the case in respect of personalised learning and admission policies where there have been concerns that academies have not always been willing or able to operate effective or equitable admission policies in respect of children with special educational needs. We believe again that both local authorities - and possibly the School Commissioner - have a key role in protecting the interests of parents and their children with special education needs. We recommend therefore that Trust schools and others be given the duty to operate equitable admission policies for children with special educational needs across the local authority area, and that the performance of schools in this regard should be monitored by local authorities, who would report to the Schools Commissioner to produce an annual report to Parliament and to DfES."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Paragraph added (now paragraph 87).

Paragraphs 85 to 92 (now paragraphs 88 to 95) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 93 (now paragraph 96) read as follows.

"There are other issues. Many schools are already oversubscribed. It must be likely that if more parents are encouraged to exercise choice then these schools will become even more oversubscribed. There are proposals in the White Paper to allow schools to expand more easily, but not all schools will want to take that option. Sir Alan Steer, for example, said that he would not want his school to increase in size. So one of the questions is, how can choice be extended without other pupils and parents being disadvantaged? A second and perhaps more often expressed worry is that the increased emphasis on choice will give an increased advantage to those parents who are already adept at achieving their aims in the system and that children from disadvantaged backgrounds will fare no better and may possibly be worse off. Until such time as the distribution of able and well motivated pupils between schools is better balanced, and the vast majority of schools are considered by parents to be of acceptable quality, there are likely to be schools that are regularly oversubscribed. The aim must be to ensure that the admissions process is as fair and transparent as possible."

Amendment proposed, in line 13, to leave out form "oversubscribed" to the end of the paragraph and insert the words "Expansion of schools and the establishment of new schools are the answer to oversubscription as the White Paper suggests as long as it is easy for organisations / schools to do so. This will allow parents to get the choice they desire. It may well mean that the Government has to accept some surplus places in popular areas, but this can be planned as part of an LEA commissioning role."-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, at the end to add the words "We therefore recommend that the Government looks at the possibility of introducing anonymised admissions".-(Tim Farron.)

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 94 to 99 (now paragraphs 97 to 102) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 100 (now paragraph 103) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out form the word "schools" to the end of the paragraph and insert "However, we consider it is vital for the success of the Government's proposals that good schools are allowed to expand with the support of their communities".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 4

Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Stephen Williams

Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.

Another amendment proposed, in line 10, after "areas", to insert the words "This would further disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged in education".-(Helen Jones.)

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 101 and 102 (now paragraph 104 and 105) agreed to.

A paragraph-(Stephen Williams)-brought up and read as follows:

"There will be significant demographic change over the next decade when the number of teenagers is expected to drop by approximately half a million. If the Government's choice agenda leads to popular schools expanding then it must mean that failing schools must contract and have more surplus places. Demographic change could make smaller, sink schools unviable and there will not be capacity in the popular schools to absorb extra pupils. The Government needs to have the consequences of this demographic change in mind in its plans for the schools system. We recommend that the Government publishes a costing of the surplus places that may arise because of this demographic change."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph added (now paragraph 106).

Paragraph 103 (now paragraph 107) read as follows:

"It is not now possible, nor do we suggest that it would be desirable, to do away with preference and 'choice' in the system and seek to have a more prescriptive method of allocating children to schools. We do, however, have some concerns about the policy. The Government believes that choice will deliver general improvement through the individual preferences of individual parents. Taken to its logical conclusion, this suggests that the sum of individual preferences is the common good, which we do not believe is the case."

Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out form the word "parents" to the end of the paragraph.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Jeff Ennis

Stephen Williams

Mr Rob Wilson

Noes, 3

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tim Farron

Helen Jones

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph 104 (now paragraph 108) read as follows:

"Parents are not an homogenous group; in each area they will have competing and conflicting demands. So far as schools are concerned, someone needs to balance the different interests to ensure that there is a system rather than a series of separate schools. This surely is the function of the local authority and of the Government. If the law requires parents to educate their children, which for the vast majority will mean sending them to school, then there is a duty on the state to ensure that there is adequate provision in terms of quality and ease of access for all children. There is also a duty to ensure that, so far as possible, children gain admission to schools through a fair and transparent process, which we turn to now."

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from "demands" to "There" in line 6 and to insert "It must surely be a joint responsibility of central and local government, however, to ensure that this process is managed in the best interests of the overwhelming majority of children. Competing interests must be balanced, and parental choice maximised, by the removal of those constraints which prevent fair access to all the schools in the local system."-(Helen Jones)

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to

Paragraphs 105 to 109 (now paragraphs 109 to 113) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 110 (now paragraph 114) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, leave out from "applicant" to the end of the paragraph and insert "Allowing new schools to be created, or schools to expand, could help problems with oversubscription".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 5

Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 111 to 113 (now paragraphs 115 to 117) read.

Question put, That the paragraphs stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph 114 (now paragraph 118) read, as follows:

"The Secretary of State was at pains to emphasise that those critics who said that the proposals for more schools to be their own admissions authorities would enable more selection by ability were wrong: "We outlawed in primary legislation academic selection in 1998.""

Amendment proposed, in line 3, at the end to add the words "However, the Code of Practice does not explicitly reflect this piece of legislation as it only outlaws selection by academic ability in primary schools. We recommend that this anomaly should be rectified at an early date and we return to this issue later in the report."-(Helen Jones)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 4

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Jeff Ennis
Mr Rob Wilson

Question put, That Paragraph 114 (as amended) and paragraph 115 (now paragraphs 118 and 119) stand part of the report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

A paragraph-(Helen Jones)-brought up and read as follows:

"In addition, the 1998 Act introduced the power to select by aptitude for all schools which considered themselves to have a specialism. Our previous reports have dealt with this issue at some length and documented the concerns about the ways in which aptitude selection can be use as a proxy for selection by ability."

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraph added (now paragraph 120)

Paragraph 115 to 121 (now paragraphs 121 to 126) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 122 (now paragraph 127) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from the word "them" to the end of the paragraph.-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 123 (now paragraph 128) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, at the end to insert "We referred earlier to the recommendations of our previous reports on selection by aptitude. The Government no longer collects data on the extent of such selection and justifies it largely on the grounds that few schools use it. We have not yet been presented with a credible explanation of the distinction between aptitude and ability. This is most unsatisfactory and we believe aptitude selection should now be prohibited in regulations. We also recommend that the DfES re-examines the current Code of Practice to identify what other practices should be more closely regulated, prohibited or, conversely, encouraged.

"There remains the question of those schools which are specifically permitted by the 1998 Act to select wholly by academic ability. Our previous report dealt with this issue in some detail and we wish to reiterate our recommendations. We welcome the fact that that there is now all party agreement that there should be no new selection by general academic ability."-(Helen Jones)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Question put, That paragraph 123 (now paragraph 128), as amended, stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Paragraphs 124 to 135 (now paragraphs 129 to 140) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 136 (now paragraph 141) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "year" to the end of the paragraph".-(Mr Rob Wilson.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson
Noes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams

Another Amendment proposed, in line 11, Leave out from the word "places" to the end of the paragraph and insertt the words "The use of carefully structured catchment areas or feeder primary schools can also be helpful in delivering a more balanced intake to secondary schools. All of these options could be considered by the Schools Commissioner where there are serious concerns about the effect of local admissions practices."-(Helen Jones.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Jeff Ennis

Helen Jones

Mr Gordon Marsden

Stephen Williams

Noes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mrs Nadine Dorries

Mr Rob Wilson

Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the noes.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 137 (now paragraph 142) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, at the end to add the words "However effective these mechanisms, and however conscientious the manner in which local authorities carry out the new responsibilities that we propose, the pressure of performance tables is always likely to drive some schools to gain a competitive advantage by increasingly subtle forms of social selection. It is also important, therefore, that schools themselves, as autonomously managed institutions, recognise the impact of their conduct on the wider community in which they are located."-(Helen Jones.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Jeff Ennis
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 4

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson

Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the noes.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 138 to 142 (now paragraphs 143 to 147) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 143(now paragraph 148) read, as follows:

"We have also considered the role of the Schools Commissioner. We believe that his or her role in respect of Trust schools should be less vigorous than the White Paper envisages, consisting principally of advice and assistance, but we believe that the Commissioner should also have responsibility for strategic oversight of the admission process and of the way in which schools discharge their wider social responsibilities on social segregation. The Schools Commissioner should report annually on all these issues."

Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "segregation" insert the words "We also believe the Commissioner should have regard for how Trust schools spread good and co-operative practice across their local authority area and that their admission policies should not disadvantage children with special educational needs, and monitor the effectiveness of local authorities in statutory duties to this effect."-(Mr Gordon Marsden.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods
Jeff Ennis
Tim Farron
Helen Jones
Mr Gordon Marsden
Stephen Williams
Noes, 3

Mr Douglas Carswell
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Rob Wilson