Pupil and parent guarantees

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 40 and 41.

Amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 44, leave out subsections (9) and (10).

Amendment 125, in clause 1, page 2, line 44, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment 155, in clause 1, page 2, line 45, after ‘person’, insert

‘provided that the bodies added do not include private schools.’.

Amendment 177, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, at end add—

‘( ) The Secretary of State shall, before issuing or revising the pupil guarantee document or the parent guarantee document, carry out an audit of the capacity of schools to comply with the pupil guarantee document and the parent guarantee document; and such audit shall include a consideration of the adequacy of the financial, training and any other requirements of schools to be able to comply with such guarantees.’.

Amendment 178, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, at end add—

‘( ) The Secretary of State shall evaluate the per pupil cost implications of the pupil and parent guarantees and take account of the different learning and developmental needs of pupils for the purpose of placing those cost implications into the draft guarantee.’.

Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, at end add—

‘( ) The Secretary of State shall append to the pupil and parent guarantees such guarantees as are necessary to secure sufficient trained staff and resources in the context of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document and agreements made in the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.’.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I know from experience that you will be fair, of light touch and have all the good things that we expect from a good Chairman.

Here we are about the start the clause-by-clause, line-by-line scrutiny of yet another education Bill from the Government. The amendments will enable us to debate the principle, purpose and effectiveness of enshrining into legislation a form of legal guarantee for the quality of education. Clause 1 is an odd provision. Most people would assume that they had been promised a certain quality of education when they elected a Government, particularly one who had in their manifesto a promise to deliver a quality education, and they would expect that to be delivered through a range of administrative, executive and legislative measures and through proper and careful funding out of taxes levied on the general public.

The Labour party’s 2005 manifesto set out the promise:

“We want to see every pupil mastering the basics. If they are not mastered by 11, there will be extra time in the secondary curriculum to get them right”.

It went on to say that

“Every pupil has the right to learn without disruption”.

It is odd therefore that, five years later, the Government feel the necessity to enshrine promises already made into legislation and into a series of guarantees set out in the two appendices to the White Paper. The view about the provisions is that, at best, they are just a waste of time and, at worst, they could lead to a proliferation of legalistic complaints.

Let us take one of the guarantees from the consultation document. Pupil guarantee 2.2 on page 24 states:

“The curriculum is tailored to every child’s needs so that every pupil receives the support they need to secure good literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, learn another language and about the humanities, science, technology and the arts”.

Given that 16 per cent. of 11-year-olds are not reaching level 4 in English, does that mean all the parents of those children should consider making a complaint to the local government ombudsman? Nearly 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds are failing to achieve level 4 in reading, writing and maths combined. Should the parents of those children take legal action? Furthermore, 9 per cent. of boys and 4 per cent. of girls fail to register a grade in the key stage 2 test taken at 11 years old. Surely the parents of those children have grounds for complaint. Last week, I visited a fine academy where half the year 7 intake had a reading age below 11 years and a third had a reading age of nine years or under. Those children have a lot to complain about in respect of their primary schools.

Clause 1(1) of the Bill that amendment 1 would amend states that the Secretary of State

“must issue, and may from time to time revise” a document setting out the pupil and parent guarantees. A draft of that document has just been published and put out for consultation. It states on page 8 that

“All maintained schools and all Academies must already have arrangements in place to consider any complaints from parents. But for those rare cases where concerns and complaints cannot be resolved at school level, parents can as a last resort take their complaint further. Parents can complain to the Local Government Ombudsman where their complaint relates to a maintained school or a local authority.”

If the local government ombudsman, having investigated the complaint, upholds it, paragraph 19 states:

“The LGO can recommend one or more of the following: where there has been a failure to make provision promised in the Guarantees, the LGO could seek to ensure that it is delivered”.

My question to the Minister is, how will the LGO “seek to ensure” that a primary school stops sending children to secondary school with a reading age of 9, 8, 7 or 6 and stops sending 33 per cent. of its pupils to secondary school with a reading age of 9 or under? Since the Minister, the Secretary of State and all his predecessors do not seem to know how to do this, why does the Minister think that the local government ombudsman will be able to do it?

In our evidence session on Tuesday I asked Mr. Redmond, the LGO, how he intended to ensure that the guarantee was delivered, he replied:

“I do not think that it is the role or responsibility of local government to change a school. My role is to consider a complaint that is presented to the commission after it has been properly considered by the school and the governing body...If I conclude that there is evidence that the guarantee has not been fulfilled, I recommend to the school that it consider how that guarantee should be fulfilled. As you rightly point out, it is a recommendation—I cannot enforce it—but I think by virtue of making that recommendation, I highlight the issues on which I feel that the school has fallen short in respect of fulfilling the guarantee...It is then for the school to decide how it should proceed.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 5-6, Q11.]

So Mr. Redmond would look at the evidence, which would clearly show that too many children at that primary school were not learning to read properly, and he would recommend that the school teaches those children how to read and then leave it up to the school to decide how to proceed. Would he examine the reading schemes used by the school? Is it read-write or Jolly Phonics? Does it use the whole-language approach? Is it still using the searchlights model? Does it use letters and sounds? Will the LGO or a member of his staff sit in lessons to see how the children are taught to read? Or will he just say, “They need to do better,” and, as he says, leave it to the school to decide how it should proceed?

In response to a question from the hon. Member for Yeovil, Mr. Redmond said:

“we are also conscious of the fact that in terms of curriculum and teaching, some of those things might step outside the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, and we would be conscious of how we proceeded in dealing with those.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 7, Q5.]

In other words, if I have interpreted the LGO’s words correctly, he will not venture into curricular or pedagogical issues. That makes most of the guarantees and indeed the whole apparatus pointless, because it is likely that  poor teaching or poor academic standards will make up the bulk of complaints arising from guarantees about our education system.

Dr. Daniel Moynihan of the Harris Federation summed up the issue when he told the Committee during our evidence sessions:

“If you look at some of the guarantees, every child is entitled to relevant and challenging learning in all subjects. Of course that is true, but can it be so because it is mandated by Government? If there are still some schools that do not achieve that now, I cannot see how central Government can guarantee it. There are other strategies that can bring that about.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 30, Q38.]

To take just one more example, guarantee 3.10 says that:

“every pupil identified as gifted and talented receives written confirmation by their school of the extra challenge and support they will receive”.

But according to The Observer this week,

“A government initiative to boost the performance of Britain's brightest schoolchildren is to be abandoned. The national academy for gifted and talented pupils, which received £20m funding, will be abolished next month with the money rediverted...It will now be scaled down to an online information resource.”

So will the guarantee now disappear from the draft consultation document? If so, does that mean that whenever there is a change in education policy or a redirection of £20 million of funding from a particular initiative, under clause 1 the Secretary of State will have to produce another document? Can the Minister also expand on what he has in mind in the phrase “from time to time” in clause 1? Does it mean that he will revise the document annually, or when there is a major change in education policy, or every two years, or every five years?

In Thursday’s evidence session we heard witnesses talking about the importance of children’s spoken language—something that has been neglected in recent years. We heard how some children are starting school with very poor spoken English and with a very limited vocabulary. In another interesting and well-researched article in The Observer, which is the newspaper of choice on these Benches, Mr. Amess, Harriet Sergeant compared a KIPP—knowledge is power programme—charter school in Harlem, New York with a school in east London. The KIPP school had high expectations and high academic standards. In the east London school, the pupils who sat around the reporter were:

“slouched in their seat, barely looking at me. These boys were just as bright”— as the pupils in the Harlem school—

“but they complained they were ‘bored out of our brains’. One said: ‘I want to do all those experiments. But the female teacher, she like talk to you about health and safety. She just treat you like a child.’

Afterwards their teacher described their inarticulacy as ‘a serious issue. It’s quite often the reason they get really frustrated’, yet she thought it ‘patronising’ to try to correct them. ‘I don’t want to push my middle-class values on them,’ she said.”

Perhaps the Minister could respond to that article, and the notion that teachers should not correct mistakes in spoken English.

I was very interested to read an article in one of the Sunday supplements—I cannot remember which one—about a school in London that was taking on the issue of communication, and was  banning “street language” in school. This was a state school. It felt, quite rightly, that—while we have all, in our private moments, and teenage years, used slang—for everyday use, in working life, we need to be able to speak English properly and be understood. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the situation we have just heard about. I do not share the values of the teacher who was quoted, but there are plenty of schools in the state sector that are being challenging and are not afraid to take on what might be seen as sensitive issues.

The right hon. Lady is quite right. I have visited many schools around the country that take that approach to education. They correct spoken English and written English, and they are very happy to correct pupils’ work when it is sent in. However, other schools take an ideological approach to these matters, and they believe that it is wrong to correct spoken English, for the reasons given by the teacher in the article. They believe it is wrong, sometimes, to correct written work, because that would undermine the flow and the child’s creative imagination. This is a big divide within the education profession and among the public. My own view is that children will flourish and boost their imagination and creativity only if they have the skills and tools—the grammar, the rules—to express themselves on paper. Children have to learn those rules so that using them becomes automatic, and they do not have to worry about them when they write, which can stifle creativity. The way to boost creativity is to get the teaching right according to tried and tested methods.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as we are dealing with such a huge expanse of schools in our country, in different regions, with different ethnic groups and so forth, we need to have checks and balances to make sure that delivery is happening in the way we want to see it on the ground? This is an opportunity for a parent to say to the local government ombudsman, “I don’t think the school is attending to the reading needs of my child because the teachers don’t even mark the homework. They don’t correct spelling mistakes.” Granted, the local government ombudsman cannot change that school around, but what if he could pass that information on to Ofsted, so that it becomes a focus for the inspections that might follow? Is not shining a bit of sunlight on this area really important? While the different tools are not perfect and do not solve 100 per cent. of the problems, they try to explore schools where the delivery of teaching, and the management and oversight of the school may not be as good as in others.

Again, the right hon. Lady makes some good points. However, Ofsted is already charged with those tasks and I hear, anecdotally, that many Ofsted inspectors would back up the teacher’s comments about not correcting spoken English. Often the problem with people in the world of education and its bureaucracy, is that they themselves have an ideological approach to education that they then promote through the offices they hold. The local government ombudsman will not be the answer to that because, as he said to the hon. Member for Yeovil,

“we are also conscious of the fact that in terms of curriculum and teaching, some of those things might step outside the jurisdiction  of the ombudsman, and we would be conscious of how we proceeded in dealing with those.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 7.]

So I do not believe that he will respond to the right hon. Lady’s challenge of shining a light on schools. He feels that on issues of curriculum and pedagogy the measure goes beyond his, or her, expertise. The question for the Minister is whether the correction of spoken English will be part of the pupil guarantees that are set out in the consultation document and in the document that clause 1 requires him to produce from time to time?

Amendment 1 replaces the word “must” with “may”; that empowers the Secretary of State to produce a pupil and parent guarantee document but does not force him to do so. That has support from the Liberal Democrats.

Amendment 41 exempts academies and city technology colleges from clause 1. Dr. Moynihan of the Harris Federation said last Tuesday:

“the overarching thrust of the Bill is that it reduces academy freedoms; it prescribes things that were not prescribed before and, in general for the schools system, we believe that the guarantees and the licence to teach are likely to be a bureaucratic nightmare.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 22 Q32.]

I am broadly supportive of much that the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I cannot understand why he wants to exempt one particular category of schools; surely the argument that he makes is one for exempting all schools.

Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are opposed to the pupil and parent guarantees for all schools. However, I make a separate point; with each piece of legislation emanating from the Department since the current Secretary of State took office—and from time to time before that—there seems to be a chipping away of the freedoms that apply to academies.

Academies, as with CTCs before them, are meant to have most of the freedoms of independent schools but without the need for parents to pay fees. Increasingly, and incrementally with each education Bill, those freedoms have been eroded. There are many examples in the 2009 Act; the clause is another example, and one of many in the Bill. It demonstrates what we always knew to be true—that the Secretary of State is as opposed to academies today as he was in the past, when, behind the scenes, he sought to undermine them and undermine education reform.

The clause applies the whole of the bureaucratic and ultimately pointless guarantee paraphernalia to academies and CTCs. Amendment 41 seeks to undo that. That is also the LGA’s view. In its brief to the Committee, it states:

“we believe the guarantees should be implemented in a way that avoids central prescription and maintains local flexibility to support the real engagement between schools, parents and pupils in a local area. ...

The draft document issued by the Secretary of State to accompany Second Reading to illustrate the intention of sub clause 1(1) runs to 407 paragraphs and 80 pages of detailed central prescription.

The word “should” features 268 times in the document and “must”, 264 times.

We believe that this level of control from Whitehall over the detailed implementation of the pupil and parent guarantees is completely unnecessary and will add to the already considerable burden of bureaucracy on the school system.”

Amendment 42 would remove subsections (9) and (10) from the clause, as it is a Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. We also support amendment 155, tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil, which would prevent the Secretary of State from extending his powers under the clause to the independent sector.

I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Amess, and also welcome hon. Members back to the Committee for the important part of our proceedings in which we scrutinise this extensive Bill which, if passed into law, will have a major impact on schools and those associated with them.

We come now to one of the big debates that Committee will have about the Bill—on the subject of pupil and parent guarantees, which could have a major implication for the funding of schools, the costs that will fall on their shoulders and the amount of bureaucracy with which they will have to get involved as a consequence of the rights of appeal to the local government ombudsman.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out the terms of the debate clearly, and even managed not to mention synthetic phonics—just about—although I am sure that we will return to that matter later in our proceedings. Liberal Democrat Members are having a sweepstake on how many times he will mention it. The hon. Gentleman clearly set out the purpose behind his amendments, however, and also referred to several that we have tabled, particularly amendments 125, 155 and 177 to 179.

Some of the amendments in the group are fairly detailed, and I would like to come on to those at the end of my comments. The substantive amendment, however, is the lead amendment: amendment 1. It questions whether the pupil and parent guarantees ought to be introduced on a mandatory and top-down basis, as the Government currently plan, and whether that is sensible. I will therefore spend a lot of my speech, particularly my early comments, considering whether it is sensible to implement the measures in the way that the Government have described.

Particularly, we question whether it is a good idea to impose the so-called guarantees in the way that the Government intend and whether the proposed guarantees are meaningful, appropriate and deliverable. We also want to question how much bureaucracy is likely to be associated with them, especially if there is an appeal route through the local government ombudsman. We also question the potential cost of implementing the measures and whether the Government have carried out a serious cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of implementing the pupil and parent guarantees. We also want to consider whether there is enough money in the system to guarantee them. We are therefore supporting—as should already be clear—amendment 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We note, as think that he did, that the amendment has the explicit support of the LGA.

There has been fairly widespread concern about what the parent and pupil guarantees will mean in practice. The hon. Gentleman referred to the LGA’s submission, which is typical of the concerns that have been expressed by many groups outside this place. Its concerns are that the measure will involve an extremely bureaucratic and prescriptive approach, and that implementing and policing  the guarantees might involve large costs. The Association of School and College Leaders has been persistently extremely critical of the measures, and the well-respected leader of that organisation, John Dunford, described the pupil and parent guarantees as a “whingers’ charter”. The ASCL, in its representation to the Committee, said that it believed:

“the creation of these guarantees will open the floodgates for increased litigation against schools. The introduction of these guarantees has the potential to create a ‘whingers’ charter’ and bring a proliferation of frivolous complaints by a minority of litigious parents, thereby serving to increase the work load of school leaders and undermine the work that schools have done”.

The National Union of Teachers has also been critical of the way in which the pupil and parent guarantees are being implemented. Although it understands that the intention behind many of the guarantees is positive, it fears that they will not be funded properly and that the proposal forms part of a bureaucratic process through which improvements in the school system are delivered. The TUC has echoed such concerns in its submission. In advance of the Second Reading debate, it expressed concerns that the new system should not entail a large bureaucratic burden, which would undermine the core functions of the work force of teaching and supporting pupils.

The question is not simply whether we should have pupil and parent guarantees—whether they are a good idea in principle—but whether the Government have framed the guarantees in the right way. Our party is not against having a set of minimum standards that public services must deliver. If those standards and undertakings are not met in a meaningful way, however, there is a real risk that citizens, when confronted by what is usually a monopoly in state public services, will not be able to get anything done if they feel that the service with which they are dealing is unresponsive. We think that it makes sense to frame a small number of guarantees and undertakings—in education, health and in other areas—that public service consumers can look to when they feel that they are being let down by an organisation.

May I make sure that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying—that the position of his party is to support the guarantees? Presumably he accepts that there would have to be a document, and alongside that, if the guarantees are to mean anything, a redress system. Notwithstanding the amendments that he has tabled, is he saying that he actually supports the establishment of a guarantee document?

No, I said that my party believes it is important that there should be a minimum set of core standards for all public services that should be sensibly framed, meaningful, easy to understand and with clear enforcement mechanisms.

Let me give the Minister an example that goes beyond schools. We have argued that people who cannot be seen by the NHS within a particular time scale should have the right to be seen by the private sector at a cost to the NHS itself, meaning that there is a clear penalty to the NHS if it fails to deliver a reasonable standard of service within a clearly defined time scale. I would distinguish such a guarantee—something that is clear and uncontroversial, and with a clear mechanism for redress, rather than a bureaucratic mechanism for redress—from the guarantees we are discussing today.

Let me lead the Minister and colleagues through some of the guarantees that the Government are setting out so that I may explain why we have concerns about them. The many guarantees that the Government are proposing have unclear definitions and it is debatable whether they could be implemented in a practical manner. I shall contrast those aspects of the pupil and parent guarantees with the types of guarantee that I argue could be meaningful, appropriate and deliverable. I am sorry for taking a while on this, but it goes to the heart of whether or not amendment 1 is sensible and whether these guarantees should be imposed on schools and other related bodies.

In paragraph 6 on page 6 of the White Paper, the Government trumpet that the pupil guarantee is a

“new Pupil Guarantee, setting out new entitlements to personalised support for every child”.

We will come back to that when we debate whether or not these guarantees are new and, if they are new, whether money will come along with them. The guarantees are set out in much greater detail in annexe A at the back of the White Paper. Let me take the Minister through some of the areas about which we have particular concerns, starting with pupil guarantee 5. For those who do not know the guarantees off by heart, it states how important it is

“that every 11-14 year-old enjoys relevant and challenging learning in all subjects and develops their personal, learning and thinking skills so that they have strong foundations to make their 14-19 choices. This will be phased in by September 2010.”

That seems to be a classic example of a badly framed, almost meaningless guarantee. I am astonished that the Minister is saying it will be phased in by September 2010 because I would assume that, in the Government’s view, every primary and secondary school is already delivering such an undertaking. If they are not, and the idea of phasing this in by September 2010 is to have any meaning, presumably the Minister can give us an estimate of how many schools are not delivering it at the moment.

I put this issue to the local government ombudsman in the evidence session and asked whether it would be possible for him to hold these guarantees to account in any meaningful way. I put it to the Minister and the Committee that it would be impossible for the ombudsman to reach any sensible conclusion on guarantees that are framed in such a wide and unclear way. Some of these guarantees are misleading, unclear and, in some senses, a fraud for the people to whom they are being offered. It would be very difficult to make them meaningful and to implement them.

When we were taking evidence last week, we asked the local government ombudsman representative about how he and his organisation were working with Ofsted. Did he not assure us they had been doing extensive work together to look into the guarantees and how they should be interpreted? The connection between a complaint going to the local government ombudsman and that complaint being taken up by Ofsted is very important. I asked if they were looking at different scenarios relating to the sort of complaints with which parents could come forward, and he said that that had been an ongoing piece of work  for some time, that it was continuing and that he was very satisfied with it. He did not feel as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about some of the issues that he is raising.

My recollection of what the ombudsman said is slightly different from the right hon. Lady’s, although I do not have the transcript immediately to hand. She is experienced enough to know that, on these occasions, representatives from public bodies are always somewhat diplomatic about what they say about legislation that is going through this place. In the case of the ombudsman, he realises that his job is to implement what is decided by Parliament, not to get too involved in such debates. Nothing in the transcript gives me great assurance that anyone would be able to make neither head nor tail of these so-called guarantees when they are so vaguely described.

Let me turn to some of the other guarantees contained in the document, because they raise other question marks about the way in which the Government propose to deliver them. I am talking about those set out on page 99 of the White Paper, which describe the important issue of one-to-one tuition. This seems to be the guarantee to which the Secretary of State constantly refers when he talks about them, so it is clearly the one he regards as most important.

There seem to be two separate guarantees in relation to one-to-one tuition. The first is for pupils between the age of seven and 11 who have fallen behind national expectations and are not making good progress. It seems that those individuals are to get one-to-one tuition, although only a set minimum amount per pupil. The other relates to pupils who begin secondary school behind national expectations in English and mathematics. They are to receive one-to-one tuition, or small group tuition. Those guarantees fall into the category of the Government defining the input into the process, but not the output. They are not guaranteeing whether young people will reach levels, but describing the input—and doing so in an extremely inflexible way. Why should they dictate that there should be one-to-one tuition in a particular setting, and one-to-one or small group tuition in other settings? I should have thought that most head teachers would expect the Government to set the aspiration, or to indicate their expectations for young people’s grasp of English and maths at particular levels, but then leave the schools free within a framework with intelligent accountability to deliver those results. They should not prescribe numbers of hours, sizes of small groups and ways in which schools should deliver the ultimate outcomes.

I also question whether the guarantees described on page 100 of the document are meaningful. Some bold-sounding guarantees describe access to PE and sport, competitive sport and even to cultural activities. They all sound quite marvellous and the Conservative spokesman for education, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), raised some of the supposed guarantees on Second Reading. As I recall, he questioned whether we could be confident that there was the money to deliver all those things. I question not so much whether there is the money to deliver them, but whether they mean anything because when we look at the small print, it does not say that there will be five hours for every five to 16-year-old of high-quality PE and sport and three hours for every 16 to 19-year-old. Nor does it say that  there will be five hours of cultural activity in schools each week. Of course, the press release says that. The aspiration is for newspapers to write that up, but the words used are all about access, and “access” could mean anything.

I could stick a sign on a notice board advertising a sports club down the road, and consider that that might constitute access, but I do not know whether access means anything if the gap between what actually happens in schools and what is framed under the guarantee is as wide as it could be. That is just as relevant for another guarantee on page 98 of the White Paper, which states that,

“every pupil aged 14-19 has the opportunity to undertake community service...by September 2009”.

What has happened over the past year to deliver that guarantee, which was apparently delivered by September 2009? Will the Minister tell us whether that is just meaningless gumph or whether anything has happened over the past year to make that supposed guarantee a reality? To me, it could be argued that it had been delivered by sticking something on a notice board, saying that there is an opportunity for community service. It sounds absolutely marvellous, but is it, in reality, completely meaningless?

My colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, might have been making the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made when he was leader of the council there, which is that policy is budget and budget is policy. If there is no money to back up such things and if there is not a budget to allow an improvement in the service, it is nothing more than a deceit practised on parents and pupils. If the Minister wants to ensure that the Bill makes a real change, he must make a genuine improvement in provision and, without a budget to do so, that is unlikely, whatever is written in the Bill.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will not be too partisan in pointing out that his party is the only one leaving open the door to reductions in the schools budget. I certainly support his basic argument. He knows as a member of the Select Committee that, when the Secretary of State was questioned on that specific issue by the Select Committee on 21 October, he was quite clear that he did not see the White Paper that implements pupil and parent guarantees as

“making new or additional commitments that would require additions to budgets.”

In other words, the view set out by the Secretary of State is that there is no extra money to go with such a provision and that it does not involve additional commitments. I find that quite odd because, at the beginning of the White Paper, we are told explicitly that it is a new guarantee that delivers new entitlements. It would be helpful to find out which of those assertions is wrong. Was the Secretary of State wrong in October to tell us that there is nothing new in the entitlements? Is the White Paper accurate when it says that they are new entitlements, which presumably require funding?

That leads us to funding. When we look into some of the guarantees, it seems that it would be difficult to deliver them without additional funding. I am thinking  in particular of the guarantees on, for example, careers education information—all secondary school pupils should

“have access to high-quality careers education and information”.

I would have thought—I think this is the view of most people involved in education—that at present in schools, there is a very big gap between that aspiration and the reality. It is difficult to imagine that that will be delivered without any new funding. Yet, in both the pupil and parent guarantees, there are explicit undertakings to have far better quality careers advice. Indeed, the parent guarantee states that parents should get

“high-quality information and advice on the career and subject choices open to their child”.

While we are on the issue of whether any of the measures are going to be financed, there is also an undertaking that parents should

“have access to a range of extended services by 2010 including: information and support on parenting skills and advice on parenting issues; childcare; activities; and opportunities to enhance their own learning and to learn with their child”.

Again, if that is to mean anything, something material will happen and be delivered— presumably within the next year. If it is to be a guarantee, it sounds as though it will cost a lot to deliver.

My main concern is not that the Department has not sought to identify some core deliverables, but that consumers of public services should be able to expect something, and have recourse if it is not delivered. However, we have here a series of unfunded guarantees, where there is a lack of clarity about whether they are new entitlements. Many of them are not meaningful and will be difficult to enforce. In many cases, they are simply not the appropriate guarantees that we should be making.

We would be naive if we thought that in 23,500 schools, however much funding there is, there will not be many parents and potentially pupils who feel that they are not getting the type of education described in the guarantees. The risk is that those parents will then go to the local government ombudsman. The type of checks, information and scrutiny involved in an ombudsman exercise—as all of us in this place know, having had a lot of experience, I suspect, of referring cases to the ombudsman—is far greater than the type of information and scrutiny that is expected of a head teacher, a governing body or perhaps even of a local authority. It would therefore involve a large amount of bureaucracy. Also, without going back too much to the debate about where the ombudsman’s powers were introduced in the first place, schools that believe that there may be a referral to the ombudsman would have to compile an awful lot of paperwork and keep an awful lot of records to be able to challenge a decision to go the ombudsman.

I have just been rereading the evidence from the first sitting, when the representative from the ombudsman said:

“Basically, our principal concern is to ensure that when we carry out an investigation, we look at what evidence is available. We will not conclude an investigation and reach a finding if there is no evidence to support the complaint.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 7, Q5.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only would there be the bureaucracy that he describes, but in many cases, it would be impossible for the ombudsman to access the sort of evidence that would be needed for the guarantees?

My hon. Friend is right. I thank her for finding the part of the evidence that I was not able to lay my hands on earlier. Trying to decide whether there is evidence to enforce pupil guarantee 5—that every 11 to 14-year-old should enjoy

“relevant and challenging learning in all subjects” and develop

“their personal, learning and thinking skills”, will be incredibly difficult. It would be difficult for the ombudsman to judge whether that guarantee had been met and to gather the evidence. We are therefore opening up a process that could be extremely expensive. I assume the Government have given that a lot of attention.

When we turn to the cost-benefit analysis that comes with the Bill, we find that there is no information provided. There is a great big hole. There is no estimated net present cost and no estimated net present benefit. Under “Assumptions”, it helpfully says that it believes that introducing the pupil and parent guarantees will be cost-neutral, suggesting that the Secretary of State’s view—that there is not much new here—is the correct view in contrast to the view set out in the White Paper, which talks about new entitlements and a new guarantee. It acknowledges that there may be an increase in complaints. Indeed, in the detail of the cost-benefit analysis, it says:

“Given that the Guarantees will clearly set out—

I question the words “clearly set out”— for the first time, what parents and pupils can expect from a school there may be additional costs accrued due to extra administration to deal with an increased number of complaints.”

That cost could be very large indeed. We know that the ombudsman and the Government have yet to come up with a cost estimate. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us whether there has been an update on that and whether there is a clearer idea of costs. We also know, although it is not properly costed in the cost-benefit analysis, that there will be additional costs as a consequence of advertising, or, as the cost-benefit analysis states:

“There may also be cost incurred to raise awareness of the Guarantees, in order that some of the benefits listed below are fully realised.”

In other words, the Government are talking about spending quite a lot of money to tell people about guarantees, which, in many cases, are going to be vague and unenforceable. I question not only whether the guarantees are meaningful and whether it will be easy to police them, but whether we want to spend additional money on bureaucracy and advertising when we have a £180 billion deficit in the public finances.

We need to consider everything that is in the Bill in the context of an environment where the Government have very little money to go round and where we need to be spending money on the front line, not on bureaucracy. Even without all the costs that should be in the cost-benefit analysis, the net present cost of the Bill is in the region of £1 billion, most of which goes to bureaucracy, not to the front line in schools. At a time when there are concerns about budgets, we should be setting an even higher hurdle and standard in terms of approving measures that are going to involve additional costs without clear benefits. Those are all the reasons why we do not want  to see the pupil and parent guarantees imposed in the way that is proposed in the Bill and why we would like amendment 1, which turns “must” into “may”, to be passed. I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will press that later.

I shall deal briefly with other amendments. I raised amendment 41 with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton earlier. I understand what he is getting at in that amendment, which seeks to give an opt-out from the pupil and parent guarantees to academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. However, we are very much opposed to picking out particular classes of schools and suggesting that they should have powers and freedoms separate from those of other publicly funded schools. We cannot therefore support that amendment. We believe that the opt-out should apply to all schools.

Amendments 42 and 125 would both provide protection from a Secretary of State who wished to change the bodies to which the guarantees refer, and to change those in the Bill. We agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that we should resist such a provision and, thus, avoid the Secretary of State’s changing things by the back door.

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to amendment 41? I am trying to follow his logic. He does not support it because it does not go far enough. He says that it does not provide an opt-out for all schools because it is selective. I put it to him that a little of a good thing is better than none of a good thing. What is his rationale? Why can he not support the amendment for going in the right direction?

My rationale is that it is irrational to choose certain schools and to say that they should have freedoms, but that others should not. The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), the Minister’s predecessor, used to have a lot of correspondence with me each time a new burden was introduced by the Government from which academies were exempt. He never managed in any of the letters that I received to explain remotely how the Government could justify imposing requirements on some maintained schools and not on others. One of the best examples was cooking, which is a compulsory subject in all maintained schools, but from which for some reason academies can opt out. It is dotty to give freedoms to some schools, and not to others. If anything, the only schools that should not have such freedoms are those that are most challenged and most underperforming. In many cases, academies will have taken over very underperforming schools, and to give them freedoms that are not available to high-performing maintained schools seems plain stupid.

I wonder whether I can help the hon. Gentleman understand the issue. He has tabled amendment 155, which makes it clear that he does not believe that the guarantees should be extended to independent schools. Well, academies are independent schools in every way, except that they are funded by the state. That is the whole essence of academies. They are meant to have all the freedoms of independent schools, but are funded by the state. That is what we are trying to achieve.

There is quite a big difference. I am trying to distinguish between the powers and freedoms that all state-funded schools should have. The Conservatives have not put forward a strong argument, neither have the Government in the past, for distinguishing between the two when they are state funded. It is another matter to say that privately funded schools should not have such impositions placed on them, and that is what amendment 155 would do.

It strikes me more and more that the hon. Gentleman’s party is moving away from its core principles. It used to believe in diversity. Indeed, if I recollect properly, the actual constitution of the Liberal Democrat party is that it opposes conformity. However, it seems to do so only in the wording of its constitution, not in practice.

We believe in diversity for everyone, not for a selected few. Under the amendment tabled by the Conservatives, there would be the ability to do things differently and to be protected from central impositions, but it would relate to only a tiny number of state-funded schools. That is ridiculous. We are a party that believes in freedom. We want to liberalise. We want the freedoms to be available to 23,500 schools—not 200—and that is a sensible and liberal position.

Does that mean that the Liberal Democrat party’s position is that it wants the academies’ movement to be extended immediately to 23,500 schools? It is taking our policy one step further.

We certainly want the freedoms that academies have over things like the curriculum to be extended to all schools. We have said that very clearly. We do not necessarily want each maintained school to become an academy unless there is clarity over the strategic oversight and, at the moment, I fear that there is no such clarity under Conservative policy.

I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Will he spell out precisely how the freedom in respect of the national curriculum would be given to all schools? Would there be an opt-out? Would there be a formalised procedure? Would it have to go through the governing body? Would there be a vote of parents at the school? Would the local authority need to approve? How exactly would the freedom from the curriculum in the Liberal vision of governance take shape?

What there would be—if I can get away with this without you ruling that I am out of order, Mr. Amess—is a minimum curriculum entitlement and a minimum obligation in relation to the curriculum for all schools that would set out what would be delivered in every school. On top of that, however, there would not be compulsion. For example, there would be no compulsion for cooking in every maintained school except academies. There would be clarity in some areas where academies currently use their powers and freedoms to do precisely the types of things that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would like them not to do. Many academies are using their power and freedoms not to teach subjects such as history up to age 14 and to start the key stage 4 curriculum earlier. Academies are using flexibilities and freedoms to drop core subjects such as history, and they are doing so in  much greater numbers and proportions than other maintained schools. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for his questions. I am pleased that he is here not only to have a go at Mr. Badman, but to—

Have a go at you.

I think that I would rather that Mr. Badman remains in the spotlight as far as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness is concerned.

Amendment 155 is important; I want to return to that in case it gets lost in our debate. It would ensure that private schools would not be subjected to the potential horrors of parent and pupil guarantees, however well meaning they are. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a guarantee on that issue. If he is not able to do so, it is something to which we might want to return when considering whether we need to press any of the amendments in the group to a Division.

Amendments 177 to 179 relate to funding. Amendment 177 would oblige the Secretary of State to carry out an audit to investigate whether schools have the necessary resources to implement the pupil and parent guarantees. That would give at least some assurance to people in schools who think that some of the guarantees might involve quite a lot of additional cost, which the Secretary of State is on record as saying will not be funded by the Government from additional central moneys.

Amendment 178 would oblige the Secretary of State to evaluate the cost implications of pupil and parent guarantees, and to take account the needs of different pupils, while amendment 179 would oblige him to take account of the potential staffing and resource implications of delivering guarantees. We hope that the Minister will find some of the amendments helpful, as he will no doubt want clarity on the issue of funding.

It is clear that there are particular amendments that we would like to see adopted, but we also have a major concern about the whole thrust of the Government’s planning in this area. We do not question their good intentions, but we believe that their proposals will lead to a bureaucratic maze, not to better school standards for most pupils and parents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. This is my first Bill Committee since 1999—I cannot understand why, but there we are.

I would like to dwell for a few moments on the question of inclusion or exclusion from the guarantee. I am broadly in favour of the guarantees under the Bill. I acknowledge that there will be difficulties in their implementation, but I am quite sure—I have great confidence—that our teachers, head teachers and parents will work constructively to promote a serious, real, deep and lasting improvement to the way in which our schools deliver for pupils and the aspirations of their parents.

I want to deal with the question of the inclusions of academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. Of course they should be included. They are the great guardians of diversity, for which we should be reading “difference”, as many parents seek not to get their children educated along with the mass, but, in a way, to create a difference. The diversity  is a cloak, and I hope that as we go through the Bill, people will recognise that we should be blunt and frank about the purposes some have in seeking to create a difference in education to gain longer-term life advantages.

I am fully in support of the Government’s inclusion of academies, city technology colleges and city colleges in their proposals for guarantees. I hope that Labour Members will recognise this is an important step in ensuring all children have an equal opportunity in their schooling. The quicker we close down the differences—while of course preserving a measure of diversity for those who want it—the better it will be for all children concerned and the nation as a whole.

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.

I want to make a few brief points. It is still very difficult for parents to navigate their way through what they can expect from a school. There are some fantastic examples of schools that engage with parents and have clear communications, but I am afraid that some schools do not. In particular, when it comes to secondary schools, this becomes more of a problem, although this is nothing to do with the school itself. The nature of a secondary school means that children are going to school more or less by themselves, so the sort of conversations that primary school parents and teachers might have at the school gate are not as likely.

Speaking as someone who considers herself confident in most situations, I saw a very big change in the relationships that my husband and I had with teachers and staff in primary schools compared with those in secondary schools. It is the nature of the change that is difficult. Regardless of legitimate concerns that hon. Members are expressing about the meaning of the guarantees and the way in which they will be taken up by the local government ombudsman, it is worth saying that in the 21st century in our state supported sector, including in academies and other schools, we should have something in place to give parents the chance to have a worthier, more productive discussion with the school of their choice about what their children should receive.

To that end, I think that the consultation that is under way on what the guarantees should look like is important. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners and his colleagues in the Department will be mindful that that piece of work is absolutely essential if we are to have confidence about the guarantees, as are the points that have been made about what the costs might be.

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady’s comments, which are informed by her own experience. Does she believe that there should be a guarantee that would allow a parent to meet the head teacher of the school when they wished to do so?

I do not see why not. I am going to be careful about my choice of words here. I meet a lot of constituents—perhaps other Committee members do as well—who lack confidence about what they can ask for within a school. It never fails to surprise me when  people come to my surgery and raise issues about their relationships with schools. I am pleased to say that it does not happen every day of the week, but it happens occasionally. I sometimes wonder, by putting myself in their place, why they do not feel they can ask for certain things and are coming to a Member of Parliament to find out if they can ask for them.

As was said during last week’s evidence session, clearly several of these guarantees are in place in some schools. A number of other schools are fulfilling newer entitlements as well. This is about trying to create a platform of clearer expectations for schools that parents can have, and also about bringing in best practice so that it becomes the mainstream. This issue of funding is quite important here. While some schools are granting these entitlements and some are not, actually raising and mainstreaming best practice is not a bad thing. If some schools are already providing in these areas, it gives rise to the question of what additional money is needed. Perhaps people in those schools are smarter about how they use their resources and have looked at their guarantees to parents as a more holistic, meaningful and integrated aspect of what they do as a school. This is not about a separate cost measure here or there; it is just part of the ethos of that school.

One thing I have found difficult over the years as an MP and as a Minister is seeing fantastically good practice but then pulling my hair out and saying, “Why can’t we mainstream more of that?” The Government need to consider what works and help to make it more mainstream. They should certainly give parents the tools on the ground to demand better. The other sad fact of life is that expectations in our poorer communities can be pretty low, even—dare I say—among the public servants and bodies who are charged with raising expectations in those communities. Sometimes the community and parents, perhaps because they left school early themselves and did not have a good experience, can find it difficult to ask for what they should expect from the schools that their children attend.

I think that the guarantees are at least an opportunity to try to set out better what parents should be looking and asking for. If that is set alongside other ways in which parents can be more fully involved—this is probably why Save the Children and the National Children’s Bureau support the guarantees—that can only be good. Having said that, the point has been raised about whether academies should be involved. It is important to set out what everyone should generally be supporting, but the ways in which schools go about doing it can vary, and that is where innovation and creativity in a school can come in. We heard a bit about that last week when we were talking about areas of learning and cross-curriculum activities and themes. I think schools will approach guarantees in different ways, but the important thing is that the parent can stand back and say, “Do you know what? I am pretty satisfied about how they supported that guarantee and made it work.”

Mr. Amess, good morning to you and the Committee. It is very good to be serving under your and Mrs. Anderson’s chairmanship. I also welcome the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, for Yeovil and for East Worthing and Shoreham and all other members of the Committee, including my hon. Friends.

We have had an informative and interesting debate and I hope that we will continue in that vein. There will obviously be points of difference, but I think that the Committee will try to clarify certain points and to improve the Bill where necessary. The tone of this debate represents a welcome start.

Further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, the Government are trying to lay out what the state’s offer is for the young people of this country. This radical, reforming measure tries to pull together all the various things that we would expect to be going on in our state schools—academies, city technology colleges and local authority maintained schools. To set that out and say, “This is what you as a pupil should be able to expect from your school, and this is what you as a parent should be able to expect,” is a difficult and challenging task, but it is a task from which we will not and should not shirk.

I concede that the hon. Member for Yeovil made one or two quite detailed and relevant points about the nature of the guarantees, as did the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. There is a consultation going on, if they want to contribute, and we will take account of remarks made in Committee.

I understand the points that have been made about entitlements and offers. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was careful about saying that he was totally opposed and he talked about an optional process. At the end of the day, many things in the White Paper are things that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, people expect to be going on in schools. The reality is that that is absolutely true—it is what is going on in many schools. The aspiration of this Government—and of all of us, I am sure—is that it should happen in every single school in every single community so that no child is disadvantaged. That is what we are trying to lay out in the document. It is a challenge; it is difficult. The easy option would be not to do it. Not spelling out what the state’s offer should be is the easy option, but we are not prepared to choose that.

The Minister says that many of the guarantees are already being delivered in schools. Will he clarify and comment on the guarantee on page 98 of the White Paper that states that every 11 to 14-year-old should enjoy “relevant and challenging learning”? It states that that is to be

“phased in by September 2010”.

Is it the Government’s view that a number of schools are not already delivering that guarantee?

One would have to say that every school is attempting to deliver a relevant and challenging curriculum, but whether every school is doing it to the standard that we want is another question. We are trying to spell out for parents and pupils that there is a standard that we want to see, and a type and quality of education provision that we expect in a school, including through the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the standard that we want to see met, not only in some schools, but in every single school. Frankly, many schools will deliver that.

I shall deal with some of the specifics that were raised. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton talked about what the local government ombudsman can do and what the redress would be. I refer him to paragraph 19 on page 12 of the White Paper, where the powers of the ombudsman, which we are putting out for consultation, are laid out. The things that the ombudsman can do, should a complaint be referred, are clearly listed. For example, the ombudsman could recommend

“a different action by the school or provider, which may be appropriate when something to which a parent or pupil is entitled has not been provided for a significant time to their detriment”.

There could be the recommendation

“that practices be changed for the future” or

“that the school or local authority provide additional training for its staff.”

The document goes on to say that the ombudsman could publish its recommendations to the school and require it or the local authority to publish a response.

People might say, however, “That is fine. They have published a response, but what happens then?” Several of my hon. Friends have raised that point. Should the Secretary of State believe that the school has failed, or be dissatisfied with the action that the school, governing body or local authority has taken, he can direct that redress should be taken. This is therefore not a meaningless paper exercise.

This comes to the root of the guarantees. The Minister says that the ombudsman can publish his recommendations, but how can he recommend a change in the approach to teaching reading in a primary school if he does not feel competent enough to engage in curriculum or pedagogical issues? That is the conundrum that lies at the heart of the guarantees.

The LGO clearly is a professional who will publish those things that he is confident about publishing and make recommendations that he considers that he has the capacity, knowledge and the skills to make. I want to put it on record that when the majority of parents talk to a class teacher, matters are resolved. In a few cases, parents will go the head of year or head of house, when the problem is often resolved. In fewer cases, parents then go to the head teacher or the governing body. We call that the normal complaints procedure. I am sure that, as parents, many of us have been to school only to ask about what is going on rather than to complain. It is only when there is a feeling that certain things that are laid out as guarantees have not been met that such a form of redress is given to the local government ombudsman.

The Minister said that he expects only a few complaints to get through to the ombudsman level. Has the Department come up with an estimate of the numbers we are talking about in respect of the ombudsman and the likely costs?

A figure of about 2,200 was mentioned in the impact assessment, which deals with complaints made to the ombudsman. If I dig through the pages, I  could find it. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the figure of 2,200 as being the number of complaints. I do not have the actual details in front of me.

Does not the 2,200 relate to measures under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, not to the guarantees under the Bill?

That is right. I was describing what had happened in the past. I do not know whether the figure will be less or more, but the figure of 2,200 applies, as the hon. Gentleman said, to previous legislation. I was just using it to show him where we are.

I am grateful to the Minister for being so patient, but the figure will not be less, will it? Given that there are new powers relating to matters that can be taken to the ombudsman, the figure will be higher than it was under the previous Act. Surely we need some sort of estimate of how much higher it will be?

I do not know whether the figure will be higher. One of the things we could say, for example, is that when guarantees are laid out with statutory force, in many circumstances, practice will improve to the extent that people will not feel the need to go to the ombudsman because the variability to which we have referred will not be there. All we have done is explain the figure under the previous Act. We are speculating about the future, but initially we expect the schools to deal with parental complaints or concerns, and that the majority of them will.

I turn now to a broader point. The idea that because we change policy or how we do something means that we will abolish a desire to help gifted and talented pupils is nonsense. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton cannot be accused of wanting to abolish the desire to help all children read because he is obsessed with phonics, but that is the consequence of his argument. No one disagrees with the idea that all children should read, but because we disagree with how people are doing it and wish to see the policy change, that does not mean that we want to abolish the objective of everyone reading. That is exactly what we have done with gifted and talented children. We just think that there is a better way of doing it, and that does not mean that we are undermining our desire to help those who are gifted and talented. That will remain our overall objective, and that is true of all our guarantees.

How the guarantees are met will, in most circumstances, be a matter for the schools to determine. We are saying that for the state to lay out what is to be expected is the right thing to do.

Guarantee 3.10 in the consultation document says that:

“every pupil identified as gifted and talented receives written confirmation by their school of the extra challenge and support they will receive”.

Do I take it from the Minister’s comments that that guarantee will remain and that, despite the fact that £20 million of funding is going, schools will continue to be required to identify those children and to confirm that in writing?

Yes. That is the policy at the moment and it is the intention to do that.

I will not continue with the “gifted and talented” question. However, let me ask the Minister another question. He has just said that it will be up to schools to decide how to deliver the guarantees. Surely that is not the case in relation to the tuition guarantee. The Government are actually stating—and differentiating between primary and secondary schools—how the one-to-one extra tuition guarantee will be implemented. Why on earth should the Government prescribe how that should be delivered?

On “gifted and talented”, which is what I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask about, the money has not changed at all: it is just a different way of using the money. This is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made, and which I was going to make at the end of my remarks but will make now, because it is relevant. The hon. Gentleman’s view of any reform is that there must be more money. Why is it that, in a significant number of schools up and down the country, many of these guarantees are being implemented anyway, with exactly the same amount of money as a school—maybe a few miles away, or 50 miles away—that is not providing the same entitlement to its pupils?

On one-to-one tuition, we have said to schools that, in key stage 3, we will provide the funding for one-to-one tuition or small group work. In key stage 2, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is one-to-one tuition. However, as I pointed out to him on Second Reading, in key stage 1 it is also one-to-one tuition and small group work. It will be for schools to determine the best way to use one-to-one tuition and small group work. I think the hon. Gentleman said we are obsessed with it—I am obsessed with it, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is, too. All the evidence supports us. A university—from memory, Bristol university—has done some work on the impact of one-to-one tuition and small group work on children who are behind in numeracy and literacy. I apologise to the Committee if, from memory, I have got this wrong, Mr. Amess. However, there has certainly been a recent piece of research from one university that has shown the dramatic impact of that work on literacy and numeracy.

Mr. Lawsrose—

I will give way to all hon. Members, as long as we do not get to the point where everyone says, “The Minister has taken hours.”

I am very grateful to the Minister. It really is helpful when he is willing to engage in a proper debate.

I certainly am not objecting to one-to-one tuition. I am objecting to the Government’s prescribing, in a very detailed way, how it should be delivered. Is the Minister saying to me that the moneys in this area will not be as ring-fenced as I think, and that no particular cohort will be required to have one-to-one tuition, rather than small group work, if the head teacher and class teacher decide that small group work is a better way to deliver a lesson than one-to-one tuition?

I think I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that—from memory—if he looks at the entitlement with respect to key stage 1, it says one-to-one tuition and small group work.

It is the other way round.

I cannot remember which way round it is, without thumbing through it. In key stage 1, it says small group work and one-to-one tuition. With key stage 2, it says one-to-one tuition. With key stage 3, it says one-to-one tuition and small group work. So, in two out of the three, it says one-to-one tuition and small group work. In one of them, it says just one-to-one tuition. As for the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the huge amount of additional money that the Government are making available to primary schools—and to year 7 in order to catch up—we want schools to use that, either through small group work or one-to-one tuition in a way that will enable those pupils who have fallen behind to catch up.

This question of one-to-one tuition is at the heart of the guarantee and the resolution of difficulties. It seems to me that one-to-one tuition and small group work are ideal ways of resolving problems for parents who feel that their children are not receiving the sort of tuition that will guarantee those particular outcomes. The hon. Member for Yeovil is right to say that this is complicated. We are laying out in detail the state’s offer, which substitutes for what the hon. Gentleman would understand as the crude supply and demand model of the private sector, whereby a parent simply decides, either by deep analysis or whim, that they will leave their child at a school or take their child away. The state has to set out that offer in detail, and that is what we are doing now.

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. This is a passionate debate for all of us. None of us wants to see young people fall behind in this area. The hon. Member for Yeovil talks about funding: more than £300 million of additional investment will be made next year to deliver the guarantee. This is a consultation—people have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about one-to-one tuition and small group work—but I wish to confirm that, in key stage 1 the guarantee is of small group work or one-to-one tuition; in key stage 2 the guarantee is of one-to-one tuition; and at key stage 3 the guarantee is of one-to-one tuition or small group work. That is where the guarantee stands at the moment. Our key point is that the Government are investing in a tried and tested manner to ensure that young people who fall behind are given the support they need in order to catch up.

We in Doncaster are in receipt of additional money intended to support catch-up programmes. I have an outstanding letter from the council detailing how it will support the implementation of this. Clearly, whether it is one-to-one tuition or small group work, it is important that there is early assessment of whether the programme is working. I hope that local authorities see this as part of their role as well as that of the schools; we should not have to wait another academic year to see whether this is working or not. From my experience, some intervention work can lead to extraordinary results in a matter of months—within a  school term. I hope that will be focused on; the outcomes will be important, but we also need to recognise that we sometimes need a different approach to learning, especially when a child has fallen behind and the whole-class approach is not working.

I agree with that. The prize is enormous. For years we have been struggling with young children—sometimes in the most disadvantaged and difficult areas, but not always—who have fallen behind, particularly in literacy. Boys in particular often have difficulties with writing. If, through the guarantee, we can do something about that, we will do an enormous amount to break the link between social deprivation and educational attainment and achievement.

Outside the debate, obviously I support the concept of individual and personalised teaching. Could the Minister give a guarantee that the money that is pledged for small group work, for example, will not detract from effective work with parents to ensure that work carries on at home? Particularly at key stage 1, that must continue regardless of these extra guarantees.

That is a fair point. This is not about replacing good practice in schools involving parents. I went to a scheme at Wandsworth where prisoners were encouraged to talk to their sons and daughters. All these things are important. This is not about replacing them, it is about working alongside them.

Let me move on to a couple of other points. Of course we should correct language where appropriate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said. I say to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that guarantee 2.2 is a guarantee for the curriculum, but he will notice that it is a guarantee for the curriculum to be tailored to the pupils. That does not mean that we are tailoring the curriculum because pupils have not reached the appropriate level, as he complained. As he knows, tailoring the curriculum to the particular needs of individual pupils gives them more chance of reaching the level that is required and expected of them.

The guarantee says:

“so that...every primary pupil receives the support they need to secure good literacy”.

Will the Minister define what is meant by “good literacy”? If he cannot define it, that is more evidence that the guarantees are meaningless. I suspect that “good literacy” means that by the time a child is 11, they have reached level 4 in English.

The hon. Gentleman will know that we set a target with respect to young people and level 4. Now—again this is from memory—approximately 80 per cent. are achieving level 4. That is a dramatic increase in the number of primary school children reaching the expected level. The aim of the guarantee is to continue that work. Of the 20 per cent. who do not reach level 4, two thirds have special needs.

What are the special needs?

They vary from children with significant special needs who are in special schools to those with another form of learning difficulty that causes them  problems with reading. Dyslexia is another issue, which is why we have put investment into that. The British Dyslexia Association and others would say that personalising learning to a greater extent than has already happened for some young people with special needs will accelerate their progress. As some Committee members will know, one of the big problems with dyslexia has always been diagnosing or recognising it. Of course, we want every young person to achieve what they are capable of, and by tailoring the curriculum to their particular individual needs, there is more opportunity for them to do so.

This is very important. Does the Minister mean that guarantee 2.2 states is that every pupil in a school, other than those children with a special educational need related to learning difficulty, should be receiving a level 4 in English?

We have set our target—

I am talking about the guarantee.

The guarantee is to tailor the curriculum to the needs of the individual pupil. Our target is that all pupils who are able will reach level 4. The expectation is that the guarantee of tailoring will enable more young people to reach the target that is expected of them.

I understand what my hon. Friend says about children with special needs and their capacity, with support, to reach level 4. I respect organisations such as the British Dyslexia Association. However, I hope we will be mindful of the labelling of children. I firmly believe that there are children in our school system who have received the label of special educational needs when the real issue is parenting, concentration skills, and skills associated with early development. The right sort of one-to-one or group work could lead to them no longer being defined as children with special educational needs. We need to remember that, instead of allowing labels to get in the way. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend is in support of this, but early labelling sometimes masks issues that can be put right to allow children to be set on the right track again. We have seen that with some interesting literacy projects in schools that went back to basics to see what had gone wrong. Children who had been regarded as badly behaved, non-attentive and lacking in concentration skills—which was barring their ability to learn to read—were completely transformed and turned around.

I agree with that, and of course we should never label children. We should always try to identify any needs that they have and ensure that the curriculum is matched to those so that they can achieve the best that they possibly can—whatever that is. That applies as much to gifted and talented pupils as to those with particular learning difficulties.

The guarantee does not only say that the curriculum should be tailored to meet every child’s needs. It says:

“so that...they...secure good literacy”

If the Minister interprets that sentence, which I admit is ambiguous, to mean that there is no guarantee in this  guarantee that children will secure good literacy, it is an interesting revelation. He otherwise needs to say that he expects all children, other than those with a statement of special educational needs for learning difficulty, to receive a particular level in literacy, otherwise it makes the thing pointless. Will he also tell the Committee about the pilot that has been conducted into the guarantees, which was referred to in the evidence session?

I will come back to the pilot.

I am sorry to repeat this, but the important point is the tailoring of the curriculum to ensure that all pupils achieve the very best that they can. Obviously that will be difficult for some pupils with special educational needs, but by tailoring the curriculum, we can ensure that more pupils reach level 4, which is the target and the standard that we want.

The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned the issue of access, which is an important point. Sometimes we will expect a school to be able to deliver certain things, but in the modern world, as the hon. Gentleman will know, many schools provide additional opportunities for their pupils by ensuring that they have access to out-of-school clubs, which they themselves may not run. They provide access to leisure centres and outdoor pursuits, as I see time and again when I go out and about. Schools provide access to opportunities, but to go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, that that is often variable. Some schools with exactly the same resources as others—

Mr. Lawsrose—

I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to talk about funding.

Mr. Lawsindicated dissent.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Access to additional, important things such as sport, outdoor adventure and foreign trips is available to some pupils. We are trying to say through the guarantee, “Why should that be available to some and not everyone?” That is our challenge for schools.

That is certainly an important point, but the issue I want to raise with the Minister is not funding but what access actually means. It sounds great to think that we can offer access and that suddenly people will be doing a lot of sport, going to museums and taking part in community service. However, what will a school or college have to do to deliver access? Does that mean that pupils will have to attend, even if the activity is out of school? Will the requirement be met simply by sticking a sign up saying, “There’s a community service if you’d like to join it and a rugby club if you’d like to join that”? What sounds like a rich guarantee could be pretty meaningless. The way in which schools deliver the access and the extent to which the process is passive will be crucial.

It is not passive at all. The idea is to try to make an active guarantee to ensure that this is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a case of someone putting up a notice about a rugby club. Many schools will not do that. This is a determined, proactive way to try to  generate interest and information about what is available and to encourage the attitude and desire to take advantage of it.

The hon. Gentleman is a bright individual and he knows what access means—it means exactly what it says. It is not meant to be a platitude or an empty piece of rhetoric. It is meant to challenge schools to ask how they try to provide additional opportunities for those young people for whom it is responsible that the school itself might not be able to provide with its facilities. Many schools up and down the country do that with sports and cultural activity. Through the guarantee, we are saying that such drive, enthusiasm and determination needs to be replicated in every school.

Does the Minister agree that the guarantee will be incredibly difficult to police? In some areas, there will be large numbers of people who will not end up taking up the guarantee of five hours’ culture through attending museums, libraries and performing arts organisations. There will be schools in which the vast majority of pupils do not reach the five-hour access target. How will it be possible for the LGO to ascertain whether that is because the opportunities that have been offered were not taken up, or because the school has not been serious about them? Surely the proposal will be incredibly difficult to implement and assess in practice.

I think that shrugging one’s shoulders and saying that that is not possible for a lot of schools represents a poverty of aspiration. I accept that it might be challenging and difficult for some schools. Some schools have difficulty providing it, and it is a challenge to every school. On how the LGO will look at the issue, the ombudsman has an obligation to act reasonably and will be reasonably able to demonstrate that a school has done as much as possible to deliver the guarantee. That is something that I think is acceptable.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, there is an 18-month pilot of the parents’ complaints service in the LGO that has arisen under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which passed into law a few months ago. Four areas are being piloted for six months, and 15 other areas are being piloted for one year. Depending on the outcome of the pilots, the measure will go nationwide in 2011. The results for the four six-month pilot areas will be published in September 2010, and those for the 15 one-year pilot areas will be published in the early summer of 2011. If the hon. Gentleman was not able to write that down, I will give him the figures again at the end.

I am grateful for that helpful answer.

Guarantee 2.3 states that every pupil should have the opportunity to learn how to play a musical instrument. Will that be for free?

My understanding is that it will be free.

I think that I have answered many of the points that hon. Members have made—

Will the Minister give way one more time?

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that I will not give way when I make my formal remarks about the amendments because otherwise we will never get to the end.

I thought that the Minister was about to conclude his speech. All I was looking for was a reassurance that he would respond to some of the amendments.

Everyone takes the mick when people say, “I hope that no one will complain about the amount of time that I have taken.” There we go. I will now formally respond to the amendments, take no more interventions, and finish in about 10 to 15 minutes.

Amendment 1 would make issuing guarantee documents an option rather than a duty for the Secretary of State. However, a guarantee cannot be optional. All parents and pupils must know what they can expect and what they are guaranteed to receive from state-funded schools, including academies. That can happen only if the document is issued.

The pupil and parent guarantees build on the great improvements to the school system of the past decade. They describe key elements of our school system, drawing together existing and new entitlements. They also introduce vital new entitlements in a number of important areas, such as one-to-one tuition for primary pupils and those in year 7, and a personal tutor for every pupil in year 7 through to year 11. It is therefore essential that documents are issued to guarantee the entitlements, and it is right that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to do so.

A number of the amendments deal with the schools to which the guarantees apply. The first is amendment 41, which would mean that parents and pupils at academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts would not benefit from entitlements provided by the pupil and parent guarantees. The guarantees apply to all maintained schools—primary, secondary and nursery schools—as well as maintained special schools and short-stay schools. They also apply to academies and it is right that they do so.

Academies are a valuable and significant part of our family of schools, but pupils and their parents should have the same fundamental entitlements in other state-funded schools. This is about what pupils and parents should be entitled to expect from all state-funded schools and does not threaten academies’ core freedoms, which we will continue to maintain, as we know they have been key to raising standards and improving the lives and chances of their pupils.

Amendments 42 and 125 seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend by order the list of persons and bodies on which the guarantees can impose legally binding requirements including guidance, aims and objectives. Both amendments would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend the list of types of schools to which the pupil and parent guarantees apply. Currently the Bill places requirements on local authorities in England, governing bodies and other proprietors of schools, as well as head teachers.

Subsections (9) and (10) are important, but we anticipate using the power within them only rarely. They are necessary to ensure that the lists of schools and bodies  to which the guarantees apply can be amended to reflect changes in the structure of the education system. They would permit the guarantees to impose requirements on other bodies in future if that were considered appropriate, again to reflect changing circumstances and practice, or to reflect the creation of a new body. By requiring a positive resolution of both Houses to approve any order amending subsections (2) and (8), we are ensuring that any changes would receive the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament, which they would deserve.

Amendment 155 seeks to amend subsection (9)(a) so that the bodies on which duties can be placed would not include private schools. There is currently no legal definition of private schools so its effect would be uncertain. However, for the record, we do not intend to add heads and proprietors of independent schools that are not state-funded to clause 1(2) or (8). To do so would enable the guarantees document to place duties on them.

Amendment 177 would add an additional requirement to clause 1. It would require the Secretary of State, before issuing or revising the guarantees, to carry out an audit of a school’s capacity to comply with them. This would include a consideration of training needs and financial and any other requirements. The amendment argues for proper financial consideration as we produce the guarantees and of course, that is what we intend to give. That is why the Government have the impact assessment process in place and why an assessment was published alongside the consultation draft pupil and parent guarantees on Second Reading. It is clear to me that we are following an established process. An additional audit simply is not practical, and is likely to be an expensive and unnecessarily bureaucratic process.

The pupil and parent guarantees are fully funded. As we have set out on a number of occasions, many of the elements of the guarantees draw together existing requirements, which have been established over the past 12 years and more, within the context of rising funding. Where important new policies are introduced, these are fully funded. These include: total funding for one-to-one tuition in key stage 2 and year 7 of £315 million in 2010 and 2011; funding available within the dedicated schools grant to support personalised learning, including personal tutors and special educational needs, of £912 million in 2010 and 2011; funding for extended services of £439 million in 2010 and 2011.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess training needs as well as financial requirements. There is already a system in place in the schools sector, led by the Training and Development Agency, for identifying training needs and equipping teachers for the classroom. None of the guarantees ask school staff to do things of a different character and nature from what they currently deliver to a high standard, and so we do not consider that such an audit would be cost-effective or appropriate.

Amendment 178 would require the Secretary of State to assess the per pupil cost implications of the guarantees, and set them out in the draft guarantee. This would be a bureaucratic process duplicating cost calculations which already exist elsewhere. We assess the cost implications of all our policies and we have completed an impact assessment for the guarantees, which is available publicly. We do not therefore intend to include cost estimates in the draft guarantee. We already calculate the funding provided per pupil in the school system, and that figure  has risen from an average of £3,030 in 1997 to £6,350 today. Our intention is for the delivery of the pupil and parent guarantee entitlements to be cost-neutral, as they bring together existing duties with fully funded initiatives. Amendment 178 also suggests that we should take account of the different learning and developmental needs of pupils. Schools should have the flexibility in the way they allocate their resources and organise themselves to provide for their pupils, and the pupil-parent guarantees are framed with that in mind.

Will the Minister do a U-turn and give way?

As long as I do not open the floodgates.

Has the Department made an assessment of whether the pupil guarantees will be harder to deliver in rural areas, and whether additional funding might therefore follow to such areas, where access to cultural activities might involve greater transport costs?

Let me digress for a moment. I met the hon. Member for Leominster yesterday to discuss rural areas. It was a useful meeting. I also met head teachers and members of school governing bodies. Aside from what we are discussing now, a review is going on of school funding and how the cake should be divided up between the different authorities. One debate within that is about sparsity and whether what rural areas receive is sufficient. Alternative points of view have been put forward in respect of other areas and such discussion is part of the ongoing debate about the change that we shall make to how the school grant is distributed from April 2011. However, what the hon. Member for Leominster said yesterday will be fed into the review and no doubt others will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness as they discuss the best way forward.

The guarantees can be different for pupils at different types of schools and for pupils of different descriptions. That means that the guarantees make appropriate provision for those of different ages. The provisions also allow the guarantees to cater specifically for children with particular needs, such as those with SEN statements, a measure that is fully factored into the consultation draft of the pupil and parent guarantees.

Amendment 179 would include in the guarantee provisions for schools to have sufficient staff to meet the requirements that are imposed. Governing bodies have a responsibility to ensure that they have enough appropriately trained and qualified staff for the needs of their school. That applies equally to teachers and support staff. I know that there is a difference of view on which Opposition Members no doubt will wish to test the Committee’s opinion. Our debate has been interesting and useful. It has dealt with some of the fundamental issues within the pupil and parent guarantees.

I will finish where I started. The document is exciting. For the first time, the state has laid out its offer to pupils and parents of what they can expect from their schools. We want to ensure that all schools offer the quality of education that we would all want for our own children, and the document sets out exactly that.

The debate has been interesting. It has been revealing. The Minister should be aware that the guarantees and their application to academies are  distressing the academies movement. It was summed up by Dr. Moynihan in our evidence session, who said that

“the overarching thrust of the Bill is that it reduces academy freedoms; it prescribes things that were not prescribed before and, in general for the schools system, we believe that the guarantees and the licence to teach are likely to be a bureaucratic nightmare.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 22, Q32.]

That is the view of the measures among head teachers in the real world, who are struggling to improve some of the most challenging schools in the country.

Amendment 42 would delete subsections (9) and (10). The Minister said that those secondary powers would be rarely used and that he needed them to change primary legislation to reflect structural changes in the education system. I would have thought that any such structural change would have to be made by primary legislation, and that at that point it would be possible to change section 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 to reflect those substantial changes. The fear is that he wants to add in new schools or new organisations without any structural changes to the education system having been made through primary legislation, so we remain unconvinced by his response to amendment 42.

My main concern relates to the debate that we have had about the general guarantees, particularly guarantee 2.2, which states:

“The curriculum is tailored to every child’s needs so that every pupil receives the support they need to secure good literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, learn another language and about the humanities, science, technology and the arts.”

The Minister is saying that that guarantee is about a tailored curriculum and not whether a child is capable of reading properly and receives the support that they need to have good literacy, good numeracy or ICT skills. It is not about learning another language, about the humanities, science, technology or the arts. It is not about learning any of those things. All the ombudsman will consider is whether the curriculum is tailored to every child’s needs. He will go to the school, or write to it, and say, “How are you tailoring the curriculum in these areas to every child’s needs.” That ties in with what Mr. Redmond said in his evidence to our Committee last Tuesday. He said that the local government ombudsman does not have the competence to look at the curriculum, pedagogy and educational issues. It all fits in together now. What he will do is conduct his inquiries in a tick-box approach, and say, “What are you doing, O school, to tailor the curriculum?” Back will come the response that they are doing this, this and this to tailor the curriculum to every child’s needs. The outcome of that tailoring and of how the teaching is conducted is irrelevant. The local government ombudsman can conduct his inquiry in the way in which he conducts other local government inquiries, which is by looking to see what is happening rather than looking at the outcome, and in that way he will fulfil his duty.

What we have learned from today’s debate is that there is no guarantee in these guarantees as to the substance or the quality of the education provided in our schools, which makes an absolute nonsense of all the guarantees in the document. It is, as the hon. Member for Yeovil suspected, just going to be one very large bureaucratic paper chase that employs lots of people who will sit at desks in offices and send missives  and e-mails, compile reports, publish recommendations, and send directives to schools to buck up their ideas. That will be it. This is a waste of time and a serious waste of money. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that this is not the time to engage in huge wastes of public money and increases in bureaucracy that will have no effect on the quality of the education that our children receive. That is the conclusion that I have drawn—and I am sure that other hon. Members will have drawn—from the quality of this debate. We will be pressing amendment 1 to a vote to test the views of the Committee.

Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more about this particular subject? It seems to me that there is already in place a professional inspection of schools, curriculum, pedagogy and so on and so forth. Surely the job of the ombudsman will be to ensure that the administration is being done competently and properly—as he does in every other complaint—and not impede the professional input of teachers?

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. If he is saying that the purpose of the guarantees is to ensure that other bureaucrats in the system are doing their job properly, then that is a different issue from what the rhetoric has led us to believe about these guarantees. He is just asking another guardian to guard the other guardians. If I had been educated well enough, I would have said that in Latin.

It is worth discussing that point: who inspects the inspectors? That is always the question; but in this instance we are talking about an already very sophisticated professional inspection system that exists to ensure that the pedagogy is correct and properly worked out. The layout in question—the ombudsman intervention—is very worthwhile. It has proved to be so in every other area of public life. I am probably one of the few here who were grown up when Harold Wilson introduced the ombudsman system, so I remember well what it was about. It would be an excellent supplementary provision, and superb for building parents’ confidence with respect to their children’s welfare and learning at school.

If all the guarantees are about giving parents and pupils the right to complain to the ombudsman about maladministration, I should have thought that that right already existed. It is quite difficult, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency work, for any ombudsman to take up issues, when it is necessary to prove maladministration. I thought that the guarantees would go one stage further; perhaps they would, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is arguing that.

However, from what he has said, all that they would do is check the quantum: all the ombudsman would consider would be the question: “Are you tailoring your curriculum?” The school would respond, “Yes; this is how we are doing it.” “Are you providing five hours of opportunity for cultural or sporting activity?” “Yes, we are; here is the timetable.” If it is just a matter of tick-boxes for the quantum of what is promised, that is a completely different guarantee from one about whether the substance and quality of what is promised is of high value.

In my experience, parents will complain not about the quantum but about the quality. What we have learned in the debate is that the ombudsman will investigate not the quality or substance but solely whether the timetable and the offer are available. Frankly, that is all the ombudsman is competent to do, as he admitted—unless educational experts are brought in.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Don Valley made an excellent speech, and I was interested to hear that she believed that parents should have the right to meet the head teacher. I agree. I hear too often about parents who have tried to meet the head and have been rebuffed. I cannot understand why that should be. When such parents in the end meet the right hon. Lady, who does not rebuff their request, she must write to the school to press the head teacher for a meeting.

To clarify, and to show that I do not see a Bill Committee as just a cosmetic exercise, I want to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that although that right is not in the consultation document, I think we should consider it, and I shall consider it further.

Super. That is a joint victory for the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is being sucked down the same bureaucratic hole that he has been trying to resist. If the cross-party consensus is delivered, will the Minister ensure that any such guarantee is implemented in a sensible way? Parents might want to raise the same issue 20 times with the head, and heads would not thank us if we got the balance wrong. The right hon. Lady raised a sensible point, but let us not implement it in a bizarre and crackpot way.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The guarantee in question is 8.3, which states that

“parents can contact and meet a member of staff who knows their child well—a named Personal Tutor in secondary schools or their child’s teacher in primary schools”.

Thus the wording is adequate at the moment, as “to meet” implies one meeting. My complaint was that that should surely include meeting the head teacher, as well as a named personal tutor.

The hon. Member for Yeovil has completely spoiled what I was going to do, but I shall do it anyway: I was going to say that I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is now engaging with the question of what guarantees parents should have. It is interesting that he is joining in with that and thinks that an opportunity to meet the head teacher would be worth while, which of course it would be.

I think that schools should provide it, and allow it, but I do not think that it should be part of a legislative and bureaucratic procedure. However, if the Government are going to get the provision on the statute book, we may as well improve it in any way possible.

I hope that I will be a harder catch for the Minister than the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has proved to be.

We have had an extensive debate on the matter. The debate is important because it relates to one of the central parts of the Bill, and anticipates some issues that we will not need to return to later. I would like to start by thanking the Minister for his generosity in responding to all the interventions. I believe strongly that such proceedings work best when Ministers are willing to take interventions rather than simply read speeches into the record.

I want to return briefly to a couple of issues. First, I cannot resist noting that the Minister rejected amendment 41, claiming that pupils in academies had the same entitlements as pupils in all maintained, state-funded schools. I gently point out that that is not the case at the moment—pupils in other maintained non-academy schools have some entitlements that those in academies do not. In case he thinks that I am arguing for more interventionism, I am not; I am arguing for maximum freedom.

I have three, more substantive, points to make. I agree with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. I cannot understand why he has not served on one of these Committees for 10 years, because he has proven to be a most loyal member of the Government. I would have thought that that would have been noted by the usual channels. Perhaps he will get additional opportunities in the future.

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he wants to have policies that will maximise freedom. However, when questioned earlier about his views on the national curriculum, having said that it was about giving freedom to the schools, he then said that he wanted a smaller and narrower national curriculum uniformly imposed. Will he support giving all schools an opt-out from the national curriculum—perhaps with a sufficient vote of parents or the governing body—to act as a safety valve when any Government, of whatever hue, impose too much on schools?

I am proposing a much smaller and more focused minimum curriculum entitlement, rather than the huge and extensive existing national curriculum. I am certainly not arguing—I do not believe that the Conservative party is arguing this either—that there should be no core curriculum at all. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, it is certainly not one that I hear from Tory Front Benchers.

Let me return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. He rightly said that it was important that we look, where we have monopoly public services, at whether we can give people, who are effectively the consumers of those services—or citizens, if the hon. Gentleman prefers that language—entitlements that are meaningful, sensible and enforceable. He also rightly points out that not everyone can afford to go to the private sector if they do not like what the state sector offers them, and that not everyone has a choice of other hospitals or schools. We are not arguing that there should not be core entitlements that are meaningful and sensible, but we are asking whether the ones that we have are.

Our concern with one-to-one tuition is how rigidly it will be implemented. We heard from the Minister earlier that it would be implemented in one way in key stage 1, another way in key stage 2 and yet another way in key stage 3. Why implement it so rigidly? Why not fund it properly, make the general entitlement clear and allow head teachers to deliver it in the most sensible way? Why insist on one-to-one tuition in one setting, and small group or one-to-one in another?

Obviously, the debate will continue. On the point of funding, as I pointed out in my remarks, next year we are giving funding to the tune of £315 million specifically to that area.

I understand that point. My issue is about the way in which the guarantees are framed. I will return to the fact that some of them are still so vague that they will be difficult to enforce, and will give the ombudsman an impossible job.

We have made our views on that clear, which is why I will certainly support amendment 1 if it is pressed to a Division. I also seek your permission, Mr. Amess, to press amendment 155 to a Division. I heard clearly what the Minister said about it, and it is clear that at the moment, the Government’s intention is to not extend the powers to private schools. However, if that is the Government’s view, I would rather have that guarantee in the Bill, as would the independent and private schools that have contacted us about the issue.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance warning that he wishes to press other amendments. They will be voted on later in our proceedings.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out first ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out second ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 33, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 3, line 7, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 3, line 18, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 24, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 3, line 43, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 45, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 4, line 3, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 4, line 16, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 19, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 21, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 24, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 26, in clause 3, page 4, line 30, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 27, in clause 3, page 4, line 37, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 28, in clause 3, page 4, line 40, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 4, line 42, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 30, in clause 3, page 4, line 45, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 31, in clause 3, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 32, in clause 3, page 5, line 11, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 33, in clause 3, page 5, line 14, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 35, in clause 3, page 5, line 19, leave out ‘guarantee’ and insert ‘entitlement’.

Amendment 74, in title, line 1, leave out ‘guarantees’ and insert ‘entitlements’.

These amendments go through clauses 1 to 3 replacing the word “guarantee” with “entitlement”. The purpose of this is to end the escalation of language, the degree of promise and the move into the world of the courts that is the hallmark of the policy behind the pupil and parent guarantees. It is as though the Government, having failed to deliver on the entitlements and promises in their manifesto, have decided simply to exaggerate the language, like a miscreant child who promises “I really, really will be good this time.” My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said on Second Reading that the guarantees

“are not just expectations that he is laying down as a political hope that he will fund; they are not even matters inspectable by Ofsted, which might lead a school into special measures if they are not provided. They are legal guarantees—far stronger than any of the other obligations placed on schools. If a school breaks this guarantee, it will presumably be breaking the law.”

He went on:

“I am all in favour of sharper challenge, greater transparency and better accountability, but I am not in favour of putting the fear of even more litigation into the hearts of our teachers.” —[Official Report, 11 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 450-51.]

In its brief, the Association of School and College Leaders states its belief that

“the creation of these guarantees will open the flood gates for increased litigation against schools.”

It goes on:

“The introduction of these guarantees has the potential to create a ‘whingers’ charter’ and bring a proliferation of frivolous complaints by a minority of litigious parents”.

We have heard a lot about the “whingers’ charter” and the likelihood of increased bureaucracy, complaints to the ombudsman and the rest, but is it not also possible that the guarantees could have an impact on the behaviour of schools, and not in a benign way? If the guarantees do have bite, as we have often seen, schools might react by trying to exclude certain pupils—they might be more likely to take such action if they believe that failing to do so may lead to problems. We know of cases from the home education element of the Bill whereby schools have actively encouraged parents to take their children out of school to reduce truancy statistics. Will my hon. Friend comment on the possible malign impact of the guarantees on the behaviour of schools? Could they result in the reverse of the Minister’s intentions by having a negative impact on the most vulnerable pupils in our schools?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the guarantees are interpreted in the way that we illuminated in the previous debate—as being simply a quantum—the ombudsman would look only at whether something is being offered. It could be the case that, to avoid the possibility of litigation, schools might decide to offer things by putting invitations on the notice board, having timetable provisions or providing the possibility of music lessons, but without actually delivering them, in order to fulfil the tick-box requirements that they might face from the local government ombudsman, which might result in a challenge in the courts. A lot of effort and time will be spent offering those choices and providing the paperwork that makes it appear that they are being offered, when the reality is something different. It is a retrograde step to force schools to take an almost Soviet  tractor-factory approach to our education system, whereby they tell the guardians that they are doing such things, but everyone knows that that is not actually happening on the ground.

In his evidence to the Committee, Mick Brooke of the National Association of Head Teachers said:

“I think some of the measures, if we are not careful, will give licence to vexatious parents or parents with frivolous complaints.”——[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 29, Q38.]

The real question is why the Government—and the Secretary of State, in particular—have decided at the eleventh hour in this Parliament to introduce the guarantees, and why they have chosen that particular language. The answer lies in the Secretary of State’s speech on Second Reading, when he said that

“we want these to be guarantees for all pupils and all parents, not just for some pupils in some schools. I can guarantee funding next year to pay for them, and the hon. Gentleman cannot.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 451.]

It is all about political positioning, and playing the game of creating dividing lines in politics. It is nothing to do with raising standards in our schools. Passing laws guaranteeing things cannot be a substitute for real policies. If we go through the so-called guarantees in the Bill, it is hard to disagree with them, but let us use measured and realistic language and not let legislation be used to promote soundbite politics.

What will worry parents and constituents the most is the discrepancy between the language that we hear in this place—it is all too present in the Bill—and the reality on the ground. I want to apologise for leaving the Committee a little earlier. I had a meeting with representatives of the Joint Epilepsy Council, which is a group of 20 charities. One of the ladies who works with epileptic children for one of the charities told me that she has two pupils who, because they were given only one option for education last year, which could not be delivered, have been at home without education since September. Two epileptic children have not been educated since September. Meanwhile, Ministers are talking ever more about the high standards and guarantees that they will bring to children. There is a yawning gap between the rhetoric we hear—I know the good intentions of Ministers—and the reality on the ground for vulnerable children who are often let down.

I appeal to the Minister, although perhaps it is too late. Thank God, it is the fag end of this particular Government. I say instead to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, whom I hope and assume will become the Minister, instead of the shadow Minister, for Schools in due course, that we will have a new Government who cease to use rhetoric and start to work on the detail to support schools and local authorities. Children need to know that they will have access in their schools to cultural activities. They need to know that they will be in a safe and disciplined environment. They need to know that they will have access to language tuition, as I think the paper outlined.

I want to pick up on languages, in which I am interested. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was Education Secretary, I remember asking him to review his decision  in 2004 to stop languages being mandatory. The truth is that, here we are six years on, and there has been a collapse of one third in the number of children taking GCSE language examinations. The figure is now less than half. While nine out of 10 private schools ensure that their pupils take a language GCSE, we are now down to two out of 10 state schools.

Schools in the poorest areas, which struggle most to meet the results demanded of them, have been particularly prone to reducing language teaching. That is at a time when employers are particularly keen on languages, and in many cases insist that people have language skills before employing them. We have a discrepancy between guarantees promising access to languages and the reality, particularly for the most vulnerable children, that language courses are simply not being taught. Children are being pushed into easy subjects so that the schools look good, while pupils’ entitlement has actually disappeared.

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that languages should once again be compulsory to the end of key stage 4?

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that—that is exactly what I am suggesting. It is not the position of my Front Benchers, but that can change. I welcome the Government’s move to make languages mandatory in primary schools. We have had a load of measures to encourage language skills, but not the follow-through to GCSE. I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter. Members from all parties can, in the same independent spirit that I am exercising, join me in calling on the Government, of whatever hue, to reverse the 2004 decision to revoke the mandatory nature of languages at GCSE, and ensure that we are not in a position whereby the most privileged children in our society almost always do languages at GCSE while the poorest children increasingly fail to be given that education at precisely the time when, in pursuit of employment, they need that skill.

Selective memory is wonderful. I will say two words: league tables. The hon. Gentleman’s Government, under Mrs. Thatcher and others, introduced league tables, poisoning the atmosphere in schools through what they had to do to show that they were better and different from the school next door. My party, unfortunately, has continued with that poisoned chalice, but we are at least, and have been for some time, trying to back away and make matters more rational by recognising that schools will do almost anything to move up the league table. That has meant sacrificing certain subjects in which it is more difficult to achieve good results.

Order. We have been making splendid progress this morning, but we are drifting away from the precise entitlement of the amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I will try to come to a close. What we always have in this House is an entitlement to hear dinosaurs on the other Benches. If, in the 1980s, people had continually referred back to the 1950s, they would rightly have been laughed out of this place. We have people now, going on 13 years into a Labour Government, blaming Mrs. Thatcher, who has not been in power for nearly 20 years, for the fact that this Government keep that policy. However, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East makes a good point. We need a framework for the system. If you  accept that there must be transparency and we must allow parents to see the performance of schools, we must ensure that the potentially malign impact of the pressures created by league tables does not lead to undesirable outcomes. That is exactly what happens now. The policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government has been to stop mandatory languages at GCSE at the same time as maintaining league tables, and therefore the schools under the greatest pressure, threatened with national challenge, have driven the children who most need a rigorous education and access to languages away from that on to courses that flatter the school but undermine the potential and chances of the children. That has been the result of his Government, and that is why I hope we can close the gap between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground, which all too often is gaping.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has made an interesting contribution to an interesting debate. He wants students to be excited and inspired by languages and to enjoy language learning. Far be it from me to defend his Front Benchers, but it may be that they consider—as I do—that one can achieve that objective in a different way. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that to guarantee languages, as we are—and this should not be an entitlement, which is why I oppose the amendments—is one of the ways forward. Associated with that is the change to the primary curriculum, which will ensure that languages are taught in primary schools. If it comes to a choice about how one gets more people to do more languages to a higher level, my view is that it should be done through inspiring young children and changing their attitude and the culture around language learning in primary school.

There will be a difference of view in and between parties because everybody has the same objective of more people doing foreign languages. We have a cultural issue with that in this country which we need to address. Personally, I do not think that making it a compulsory GCSE overcomes the problem. The guarantee and the national curriculum changes that the Bill proposes in order to ensure that primary school children learn a language may well be a better way of achieving our mutual objective.

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. However, is it not the sad truth—and this is why literacy is so important—that if you are not confident with the language of the country you live in, in this case English, then the leap to learn another language is even more difficult? Some of these things are about getting the basics right, and the enthusiasm and confidence to take on another language or challenge is part of what comes along the way. Let us be honest: where there are children who do not feel confident with their English skills, either verbal or written, it is a big ask for them to take on another language. That was one of the problems with the way in which modern languages teaching was structured. There is nothing to be gained by forcing children into doing a subject in which they are not interested, and from which they come out with a qualification that is not worth the paper it is written on.

I agree. At the end of the day, the guarantees and the changes in the national curriculum are about trying to change attitudes. It is through  this that we will address, to a significant degree, some of the difficulty we have with learning languages in our country.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley, who always makes thoughtful contributions is, in this case, entirely wrong. What has been shown is that learning a foreign language can often increase language skills and confidence in one’s own language. The idea that languages are alien to such children is wrong.

I would like to put it to the Minister that, when looking back at the history of this Government, we have had a collapse of a third in children doing GCSE. It is particularly pronounced among children from vulnerable backgrounds, who most need it. If the Minister cannot come forward with a credible plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton doubtless will. I am sure that my hon. Friend will convince me, when there is a Conservative Government, how an alternative approach can lead to the language  flowering that we all desire. However, right now, I would like the Minister at least to acknowledge that what we warned against in 2004 is precisely what has happened. There has been a collapse in language learning across the state sector, particularly in the poorest neighbourhoods. It is a disaster.

Actually, if we look at the figures, from memory, there may have been a decline in GCSE up to the age of 16, but there has been an increase in the post-16 take-up of languages. [Interruption.] At least it is an increase. The bigger issue is the one about primary schools.

Just to show that I listen to my hon. Friends as well as others, I got the Oxford English Dictionary out to look at the—[Interruption.] Get the dust off it? I had to borrow one.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.