Education and Skills Bill

I will not give way again; the right hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to speak when he concludes the debate. Anyone going through the Hansard record of any Bill passing through this House would see it littered with Liberal Democrat amendments, prescribing their particular hobby horses and policy imperatives. They are in favour of local decision making, provided the decision is in line with Liberal Democrat policy and ideology. The Minister, Lady Morgan, clarified on Third Reading what amendments she was supporting. She said:"““As a minimum, schools should seek and take account of pupils' views on policies on the delivery of the curriculum, behaviour, the uniform, school food, health and safety, equalities and sustainability, not simply on what colour to paint the walls.””" She continued:"““We are not minded to require governing bodies to take account of pupils' views on matters such as staff appointments or the school budget.””" She then went on to say a most extraordinary thing, which I can only assume was not said with a straight face, namely that"““we are also keen to ensure that a duty on schools does not end up with centralised prescription… The regulations will simply set out the issues on which they must invite views. If they want to go further, they can.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 573.]" That is an extraordinary statement. If the words ““regulation”” and ““must”” do not amount to centralised prescription, I do not know what does. It is not surprising that these amendments have received such a hostile reception from teachers and the teacher unions. As Chris Keates of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers said to The Times Educational Supplement:"““This is completely unnecessary and will be open to abuse. It is a distortion of the important concept of pupil voice that will lead to headteachers and teachers becoming very disillusioned.””" John Dunford of the Association of School and College Leaders said:"““This is crazy. I am a strong supporter of pupil voice, but schools are increasingly consulting pupils because they think it is the right thing, not because Government tells them to.””" He went on to say:"““I am annoyed and furious that yet another in this continual stream of legal and educational duties is being placed on schools. They all bring unintended consequences.””" Our concern about the amendment is not based on the objective of encouraging schools to consult pupils on important matters affecting the school; rather, it is the fact that it is a statutory requirement. This is yet another statutory burden imposed on schools that are already creaking under the weight of fortnightly initiatives emanating from this Government. For that reason, I hope that all hon. Members will join us in the No Lobby to vote against Lords amendment No. 171.