---

Education and Inspections Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 254A and 252AA. Amendment No. 254A requires the Secretary of State to commence the earned autonomy provisions of the Education Act 2002 within 12 months of the commencement of this Bill. The powers introduced will allow highly performing schools to apply for exemption from or modification to teachers’ pay conditions and national curriculum provisions. This amendment would make the freedom offered to schools in the Higher Standards Better Schools for All White Paper a reality by ensuring that good schools can receive additional freedoms where they have demonstrated a consistent ability to maintain high standards. At present, while the Bill will make it easier for schools to become self-governing, the freedoms that these schools have are not substantially increased. The principal route for gaining additional freedoms by governing bodies and head teachers of schools remains through what the Secretary of State has described as the, "““tortuous process under the power to innovate””,—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/06; col. 1590.]" available under chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Education Act 2002. If the Secretary of State thinks that the process is tortuous, is it any surprise that such a tiny number of schools have taken advantage of that power? In the three years for which these powers have been available, only 178 out of approximately 26,000 schools in England and Wales have made use of them—less than 1 per cent of schools. In many cases, the powers have been used to pilot schemes that the Government wish to evaluate. Earned autonomy was a major element of the Schools—Achieving Success White Paper of 2001-02. Chapter 5 of the paper states: "““Where schools are successful, well-led and have a record of school improvement, we want to free them from those conditions and regulatory requirements which they tell us stand in the way of yet higher standards and further innovation””." Again, I am touching on standards which should be absolutely central to our discussions. Paragraph 5.18 states: "““We will allow schools flexibility over some elements of teachers’ pay and conditions, for example to provide even greater recruitment and retention incentives””." Paragraph 5.19 states: "““We will set out clear criteria for deciding which schools should have this extra autonomy and as the school system improves we would expect the proportion of eligible schools to grow””." These reforms were central to that Education Act. This was made clear during the debate at Second Reading when the then Secretary of State, now the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said in another place: "““We want to give the best schools even greater freedoms … when their success shows that they can manage their own affairs, we want to give them more scope to do so. Under the Bill, successful schools will earn greater autonomy over the curriculum and teachers’ pay and conditions””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/01; col. 196.]" A consultation document on earned autonomy was due to be published on 30 September 2002. However, this did not take place as planned. As far as I am aware, the consultation did not take place and the policy is now ““under review””. The then Minister was fully committed to the principle of ““earned autonomy””, which was central to the 2002 Bill. Yet it has not been implemented and there has never been a formal or satisfactory explanation for the reason for not giving good schools these additional freedoms. I hope that the Minister can shed light on this delay and on whether his department has decided to U-turn on that policy. In the best case scenario, I hope that he can inform the House that that is not the case and that he can accept our amendment. As regards Amendment No. 252AA, Clause 153 allows the Secretary of State to amend or appealall references to local education authorities and children’s services authorities in any statutory provision, replacing it with a reference to an English or Welsh local authority. Our amendment would require that any order made under this subsection be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. We welcome the powers in the Bill to change references to the terms ““local education authority”” and ““children’s services authority””. It is clear that the distinctions between the various types of authorities providing children’s services and education have been broken down and that to maintain these distinctions would serve no further use. However, this is a Henry VIII clause and for that reason the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee drew particular attention to it, stating in the report: "““We are not persuaded that the scope for any amendment of substance is so limited as to justify the negative procedure for this Henry VIII power. We therefore recommend in accordance with our general presumption that Henry VIII powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure, that the affirmative procedure should apply in this case””." The Department for Education and Skills justifies this decision in a memorandum to the report, which tries to reassure us by stating that: "““The great majority of such amendments will be straightforward amendments in the form of ‘for local education authority/children’s services authority, substitute local authority’””." It is clear from this that, in a minority of cases, the amendments will not be so straightforward. Indeed, the government memorandum goes on to say that in a few instances the amendments will affect the sense of a provision. This of course is inevitable. Where the law currently refers to a local education authority, simplistically replacing the phrase with ““local authority”” risks imposing massively expanding statutory duties or having unwanted consequences. When the order is produced, according to the department it will need to set out in detail amendments where such a simple substitution could not occur. It would do this by, for example, setting out a list of education functions to replace references to local authorities in their capacity as local education authorities. If the hitherto novel definition of education functions is to be incorporated into English law, it is extremely important as a matter of principle that it receives parliamentary backing. This is made all the more important by the immense scope of the proposed order. The policy statement produced by the department states that over 50 non-education Acts contain references to local education authorities and that the order is expected to take two years to complete. Both of these amendments, although substantively unrelated, seek to ensure that the Government act with the courage of their own previous convictions and those of the expert opinion of the officers of your Lordships’ House.