(1) On the application of one or more qualifying bodies (“the applicant”), the Secretary of State may by order make provision—

(a) conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation;

(b) relaxing any such requirement in its application to the applicant;

(c) enabling the applicant to exercise any function conferred by education legislation on any other qualifying body (either concurrently with or in place of that other body); or

(d) making such modifications of any provision of education legislation, in its application to the applicant or any other qualifying body, as are in the opinion of the Secretary of State consequential on any provision made by virtue of any of paragraphs (a) to (c),

for the purposes of facilitating the implementation of innovative projects that may, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to the raising of educational standards in England.

(2) In forming an opinion as to whether a project may contribute to the raising of educational standards in England, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) have regard to the need for the curriculum for any school in England affected by the project to be a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children,

(b) consider the likely effect of the project on all the pupils who may be affected by it.

(3) The Secretary of State shall refuse an application for an order under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed order would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs.

(4) An order under this section shall have effect during a period specified in the order which must not exceed three years.

(5) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall, if they consider it appropriate to do so, consult the Chief Inspector.

(6) Where the applicant is or includes a qualifying foundation, references in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) to the applicant (so far as they would otherwise be read as references to the qualifying foundation) are to be read as references to the governing bodies of all or any of the foundation or foundation special schools in respect of which the applicant is the foundation.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

“the Chief Inspector” means His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills;

“children” means persons under the age of nineteen;

“education legislation” means—

(a) the Education Acts (as defined by section 578 of the Education Act 1996),

(b) the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and

(c) any subordinate legislation made under any of those Acts;

“maintained school” means—

(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school,

(b) a community or foundation special school, or

(c) a maintained nursery school;

“qualifying body” means—

(a) a local authority,

(b) an Education Action Forum,

(c) a qualifying foundation,

(d) the governing body of a maintained school,

(e) the head teacher of a maintained school,

(f) the proprietor of an Academy, a city technology college or a city college for the technology of the arts,

(g) the proprietor of any special school that is not maintained by a local authority but is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 of the Education Act 1996, or

(h) the governing body of an institution within the further education sector;

“qualifying foundation” means the foundation, as defined by subsection (3)(a) of section 21 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, of any foundation or foundation special school that for the purposes of that section has a foundation established otherwise than under that Act;

“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.—

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to exempt certain bodies from certain requirements of existing education legislation for the purpose of implementing projects which may raise educational standards in England

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to.

In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve.

Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.

Things really can only get better—[Laughter.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited.

The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things.

The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and approaches are most effective in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and to provide guidance and support to schools on that. As part of that, it carries out trials of new approaches that look to have a high potential to improve outcomes. Where a new and innovative practice works, we want schools to be able to implement it. For example, based on robust EEF evidence of impact, programmes such as embedding formative assessments and mathematics mastery are being provided to the sector at greater scale, supported by Department for Education funding that subsidises the cost of participation.

The Bill guarantees a core provision for all children. Through it, we are providing a floor, not a ceiling, and the measures do not prevent schools and trusts from innovating and adapting above that framework. Our vision for driving high and rising standards centres on expert teaching and leadership in a system with wide freedoms, high support and high challenge, backed up by the removal of barriers, so that every child can achieve and thrive. We believe that more of the flexibility currently offered to academies should be offered to all schools, and we are working with teachers, leaders and the sector to design our wider reforms. If attempts to innovate are prevented by legislation, we want to hear about it, because we want all children to benefit from the best the system has to offer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his new clause.

It is nice to hear the Minister praising the resources that are there for school-led improvement, so we hope that Ministers will look again at the recent decision to cut or curtail things such as mathematics, physics, Latin, computing and the like. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.